On DOMA, SCOTUS Follows the Culture. By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, June 26, 2013.
On Turning Political Opponents Into Moral Monsters. By Peter Wehner. Commentary, June 26, 2013.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Wendy Davis, Superhero. By Katha Pollitt.
 |
| Wendy Davis filibustering in the Texas State Senate. AP/Eric Gray. |
Wendy Davis, Superhero. By Katha Pollitt. The Nation, June 26, 2013.
Wendy Davis, feminist superhero. By Joan Walsh. Salon, June 25, 2013.
Wendy Davis showed Texas’ GOP boys how to filibuster and respect women. By Ana Marie Cox. The Guardian, June 26, 2013.
Wendy Davis: Tough, cool and wrong. By Melinda Henneberger. Washington Post, June 26, 2013.
The Public Doesn’t Support Wendy Davis’ Position. By Ben Domenech. Real Clear Politics, June 30, 2013.
Peter Gabriel: Steam
Peter Gabriel: Steam. Official Video. itspetergabriel, April 9, 2012. YouTube. From the album Us. Geffen Records, 1992.
Son of Sledgehammer.
Son of Sledgehammer.
Gay Marriage Is Just One Piece of the Puzzle. By Walter Russell Mead.
Gay Marriage Is Just One Piece of the Puzzle. by Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, June 26, 2013.
Mead:
It’s worth taking a step back from the emotions and technical details of all of these events to ask about the broader trend they point to. Superficially, they point to a schizophrenic public: leaning pro-life; increasingly in favor of gay marriage; divided on gun control but unwilling to pull the trigger, so to speak, on significantly tightened gun laws. But on a deeper level, these all look like examples of the biggest cultural-political trend in America: a response to the growing complexity of 21st century life that revives individualism and states’ rights.
Individualism sometimes work for the Right and sometimes for the Left. The right to marry who you choose is as individualistic as insisting on your right to bear arms. With abortion, that same logic is muddier, which is why the public is still divided. Pro-choichers lay claim to the individualism mantle by stating that women should be free to control their own reproductive health, while pro-lifers do the same by arguing that abortion involves two individuals with rights, not one.
Similarly, when it comes to classical federalism, the Supreme Court’s decisions on the gay marriage cases are both deferential to the states involved. Again, states’ rights is sometimes a liberal and sometimes a conservative cause. The DOMA case said that the national government can’t deny federal benefits to the marriages recognized by the states. But the Voting Rights Act decision, for good or for ill, is an attempt to give back to the nine states in question some powers lost in the Civil Rights Era. Two wins for states’ rights; one each for the Left and the Right.
The federal government is reaching for broad new powers. President Obama wants the EPA to assert the power to regulate (or at least to force all the states to regulate) emissions of carbon dioxide. Obamacare similarly involves some major new federal interventions in the lives of millions of Americans. And it appears that under President Obama federal surveillance of Americans has surpassed anything that transpired under President Bush.
But here, too, the Supreme Court and public opinion are demanding the return of more powers to individuals and states. DOMA, pot legalization, the limits on the Voting Rights Act, and a rash of new state limits on abortion all point to a strong public interest in the decentralization of power.
The federal legislature, the Court, and state governments, both blue and red, seem to have adopted this principle of devolution as a strategy for dealing with the most politically toxic issues of our time. America is too big and its citizens are too diverse for one-size-fits-all solutions to some of our culture war issues. Some traditional American views seem newly relevant as we cope with these issues: individuals should be allowed as much freedom as is consistent with their not harming others; wherever possible, states should be free to settle their affairs on their own terms.
Some 18th-century ideas are proving surprisingly useful in 21st-century America.
Mead:
It’s worth taking a step back from the emotions and technical details of all of these events to ask about the broader trend they point to. Superficially, they point to a schizophrenic public: leaning pro-life; increasingly in favor of gay marriage; divided on gun control but unwilling to pull the trigger, so to speak, on significantly tightened gun laws. But on a deeper level, these all look like examples of the biggest cultural-political trend in America: a response to the growing complexity of 21st century life that revives individualism and states’ rights.
