Read on Twitter
The so-called "Sailer Strategy" (named by Brimelow, not Sailer) derives from Sam Francis's short book *Ethno-Politics*. It posits that Republican "outreach" to Blacks and Hispanics is fruitless. Instead, the GOP should "in-reach" to Whites, particularly on the immigration issue.
This "strategy" is largely a description of the emerging composition of the Republican Party since realignment, particularly since the '94 Midterms. Calling it a "strategy" is mostly self-serving, offering people on the margins the fantasy that they're pragmatic winners.
That said, the "Sailer Description" has been largely accurate up until 2016. Two-thirds of working-class White once voted for Bill Clinton. By the mid-2000s, this group was solidly Republican. The Party itself has become 90 percent White—remarkable in a multiracial environment.
In 2016, Trump both activated the "Sailer Strategy" in the most obvious manner—and disproved it in one fatal swoop. A remarkable achievement!
Trump's presidential run was forever defined by his initial speech in 2015: "They're not sending their best." He was *the* immigration candidate and, in the eyes of the mainstream media, a force of White nationalism, which they had always saw brewing in the GOP.
What were the results of Trump's Sailer-esque campaign?
He won a slightly smaller percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney did in 2012. He also slightly increased the GOP's share of minority votes, for what it's worth.
He won a slightly smaller percentage of the White vote than Mitt Romney did in 2012. He also slightly increased the GOP's share of minority votes, for what it's worth.
Trump succeeded in 2016 by winning *different* Whites—many of whom previously voted for Obama—and establishing an Electoral College path that the modern GOP hadn't quite imagined, as they had been relying on the old Dixiecrat bastion for decades.
The problem is, Trump's coalition launched or exacerbated a dominant trend—suburban White professional's abandonment of the GOP. "In-reach" to Whites was simply not achieved; Trump, in fact, drove Whites out of the party. 2016 can thus only be understood as a deceptive victory.
In the 2010 "Tea Party" election, the GOP won 65% of the White vote. By the 2018 Midterm, it won 55%. We'll get a fuller picture of the trend after 2020, but it doesn't look good for the "Sailer Strategy," to put it mildly.
I understand Trump hasn't disproven the "Sailer Strategy" in a scientific-laboratory-type way. But I would ask, what exactly can one hope to see in real-world politics?
Yes, Trump made plenty of mistakes. But here we had a wildly popular, 100% name-recognition candidate defining himself and the GOP on the immigration issue?
This is about as close to scientifically disproving a strategy as we can reasonably get.
This is about as close to scientifically disproving a strategy as we can reasonably get.
As I've been saying for a decade, "immigration reform" as a central focus of the broader movement is fatally flawed.
First, since around 2011, the majority of births have been to non-White mothers. Ergo, demographic change is baked into the cake—even if immigration were halted tomorrow morning.
Secondly, I think that immigration restriction actually is on its way. The problem is, it will be geared towards high-skilled (high IQ) immigrants from Asia, India, and Africa. These new immigrants will ruthlessly displace the White middle-class. Not good.
Thirdly, and most importantly, focusing on immigration seems to give White Nationalists this false sense of achievement. As if, in an imaginary world, if the Hispanic issue can be solved, the Black, Jewish—and, most importantly, White—issues will vanish into thin air. They won't.
As Unz points out, one of the most remarkable aspects of the dramatic social change we've seen over the past three months is that it hasn't involved the immigration question in the slightest. It's all about "Whites and their sado-masochocistic relationship with Blacks," as usual.
People who keep promoting this "populist GOP" (crypto-white nationalist) strategy need, at the very least, to address the fact that "Trumpism" stands on very shaky empirical grounds.
And you have to understand the world, if you want to change it.
And you have to understand the world, if you want to change it.
