New York 23 is a fascinating interplay in terms of political science. Following the Obama election and the takeover of Congress, the bean counters at Republican headquarters developed a Progressive strategy of demographic chess instead of actual use of political persuasion. This tried and true liberal philosophy is based on the coalition principle inherent in collectivist theory. It relies on tendencies and labels to win political contests instead of making the political argument.
The Obama election and subsequent socialistic Congress that was seated unnerved the Republican political scientists. For the past four years, their strategy of political coalitions, political patronage, and measuring the odds fell flat. Rather than examine the message and readjust the arguments, they convinced themselves it was the metrics at fault. As their Marxist professors had taught them, it wasn't individuals who voted but blocs of identifible groups who behaved in certain, predictable ways.
Michael Gerson and David Brooks were not arguing a moderate or conservative political philosophy when they attacked the right, they were following the metric measures argument of the political scientists. The country is getting more 'diverse' ethnically and culturally. The conservative message does not 'fit' those groups' thinking. We must, as Republicans, mediate our message in order to have political heft.
The problem is, those metrics are not stagnant measures of political opinion but fluid ones that change with the different sides making the arguments to the voters. 'Blacks don't vote for Republicans,' is a time-honored premise and so instead of trying to persuade blacks that the Democratic Party has done them no favors, they believed the right must cater to their proclivities. But, this does nothing for political discourse nor does it do the country any service. It makes the Republican brand a kind of milk-toast version of Democratic principles.
Political fights are won most fully by persuasion and not metrics. We cannot win a political fight by betting on the most demographically favorable horse. We must win through changing hearts and minds. This must be done regardless of sex, skin color, national origin, or religion, not because of such things. Catholics were always consistant, reliable Democratic voters until recent years. They were persuaded the left was not in tune with their belief system and so they turned.
Hispanics will be the same. Hispanics are conservative socially and fiscally careful. They also start many small businesses and hire workers, pay business taxes, and abhor government meddling. We need to make the case to them on 'best interest' principles and not skin color/national origin issues. The left uses these groups as grist in their political machine. We need to show them how their interests and our interests intersect.
But, until the Republican Party is dissuaded from its metrics/labeling practices of horse betting, there will be little left to fight for. We want what is best for the country and not a political party. The new movement on the right is for the best interests of its citizens, as people, and not for amorphous social groups.
David Brooks and Michael Gerson are wrong about diversity because they inherently accept the left's disingenuous notion of voting blocs. Diversity, if it means anything, is diversity of opinion and not melatonin. By fighting Hoffman and propping up Scozzafava, they betting such a tenuous and inherently destructive political strategy will win. It will not. Not in the end.