Individualism sometimes work for the Right and sometimes for the Left. The right to marry who you choose is as individualistic as insisting on your right to bear arms. With abortion, that same logic is muddier, which is why the public is still divided. Pro-choichers lay claim to the individualism mantle by stating that women should be free to control their own reproductive health, while pro-lifers do the same by arguing that abortion involves two individuals with rights, not one.
Similarly, when it comes to classical federalism, the Supreme Court’s decisions on the gay marriage cases are both deferential to the states involved. Again, states’ rights is sometimes a liberal and sometimes a conservative cause. The DOMA case said that the national government can’t deny federal benefits to the marriages recognized by the states. But the Voting Rights Act decision, for good or for ill, is an attempt to give back to the nine states in question some powers lost in the Civil Rights Era. Two wins for states’ rights; one each for the Left and the Right.
The federal government is reaching for broad new powers. President Obama wants the EPA to assert the power to regulate (or at least to force all the states to regulate) emissions of carbon dioxide. Obamacare similarly involves some major new federal interventions in the lives of millions of Americans. And it appears that under President Obama federal surveillance of Americans has surpassed anything that transpired under President Bush.
But here, too, the Supreme Court and public opinion are demanding the return of more powers to individuals and states. DOMA, pot legalization, the limits on the Voting Rights Act, and a rash of new state limits on abortion all point to a strong public interest in the decentralization of power.
The federal legislature, the Court, and state governments, both blue and red, seem to have adopted this principle of devolution as a strategy for dealing with the most politically toxic issues of our time. America is too big and its citizens are too diverse for one-size-fits-all solutions to some of our culture war issues. Some traditional American views seem newly relevant as we cope with these issues: individuals should be allowed as much freedom as is consistent with their not harming others; wherever possible, states should be free to settle their affairs on their own terms.
Some 18th-century ideas are proving surprisingly useful in 21st-century America.
Supreme Court Rulings on Gay Marriage Represent the Fracturing of American Culture. By Rush Limbaugh.
Supreme Court Rulings on Gay Marriage Represent the Fracturing of American Culture. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 26, 2013.
Just 18 Months Ago, Barack Obama was a Bigot. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 26, 2013.
Scalia’s Blistering Dissent on DOMA. By Tim Grieve. The Atlantic, June 26, 2013.
Antonin Scalia’s Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping With Contempt And Sarcasm. By Josh Barro. Business Insider, June 26, 2013.
Don’t Just Laugh Off Scalia as a Bigot. By Ira Chernus. History News Network, June 26, 2013.
Antonin Scalia’s Dissent in United States v. Windsor. Cornell University Law School. PDF. Also at Supreme Court.gov.
Worse Than It Sounds, and It Cannot Be Cabined. By Hadley Arkes. National Review Online, June 26, 2013.
Rush (Supreme Court Rulings):
Speaking of Scalia, his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is breathtaking. In his view, what’s happened here is the Supreme Court has now demonized proponents and supporters of traditional marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it’s been since the beginning of time.
Now, if you ever had any doubt that the left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics, just read Scalia’s dissent in United States v. Wade. In this dissent he quotes the majority and illustrates how they smear – in a Supreme Court ruling, smear – supporters of traditional marriage as a means of justifying their opinion. What Scalia says is that the majority in the DOMA case, in order to arrive at their decision, actually says that the supporters of traditional marriage . . .
Well, they name-call. There’s no legal reasoning here, or very little. Scalia says the majority has arrived at its point of view because the opponents of homosexual marriage are reprobates and bigots. It’s disgusting. It demeans the Supreme Court, and it’s turned the Supreme Court into nothing different from any venue in this country where people argue. It proves that we are up against people who don’t give a damn about the rule of law or about basic decency or about decorum.
I have often said that what animates people on the left – what motivates them, what informs them – is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It’s what makes them happy. Now, the left politicizes everything, and in this case, hardball politics became the name of the game.
Hardball politics, bare knuckles, rather than learned judicial reasoning.
Just 18 Months Ago, Barack Obama was a Bigot. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 26, 2013.
Scalia’s Blistering Dissent on DOMA. By Tim Grieve. The Atlantic, June 26, 2013.
