Clinton's success with European-American Catholic voters

Ever since the days of the "Reagan Democrats", European-American Catholics increasingly vote Republican. However the Clinton campaign sees an opening, and polls show she's winning this important demographic. The shift towards Clinton owes partly to the recent sexual harassment scandals involving Trump that offend many of the devout. At the same time Pope Francis' has moved the church to emphasize service to the poor versus issues of morality like abortion and gay rights.

A nation of mutts

Make no mistake: America is headed towards a multicultural future.

Ivory tower academics and and liberal media columnists like to paint it in terms of white people versus people of color. Other times, the scenario is dumber down to white folks pitted against immigrants, holding the erroneous notion that all current immigrants are somehow limited to non-whites. Such notions are short- sighted. They fail to take an honest look at the dynamics and history of the immigrant experience, in favor of politicizing race for political advantage.

New York Times columnist David Brooks takes a different approach. Instead everyone divided into categories based on color, he suggests we will become "A Nation of Mutts", and challenges the notions of alliances. Future immigrants who lift themselves by their bootstraps will find more in common with past generations of European-American immigrants than the African-American underclass stuck in the cycle of government assistance. Instead of racial alliances, our future generations of American born kids will mixed to the point where they can't pinpoint one color or ethnicity on Census forms.

Our multicultural future is a good thing. It places the US in a favorable position in the modern world. But it's not about furthering political pet projects. Rather it's about creating a country with a uniquely American sensibility that is attuned to its global roots.

Don't call me Caucasian

New York times contributor Shaila Dewan states her case that the term Caucasian is obsolete and has no place in American racial discussion.

Whatever the merits or flows of the term "Caucasian", Dewan offers no alternative term. In the age of diversity and sensitivity in reporting, "white" seems out of step. Reporters increasingly substitute African-American for Black, regardless of the actual preference of the person being interviewed. And it would be suicidal for any reporter to label Asian-Americans as "yellow" or Native Americans as "red". Why has "white" survived?

European-American is a consistent term with African-American and Asian-American, as it speaks to geographical origin versus color. However white Americans identify strongest with the country of their descent, (i.e. Italy, Ireland) versus the entire continent. That is why we have Italian-American social clubs, and why Irish-Americans come out to celebrate Saint Patrick's day. But you won't see any European-American parades. 

While Dewan actually articulates that relationship in her piece, the ties to nationality are clearly lost on her. In describing her mixed race heritage to neighbors, for blacks it was enough to simply describe the skin color of her white ancestors. Meanwhile whites actually press her for more information. Where are they from originally? The white neighbors weren't satisfied until they actually heard the name of a country.

It's important to point out this is how the United States Census Bureau regards "whiteness". The decennial survey asks detailed information from it's Hispanics and Asians respondents, but not for whites. Your family could be recent immigrants from Albania. Your grandparents could be Jewish Holocaust survivors. Or maybe your ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. No matter to the Census Bureau: you are white, you're all the same, we don't care for any details!