Will increasing amounts of diversity really favor Progressive's goals in the long term?

The Left seems to be in favor of large amounts of immigration from other parts of the world because they know these people coming from Third World countries will set up a permanent base who will be more likely to vote for them. The idea is victory through long term demographic change.

But we can ask a question: Is this long term demographic change really in the best interests of Progressive goals, in the long term?

Yes, in the shorter term this is certainly going to give the party on the Left votes and make them more likely to win victories, but what type of society is this going to create?


Let's be honest. If America were all white, there would be universal healthcare and free college like in the other Euro & Scandinavian countries. The only reason we don't have it here is because white people don't want brown and black people getting "free stuff".
--Claire McCaskill

eVille Times: July 2019

I sort of agree with her. But not for the reasons she thinks.

Are there any other countries that exist in the world with lots of diversity that have all these great socialist programs progressives salivate about?

Mexico has tons of diversity. They even have a socialist president now. Why don't they have all these wonderful free things?

This is something certainly Progressives should have to think about.
What is their strategy going to do in the long-term? Will it actually be conducive and constructive to their goals, 100 years from now?


related threads:
history of race in Brazil
diversity and changing attitudes towards helping others


I oftentimes get the feeling that progressives want to just grab any money they see and spend it, without really any thought into the future or whether that will continue to be sustainable. Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." There's probably some truth to this cliche.
Although this theoretically doesn't have to be an inherent to socialism, there certainly seems to be a tendency there.

So they think, "Well, we're a wealthy society, we're not like all these other Third World countries, so we can afford this." Yeah, until you turn that country into yet another Third World country.

I actually think the US might be inherently poorer than other First World countries, and let me explain what I mean. Socialism carries an inherent cost. We all know that high tax rates tend to discourage productivity. I would put forward to you that the US might actually have lower economic output than it does if it had tax rates like Europe; and that Europe might even have higher overall economic output than it currently does if it had lower tax rates and less socialism like the US.
Socialism may not be the explanation for Europe's economic prosperity, but rather due to Europe's economic prosperity they can afford socialism. Do you imagine Third World countries could afford Socialism?
(Well, there are a few isolated examples but they really do not look so well and it is all but obvious socialism has been a failure there; it's obviously nothing like European-style socialism in what it can provide)

 

Believe it or not, that is the ONE thing that I would actually support illegal immigration for. Causing the US to go from a majority white to a vast majority POC. Why? Because then they will no longer be able to play the race card.

Of course that won't stop the Identity game that they play. After all, they have learned that they can also use groups like Transgenders to rally around and holler about how evil the conservatives are. (sorry progressives, like it or not conservatives will always exist. In fact one day YOU will be considered "conservative" )

 

This may be difficult for you to understand, but have you considered the possibility that the motive isn't about perceived partisan political advantage but more about human rights, freedoms and humanity (however impractical the consequences of that might be)?

 

I have. And rejected it. Politicians are only about what gets them voted into office next election year. The only ones that would be as you describe are the "freshmen". After a few years in Congress they too become just like their predecessors. Get re-elected at all costs.

 

But that assumes that all of the people we're talking about are some kind of elected official or their most committed supporters. There is much, much wider support for at least some non-negligible level of immigration (for all sorts of different reasons, good, bad and indifferent). Most people aren't as obsessed with partisan politics are you or as you therefore imagine everyone else must be. If all you have is a hammer, you'll treat every problem like a nail.

 

Will increasing amounts of diversity really favor Progressive's goals in the long term ?​

~ Like the Communist Chinese government and the EU policy the progressive Democrat agenda wiĺl backfire and fail with greatness. Let us hope that it does not take as long ...

 

And that is all that I am talking about. No way in hell am I going to try and decipher what millions of other people think. Besides, its the politicians that get things enacted or thrown out. Joe Blow down the street and stand on a corner and yell to their hearts content. No one is going to pay attention to him. They're going to pay attention to the politicians.

 

But a lot of that is just artificially created support. Getting the public to believe whatever things are optimal for ultimately advancing the core ideology in the current situation.
We can see, for example, a huge number of flip-flops in the positions ostensibly held by the Left, over a time scale of decades.