Antonin Scalia’s Gay Marriage Dissent Is Dripping With Contempt And Sarcasm. By Josh Barro. Business Insider, June 26, 2013.
Don’t Just Laugh Off Scalia as a Bigot. By Ira Chernus. History News Network, June 26, 2013.
Antonin Scalia’s Dissent in United States v. Windsor. Cornell University Law School. PDF. Also at Supreme Court.gov.
Worse Than It Sounds, and It Cannot Be Cabined. By Hadley Arkes. National Review Online, June 26, 2013.
Rush (Supreme Court Rulings):
Speaking of Scalia, his dissent today in the Defense of Marriage Act ruling is breathtaking. In his view, what’s happened here is the Supreme Court has now demonized proponents and supporters of traditional marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years. The Supreme Court majority, in its ruling, actually uses language that insults and demonizes the people who support marriage as it’s been since the beginning of time.
Now, if you ever had any doubt that the left is intolerant and fully invested in the low art of personal destruction through smear tactics, just read Scalia’s dissent in United States v. Wade. In this dissent he quotes the majority and illustrates how they smear – in a Supreme Court ruling, smear – supporters of traditional marriage as a means of justifying their opinion. What Scalia says is that the majority in the DOMA case, in order to arrive at their decision, actually says that the supporters of traditional marriage . . .
Well, they name-call. There’s no legal reasoning here, or very little. Scalia says the majority has arrived at its point of view because the opponents of homosexual marriage are reprobates and bigots. It’s disgusting. It demeans the Supreme Court, and it’s turned the Supreme Court into nothing different from any venue in this country where people argue. It proves that we are up against people who don’t give a damn about the rule of law or about basic decency or about decorum.
I have often said that what animates people on the left – what motivates them, what informs them – is defeating us. No matter how, no matter what, no matter what it means. Their hatred for us overwhelms anything else. No matter the result, victory that includes impugning and demeaning and insulting us is what they seek. It’s what makes them happy. Now, the left politicizes everything, and in this case, hardball politics became the name of the game.
Hardball politics, bare knuckles, rather than learned judicial reasoning.
Palestinians Celebrate “Arab Idol” Winner Mohammed Assaf.
 |
|
Palestinians
watch the performance of Palestinian singer Mohammed Assaf, a contestant in a
regional TV singing contest, on a large screen in the West Bank city of Nablus,
Saturday, June 21, 2013. Palestinians relished a rare moment of pride and
national unity Saturday after the 22-year-old wedding singer from a refugee camp
in the Gaza Strip won “Arab Idol,” a regional TV singing contest watched by
millions of people. (AP Photo/Nasser Ishtayeh). |
“Arab Idol” Winner Returns to Palestine to Cheers and Unease. By Fares Akram. New York Times, June 25, 2013.
Gaza Palestinians give hero’s welcome to their “Arab Idol.” By Nidal al-Mughbrabi. Reuters, June 25, 2013.
Palestinians celebrate Mohammed Assaf’s Arab Idol triumph. By Harriet Sherwood and Hazem Balousha. The Guardian, June 23, 2013.
Sherwood and Balousha:
In the studio audience his [Assaf’s] mother, Intisar Abu Shammaleh, a maths teacher from the impoverished Khan Younis refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, waved a Palestinian flag above her hijab. “I am overwhelmed, feelings I cannot describe. Most importantly I am feeling proud, proud of the Palestinian people who showed they are alive,” she said.
Hundreds of thousands of people poured on to the streets to salute their new hero and to congratulate one another on Palestine’s new place in the popular culture order. Roads in Gaza City and Ramallah were clogged until the early hours of Sunday morning with cars honking horns and pedestrians waving flags and keffiyehs, traditional chequered scarves.
“Assaf is a small word but now it has a lot of meaning to us as Palestinians,” said Walid Kharoufeh, 21, in Ramallah. “This shows the world that, despite the occupation and the violence and the tears, we have a new symbol of peace and that music is a way to show the world that we are strong.”
