Liberals and progressives have very strong faith in their assimilative powers. Elites share the same transnational culture, they are a class unto themselves. There is a parallel between Baathist curation of a diverse elite and the current diversity-represented liberal elite. Immigrants tend to be more socially conservative and religious (examples: Caribbean, South Asia).
Immigrants can also be very patriotic (anecdote of a call centre co-worker who would hum the national anthem to himself every day). In general, immigrants reject “avant-garde” progressivism. Immigrant conservatism makes the democratic coalition untenable. Immigrants show up to the USA and are excepted from black/white racial politics.
The party saying “law and order” sounds good as many immigrants live in poorer and high crime neighbourhoods. Eric Adams, the former cop and mayor of New York, was voted in by black and ethnic votes in Brooklyn. The things that progressives see and assert as obvious are not apparent from a minority/immigrant perspective.
Trump got one third of Muslim votes in 2020. Muslims were triggered by social issues as they have conservative views on sex and family. Trump is a macho guy and some immigrants like a macho leader and want a tough seeming president, the Democrats are “a little limp”. Some successful immigrants have a business-libertarian view and this can also play into machismo.
With American seculars, a huge amount of weight is put into politics. It’s actually good that there isn’t a pure racial divide in politics. Avant-garde liberalism is patronizing, unstructured, diffuse and suffers from purity spirals. Local Republican representatives and officials say “we like you” and apologize for and contextualize Trump.
It isn’t good to teach kids into racial polarization (as avant-garde liberalism does) and imply a racial/moral hierarchy. Avant-garde liberalism is like a religion and its adherents are extremely pious. Which current left-wing figure is funny? The left-wingers used to be the funny ones, Trump filled the vacuum and the left has become even more righteous in response.
Quoted from Tragedy in the Commons pg. 87-88.
Many of the MPs we interviewed described their roles in ways that corresponded to two classic but competing definitions of a political representative’s role: “trustees” and “delegates.” According to political theory, trustees are representatives who follow their own sense of the best action to pursue. A trustee believes she was elected by the public to use her own judgement to make a decision. Meanwhile, delegates are understood to be representatives who follow the expressed preferences of their constituents, regardless of their own personal opinion. On occasions when an MP’s judgement on a legislative matter differs from voter preference, assuming they can appropriately identify their constituents’ view, the trustee will vote according to her own judgment, while the delegate will allow voter preference to have the ultimate say.
Among parliamentarians from the Liberals, New Democrats or the Bloc Quebecois, no clear preference for the role of trustee or delegate emerged. Each of those parties had MPs in both groups, and in fact, many MPs straddled the categories.
Describing a classic trustee’s conception of the job, NDP Bill Blaikie said: “My job as an MP was to do the thinking and the listening at the committee hearings and the meetings-albeit out of certain perspective that I was up front about when I ran-and then to make judgments,” Blaikie said. “The people who voted for me don’t have the time to do all that. That is what I am paid to do. . . . [My constituents] will hold me accountable at elections and in between with their input with letters of criticism or support.” And Paddy Torsney, a former Liberal MP for Burlington, said, “I think my job was to provide leadership. Not just reflect the discussion, but also to lead the discussion. And I think that is where people get caught up in ‘No, my job is to do exactly what those people say.’ . . . No, you’re actually sending me there to think and bring more information back, too.”
The majority of Conservative MPs, in contrast, approached their roles as delegates. Loyola Hearn describes the job in terms very similar to the word’s definition. “[Voters] select you to be their representative in Ottawa, to speak for them, to vote on legislation and, in some cases, to develop legislation that they feel is wanted. Basically, to work [for their interests] and to deliver for them whatever benefits might flow,” Hearn said. “All of [the constituents] can’t be up there, so you’re the messenger. That’s the job you have. . . . You are the representative for the people in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s representative to the people.”