Just one example of this is the double standards between how Christianity was treated, and then how Islam was treated only 20 or 30 years later.

They only want the public to believe that whatever they currently want to do is the right thing to do.
The public consciousness, in any case, has a very short memory.

 

Very interesting topic! It has a lot of differing nuances associated with it.

First, I do think the left thinks that large amounts of immigration, particularly from the Third World, helps them politically. Of course, the reason why is that historically, it has. Urban machine politics was made to take new off-the-boat immigrants and turn them to loyal supporters of the Democratic Party, and it's worked for over 150 years. The gold standard of this policy is California. Formerly a Republican State, it's now so Democratic that it's hard to imagine any circumstance that would give it's flailing GOP a shot at power again. All this is due to demographic change. California has achieved the utopia of leftist politics; a majority non white state with an income inequality rivaling Latin America and extremely unfriendly policies to the middle class, all financed by legacy industries that would have have never started or moved to California under current conditions: Hollywood and Big Tech.

But California, leftist as it is, still it doesn't have a state universal healthcare. It's like they can't understand why copying the demographics of Brazil doesn't give you the political economy of Denmark? (This is a typical confusion on the left, ask Bernie Sanders).

The answer, you alluded to is in McCaskill's statement. I think she is right, in a way. If America was all white like Sweden or Denmark, it would probably have had a social system similar. All white states, even rural ones, seem to lean more left...or they did. There aren't any all white states anymore. Minnesota was practically Scandinavia until about 30 years ago. And when it was Scandinavia being a leftist (by the old definitions) was the path to political power.

For McCaskill, the answer is simply white racism. But social science has covered this issue fairly well, from Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" to studies on the effect on group cohesion by diversity. More diverse areas produce a "hunkering down" effect and people are less willing to invest in the type of group projects that a liberal social safety net requires.

 

Well you don't have to depend on illegal immigration. Even if the US cut off all immigration now, the demographic shift is baked into the cake, so America will be a majority non white country (of course the date of that depends on how you define white so it's not so cut and dry). But I think we are going to get the opposite of what you think. The race card will be more important, not less. All the groups will be competing with each other, not setting aside differences to sing in a Coca Cola commercial.

 

LOL

 

My own small range of experiences tells me that the majority of those most vocal about 'diversity', are the least able to tolerate it in reality.

And it's not minor discomfort with the cultural differences either - it's a total and utter inflexibility. Full shutdown.

 

Race tensions are still a big issue in Latin American countries, despite white people being a minority there, and tons and tons of intermixing such that even most of the "white" population have some mestizo ancestry.

Maybe you should have read that link "history of race in Brazil".

 

What makes you think a socialist nation has nothing but free stuff?

 

This nation was built on the backs of immigrants from all over the world...

 

So was Mexico.

 

Then we have something in common.

 

Yes we do. Especially if we jump forward in time 100 years.

 

Most people aren't completely controlled by partisan politics so their underlying opinion is based on a more general humanity. There is certainly specific political biases as well, pushing different people in all sorts of directions for all sorts of reasons.

No political wing is better or worse for this kind of thing, just as no political wing is better or worse for accusing the opposite wing of being worse. The problems aren't caused by "left" or "right" specifically, they are caused by politics.

That is a whole topic of it's own but in simple terms, nobody treats them the same way and in many aspects they shouldn't as they're not the same. Again, it's not a specifically "left" or "right" issue.

 

But see, maybe you feel the same way.
The point is do you side with the OP and vote against your interests because you believe the lie someone told him?
If someone was running for office and checked all your boxes, except one on super tough and expensive immigration reform that would not work like a massive wall. Would you vote against him?

 

you are incorrect. american job creators, concentrated in red counties and supporting the repub chamber of commerce demand cheap labor that can circumvent fair labor standards and occupational safety and health provided to citizens this is not about "left and right" or votes at all. it is about money.

 

Ain't life a bitch when you have to share?

 

i don't want illegal immigration, nor do i care who they vote for (since they can not vote anyway). i do insist that all humans, legal or not, be treated humanely.

 

Since diversity flies in the face of human nature we should have as little of it as we can. It is too late to have minimal diversity so the answer for the OP is that yes diversity will hurt the progressives in the long run.

 

And the race baiting continues.