In Gaza City, Sumyya Sumary, 56, watched the celebrations from the doorstep of her house. “I have never felt happy as I am tonight. Assaf has brought the happiness to Palestine. Palestinians deserve joy, and a rest from violence and killing.”
Assaf’s final performance, broadcast live to millions of viewers in the Arab world and the diaspora on Friday night, was a powerful, celebratory rendition of his signature song, Raise Your Keffiyeh, Raise It.
Mohammed Assaf: From Underdog to Idol. By Maysoon Zayid. The Daily Beast, June 25, 2013.
Zayid:
Millions of viewers in the Middle East and across the globe sat glued to TV sets, computer monitors, and jumbotrons waiting to see who would be crowned the next Arab Idol—and, boy, did they wait. MBC dragged the finale out for longer than the average Academy Awards broadcast before finally announcing the winner in the last two seconds to the captive worldwide audience. Enough suspense: Mohammed Assaf won.
The moment his name was announced something unprecedented happened, Palestinians spilled out of their houses, into the streets, and started dancing like Israel wasn’t watching. In Gaza, Ramallah, Lid, Nazareth, and Jerusalem, they partied like Palestine had been freed. Folks who lack the right to assemble, and are usually shot at, tear-gassed, and jailed when they do, had assembled and nobody dared stop them. Those stupid enough to try got punched in the nose and backed down. And when Assaf’s fans, living on Israel’s side of the wall, joined the festivities by the thousands to celebrate his win, they reminded their neighbors that they are not just vague Arabs. They are Palestinians, they’ve got talent, they are multiplying, and they are not going anywhere. Mohammed Assaf had united the Palestinians Israel had worked so hard to divide with walls, checkpoints, and oceans, with nothing but a dashing smile and the voice of an angel.
Mohammed Assaf is the Palestinian Gandhi the world has been looking for. After being crowned Arab Idol, one of his first statements was, “A revolution is not just the one carrying the rifle, it is the paintbrush of an artist, the scalpel of a surgeon, the axe of the farmer. Everyone struggles for their cause in the way they see fit. Today I represent Palestine, and today I am fighting for a cause through my art and the message I send out.”
This is a guy who grew up in one of the most impoverished, dangerous ’hoods in Palestine, and here he is publicly advocating nonviolence. Mohammed Assaf is not just an incredible singer, he is also an extremely articulate, inspiring, and politically savvy speaker. He reiterated over and over throughout the competition that was this was bigger than just him, about representing Palestine, its reality, its struggles, and its dreams. During his thank yous, he shouted out to everyone: the prisoners, the dead, Palestinians living anywhere and everywhere, and all the women who’ve proposed to him. He even remembered to thank the voters and admonish cellphone companies for fleecing his fans. Finally, he thanked his mom and dad because without them he simply wouldn’t be here. His father cheered, his mother wept, and the world saw that contrary to popular belief, Palestinians are not savages. They love their children and want to see them achieving their goals and staying alive.
Ms. Zayid is letting her idealism get the better of her. Mohammed Assaf is not Gandhi – or Mandela. These were mature men, with extensive experience in the ways of political organizing, who built up public support over many years of resistance to and engagement with their political adversaries. They spent years in prison. They did not become leaders of their people by winning a song contest. A singer like Assaf would not last a minute in the hornet’s nest of Palestinian politics. He may be a symbol of hope and unity for the Palestinians. He may offer a tantalizing vision of a peaceful, normal life beyond war, where children can grow up to have careers and fulfill their dreams. But he will not change the dysfunctional, genocidal politics of the Palestinians. Unfortunately, too many Palestinians are savages who want to perpetrate genocide against the Jews more than they love their children.
A Palestinian Wins Arab Idol. By Jonathan Mann. Video. CNN, June 23, 2013. YouTube.
Palestinians Joyous Over Arab Idol Win. eNCA, June 24, 2013. Video at YouTube.
Mohammed Assaf, Arab Idol Winner, Draws Thousands Upon Return to Gaza. By Karen Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh. AP. The Huffington Post, June 25, 2013.
Photos: Arab Idol Mohammed Assaf returns to his home in the Gaza Strip. Mercury News, June 25, 2013.
