Reshaping The American Electorate

The Immigration Plot: How left-wingers plan to transform America's electorate to achieve political power

Middle American News   By Jerry Woodruff  (Part I of IV)

Democrat Party strategists, politicians, labor leaders, and a host of left-wing “social justice” organizations all across the country are engaged in a strategy to drastically transform America’s population through mass immigration in order to guarantee their own and their allies’ dominance in U.S. government, society, and culture.  The plot itself is simple: reshape the American electorate through mass immigration to reduce the political clout of the native white middle class.

If it succeeds, America’s racial composition and cultural and political character will be changed forever.

The Curley Effect

Altering a population’s make-up in order to suit a ruling elite is nothing new in history.  Harvard researchers Edward L. Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer have recounted how demographic manipulation has been a tool of ruling groups in the U.S. and elsewhere throughout the 20th century.  In their paper, “The Curley Effect,” published by the Harvard Institute of Economic Research, they show how the Irish-American Mayor James Michael Curley of Boston in four terms between 1913 and 1950 used “a combination of aggressive [economic] redistribution and incendiary rhetoric ... to transform Boston” from an integrated city of poor Catholic Irish-Americans and relatively wealthier Protestants of English descent into a virtually all-Irish city.  Curley’s goal, they wrote, was “to turn Boston into a city that would elect him.”  He did that by fiery rhetoric and official government policies aimed at reducing the wealth of his English-descended opponents and favoring his poorer Irish constituents.  The effect was to drive away his ethnic opponents and thereby increase the relative size of his political base.

The Curley Effect is what Glaeser and Shleifer call the deliberate shaping of the demographics of an office-holder’s electorate through destructive policies aimed at opposition voters, even if the long-term effect has economically negative consequences for the entire political jurisdiction.  The Curley Effect occurs when the incumbent “wants to maximize the probability of his re-election,” but doesn’t regard “the overall economic performance of the city or nation as the crucial determinant of that probability.” 

That’s what Glaeser and Shleifer say happened in Detroit under Mayor Coleman Young and in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. “In his 24 years as mayor, Detroit’s Coleman Young drove white residents and businesses out of the city,” they noted.  Young remained popular with black voters who consistently reelected him, even at the cost of ruining the city’s mainly white economic base.  And it happened in Zimbabwe where “President Robert Mugabe abused the white farmers after his country’s independence, openly encouraging their emigration even at a huge cost to the economy.” Those policies, they say, “are motivated by a desire to alter the political landscape, including by shaping the electorate.  Socially costly policies are attractive to the political leaders because they eliminate or weaken the political opposition.”

Plot Exposed in Britain

In Britain, mass immigration has already been exposed by a former Labor Party insider as a political strategy used against conservative opponents. Andrew Neather, a former senior aide to Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary Jack Straw, admitted in an October 2009 article in the London Evening Standard that mass immigration “didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000 ... was to open up the UK to mass immigration.” Neather, who still supports mass immigration from the Third World, said that in meetings with government officials, the plan had what he called “a driving political purpose” which was to defeat the conservative Tory opposition.  He wrote, “mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.  I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments [against multiculturalism] out of date.” He said the government intended to keep the plan secret, for fear of alienating the public. He wrote, “ministers wouldn’t talk about it. ... [W]hile ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs...”  Since poorer non-white immigrants tend to vote liberal-left when they become citizens while older, mostly white voters tend to support the conservatives, Labor Party leaders knew immigration would give them electoral advantages.

Here in the U.S., the plan to transform America by granting citizenship to increasing numbers of poor, low-skilled, non-white illegal immigrants for precisely the same reasons is quietly recommended by Democrat Party strategists and left-wing leaders.  But publicly they claim to support mass immigration of poor Third World populations for purely “humanitarian” or “moral” reasons.