Arab Idol Mohammed Assaf singing “Siret El Hob,” a classic love song. Video. arrouja law, June 1, 2013. YouTube.
Photos: Arab Idol Mohammed Assaf returns to his home in the Gaza Strip. Mercury News, June 25, 2013.
Arab Idol Mohammed Assaf singing “Siret El Hob,” a classic love song. Video. arrouja law, June 1, 2013. YouTube.
Mohammed Assaf singing the Palestinian nationalist song “Raise the Kaffiyeh.” Video. ArabIdol, June 21, 2013.
Arab Idol: The 27 original participants perform a medley from Les Miserables in Arabic. Video. ArabIdol, June 22, 2013. YouTube.
Obama Drives a Green Dagger Into the Heart of the American Dream. By James Delingpole.
Obama: Driving a green dagger into the heart of the American dream. By James Delingpole. The Telegraph, June 25, 2013.
Obama, the IRS and the Führerprinzip. By James Delingpole. Bogpaper, May 17, 2013.
President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change. WhiteHouse.gov, June 25, 2013. PDF.
The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents). By Anthony Watts. Watts Up With That, June 25, 2013.
The Best Presidential Address on Climate Change Ever. By Al Gore. The Huffington Post, June 25, 2013. Also here.
Did New York Times Scrub “War On Coal” Quote By Obama Advisor? By Ed Driscoll. PJ Media, June 25, 2013.
Obama’s War on America. By Scott Johnson. Powerline, June 26, 2013.
I Still Believe Something Will Happen to Save America. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 26, 2013.
President Obama Speaks on Climate Change. Video. WhiteHouse.gov, June 25, 2013. YouTube. Transcript.
Obama, the IRS and the Führerprinzip. By James Delingpole. Bogpaper, May 17, 2013.
President Obama’s Plan to Fight Climate Change. WhiteHouse.gov, June 25, 2013. PDF.
The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents). By Anthony Watts. Watts Up With That, June 25, 2013.
The Best Presidential Address on Climate Change Ever. By Al Gore. The Huffington Post, June 25, 2013. Also here.
Did New York Times Scrub “War On Coal” Quote By Obama Advisor? By Ed Driscoll. PJ Media, June 25, 2013.
Obama’s War on America. By Scott Johnson. Powerline, June 26, 2013.
I Still Believe Something Will Happen to Save America. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, June 26, 2013.
President Obama Speaks on Climate Change. Video. WhiteHouse.gov, June 25, 2013. YouTube. Transcript.
Moody’s Bullish on MOOC Early Adopters. By Walter Russell Mead.
Moody’s Bullish on MOOC Early Adopters. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, June 26, 2013.
Moody’s Says MOOCs Could Raise a University’s Credit Rating. By Sara Grossman. The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 24, 2013.
Moody’s Says MOOCs Could Raise a University’s Credit Rating. By Sara Grossman. The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 24, 2013.
Israel’s Haredi “State Within a State.” By Mordechai Nisan.
 |
|
Thousands
of ultra-Orthodox Jews participate at a May 16, 2013 rally to oppose the
government's plan to start drafting yeshiva students into military and national
service. (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90). |
The haredi “state within a state.” By Mordechai Nisan. Jerusalem Post, June 23, 2013.
Tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox men rally against army service. By Asher Zeiger. The Times of Israel, May 16, 2013.
Nisan:
The haredi lifestyle, designed to preserve and protect their conception of traditional Jewish values, rejects the Zionist ethos, the culture contours of general Israeli society, and the integrating, melting-pot process for the “ingathering of the exiles” in the homeland. Moreover, the haredi community as a rule audaciously considers this era of Jewish national restoration in Israel as galut (exile), because the fullness of the sacred and religious themes are not in their view manifestly apparent, though the redemptive return compellingly fulfills biblical prophecy and Divine providence in history.
The ongoing public uproar and debate touching on an equal bearing and sharing of the security yoke in the country, that demands military service for all Jews, has focused attention on this specific haredi segment in Israeli society. The ultra-Orthodox haredi community in Israel, while fractionalized within, has built and conducts its daily life in a virtual “state within a state.”
Displaying pronounced insularity and separatism, this very conspicuous sector has cultivated a self imposed mental segregation that befits a religious cult. The haredi public overwhelmingly follows discernible and generally monolithic rabbinic directives regarding which newspapers to read, what modest clothing to wear, what kosher foods to eat, which hotels, beaches and restaurants to frequent, which malls to shop at, and which busses to travel on.
The parallel physical segregation is a form of secession from the broader society and culture, considered alien and threatening.
Most haredim reside in and prefer their own distinctive neighborhoods as in Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, their own towns (e.g. Beitar Illit), and robustly seek to transform non-haredi neighborhoods into haredi ones, as in Ma’alot Dafna and Ramat Eshkol in Jerusalem. Bubbling and permissive Israeli public space is considered dangerous to the solidity and integrity of traditional self-encased haredi cohesion.
One cannot blame haredim for aspiring to sustain a life pattern guarded by the rules and regulations of a conservative legal framework; but they can be expected nonetheless to accept and respect the state which offers them liberty and security, services and opportunities; and yet their attitude runs along a spectrum from revulsion of the state, ignoring its heroic history, badmouthing its political leaders and policies, to emotional detachment from its symbols like the flag and national celebrations like Independence Day.
They do not appreciate or take part in the economic-technological-medical- agricultural-scientific-military miracle that marks Israel’s political renaissance, never offering an expression of gratitude for the sensational transformation of the “Jewish condition” in modern times.
It is the moral issue of military conscription and its weighty demands and dangers sustained by our brave soldiers that have brought the place of haredim in society to a critical crisis point. The democratic equation that all inhabitants should equally enjoy the rights of citizenship is a placid and abstract definition; whereas the equitable principle that compensation should be provided for contribution establishes the primacy of duty-performance at the forefront of collective responsibility for national well-being.
As our national and personal existence is a patently daily reality under siege and peril, the defense of the country is the definitive imperative to be expected from all citizens. The last generation to willingly be recruited to the army is the last generation of Israel’s existence.
The haredim have essentially made the military draft a nonnegotiable issue. Their stance of refusing to do military service threatens to exacerbate the divisions among the people, demoralize those who carry the military burden, and tear asunder the fiber of national unity so needed in our long-term campaign for survival.
Can a divided house stand over time? How much longer can active patriotic citizens be expected to respond willingly to their draft call and do reserve duty two decades thereafter – generation after generation – while a sizable and visible segment of the population does not? The haredi community has advanced from its initial goal of religious survival, to the stage of community resurgence, and now to the point of incremental neighborhood- by-neighborhood conquest.
More than a quarter of grade one Jewish school-children will be studying next year in haredi schools; this percentage is rising from year-to-year.
The haredi success, financed by generous governmental support, is the pitfall and menace facing the wider Israeli society. While enjoying demographic growth and increasing parliamentary representation, haredim defiantly reject the call for meaningful brotherhood.
The haredim mock the State of Israel while they build their own haredi state – and hope it will ultimately replace the Jewish state with a haredi- dominated state over all of us.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Phil Collins: One More Night.
Phil Collins: One More Night (Official Video). philcollins, November 11, 2010. YouTube. From the album No Jacket Required. Atlantic Records, 1985.
Wasting the Golden Hour in America’s Iraq Meltdown. By James C. Clad.
Wasting the Golden Hour in America’s Iraq Meltdown. By James C. Clad. The National Interest, July/August 2013.
The Fallacy of Human Freedom. By Robert W. Merry.
The Fallacy of Human Freedom. By Robert W. Merry. The National Interest, July/August 2013. Review of The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths. By John Gray. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013, 288 pp.
If Only Our Foreign Enemies Were Republicans. By Victor Davis Hanson.
If Only Our Foreign Enemies Were Republicans. By Victor Davis Hanson. Works and Days. PJ Media, June 25, 2013.
The Next Intifada. By Paul R. Pillar.
The Next Intifada. By Paul R. Pillar. The National Interest, June 23, 2013.
NJ Mom Beaten By Home Invader In Front of 3-Year Old Daughter.
Nanny cam catches mom’s ruthless beating by home invader as daughter, 3, watches. Daily Mail, June 25, 2013. Video on YouTube.
Also at The Blaze.
Also at The Blaze.
Taiwan Parliament Erupts in Brawl.
Taiwan Parliament Erupts in Brawl. AFP. The Telegraph, June 25, 2013.
Brawl breaks out in Taiwan parliament in row over tax. BBC News, June 25, 2013.
Taiwan Parliament Brawl. Video. apvideonews, June 25, 2013. YouTube.
Brawl breaks out in Taiwan parliament in row over tax. BBC News, June 25, 2013.
Taiwan Parliament Brawl. Video. apvideonews, June 25, 2013. YouTube.
The Age of American Impotence. By Bret Stephens.
The Age of American Impotence. By Bret Stephens. Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2013.
John Bolton: The GOP’s Foreign Policy Candidate? By Jonathan S. Tobin.
John Bolton: The GOP’s Foreign Policy Candidate? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, June 25, 2013.
Young and Isolated. By Jennifer M. Silva.
Young and Isolated. By Jennifer M. Silva. New York Times, June 22, 2013.
Google Is Not Impressed by Your Fancy Ivy League Credentials. By Walter Russell Mead.
Google Is Not Impressed by Your Fancy Ivy League Credentials. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, June 24, 2013.
In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal. By Adam Bryant. Interview with Laszlo Bock. New York Times, June 19, 2013.
Why Brainteasers Don’t Belong in Job Interviews. By Maria Konnikova. The New Yorker, June 25, 2013.
In Head-Hunting, Big Data May Not Be Such a Big Deal. By Adam Bryant. Interview with Laszlo Bock. New York Times, June 19, 2013.
Why Brainteasers Don’t Belong in Job Interviews. By Maria Konnikova. The New Yorker, June 25, 2013.
America Can Take a Breather, And It Should. By Richard N. Haass.
America Can Take a Breather, And It Should. By Richard N. Haass. New York Times, June 22, 2013.
America Is a Failed State. By David Rothkopf.
Leaning Away. By David Rothkopf. Foreign Affairs, July/August 2013. Also here.
Maybe the real failed states are the ones that have the means to help other nations – but choose to retreat inward.
America’s supremacy is finished. Why don’t we understand this? By Sean Thomas. The Telegraph, June 24, 2013.
Rothkopf:
It is true that within each country’s borders, different views exist of the obligations of individual citizens to one another, of provinces and cities to their neighbors, of the large and small private entities in the polity – corporations, churches, and other institutions – to society as a whole. Some countries elevate and value community. Some serve the state to the detriment of individual people. And some, like the United States, celebrate individuality to a fault. At least some Americans do, seeing the responsibilities manifest in the actions, sinews, laws, and regulations of government as overreach, an encroachment.
Americans celebrate this independent spirit. Their market ideology is more Charles Darwin than Adam Smith, suggesting somehow that if we value the survival of the fittest, then the casualties of the weak are merely part of nature’s grand equation. Even those who don’t embrace the most extreme aspects of this frontier fuck-you-ism at home almost certainly do abroad. It is a great American tradition. From George Washington’s farewell admonition to avoid foreign entanglements to the isolationism that is by far America's greatest and longest-lasting international policy impulse – the same inclination that had only 17 percent of Americans in favor of getting involved in the war in Europe even as it raged in the middle of 1940 – the view of this great nation has more often than not been that the world’s problems are not its own.
Sure, Americans went off and fought two world wars. The United States has intervened throughout the past century in every corner of the globe and has put troops on every habitable continent at one time or another. But not only has it done so selectively – it has helped create international institutions that are only capable of doing so selectively. In the wake of World War II, the United States helped make an international system that had two main purposes: to create the illusion of having one and to help advance U.S. interests. The system’s institutions by design are weak, toothless, and possessed of only limited resources.
This approach has clearly failed. Today the greatest problems we face are almost universally the global calamities that demand strong international mechanisms and a global sense of community that do not exist and are anathema to the selfish spirit that was the great contribution of the Peace of Westphalia: global warming, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the cancer of failed and failing states that destabilize their neighbors, spreading refugees and unrest across borders.
Rothkopf is condemning the Jacksonian worldview, its division of the world into the folk community and the dark world outside. The sense of global community that a left liberal progressive internationalist like Rothkopf demands goes against everything Jacksonians believe to be true of the world and the realities of human nature. It is unlikely that this will change anytime soon.
Maybe the real failed states are the ones that have the means to help other nations – but choose to retreat inward.
America’s supremacy is finished. Why don’t we understand this? By Sean Thomas. The Telegraph, June 24, 2013.
Rothkopf:
It is true that within each country’s borders, different views exist of the obligations of individual citizens to one another, of provinces and cities to their neighbors, of the large and small private entities in the polity – corporations, churches, and other institutions – to society as a whole. Some countries elevate and value community. Some serve the state to the detriment of individual people. And some, like the United States, celebrate individuality to a fault. At least some Americans do, seeing the responsibilities manifest in the actions, sinews, laws, and regulations of government as overreach, an encroachment.
Americans celebrate this independent spirit. Their market ideology is more Charles Darwin than Adam Smith, suggesting somehow that if we value the survival of the fittest, then the casualties of the weak are merely part of nature’s grand equation. Even those who don’t embrace the most extreme aspects of this frontier fuck-you-ism at home almost certainly do abroad. It is a great American tradition. From George Washington’s farewell admonition to avoid foreign entanglements to the isolationism that is by far America's greatest and longest-lasting international policy impulse – the same inclination that had only 17 percent of Americans in favor of getting involved in the war in Europe even as it raged in the middle of 1940 – the view of this great nation has more often than not been that the world’s problems are not its own.
Sure, Americans went off and fought two world wars. The United States has intervened throughout the past century in every corner of the globe and has put troops on every habitable continent at one time or another. But not only has it done so selectively – it has helped create international institutions that are only capable of doing so selectively. In the wake of World War II, the United States helped make an international system that had two main purposes: to create the illusion of having one and to help advance U.S. interests. The system’s institutions by design are weak, toothless, and possessed of only limited resources.
This approach has clearly failed. Today the greatest problems we face are almost universally the global calamities that demand strong international mechanisms and a global sense of community that do not exist and are anathema to the selfish spirit that was the great contribution of the Peace of Westphalia: global warming, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the cancer of failed and failing states that destabilize their neighbors, spreading refugees and unrest across borders.
Rothkopf is condemning the Jacksonian worldview, its division of the world into the folk community and the dark world outside. The sense of global community that a left liberal progressive internationalist like Rothkopf demands goes against everything Jacksonians believe to be true of the world and the realities of human nature. It is unlikely that this will change anytime soon.
Melanie Phillips on Syria and Iran.
Melanie Phillips on Syria and Iran (BBC QT, June 20, 2013). Video. SuperLatvian, June 21, 2013. YouTube.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Copper: General Brendan Donovan’s Rallying Speech to the Irish of the Sixth Ward.
Brendan Donovan (Donal Logue). Copper. BBC America.
Donal Logue as General Donovan: Copper. Video. BBCAmericaTV, June 3, 2013. YouTube.
Copper: Inside General Donovan’s Big Rallying Speech. Video. BBCAmericaTV, June 23, 2013. YouTube.
Donal Logue as General Donovan: Copper. Video. BBCAmericaTV, June 3, 2013. YouTube.
Copper: Inside General Donovan’s Big Rallying Speech. Video. BBCAmericaTV, June 23, 2013. YouTube.
Illegal Immigration: Elite Illiberality. By Victor Davis Hanson.
Illegal Immigration: Elite Illiberality. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, June 17, 2013. Also at Real Clear Politics.
Immigration: If the Bill Passes. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, June 23, 2013.
Hanson (Elite Illiberality):
The divide over immigration reform is not primarily a Left/Right or Democratic/Republican divide; instead, it cuts, and sharply so, across class lines. Elites blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration to ensure that the opponents of the latter appear to be against the former. They talk grandly of making legal immigration meritocratic, but fall silent when asked to what degree. They talk darkly of racist subtexts in the arguments of their opponents, but skip over the overt ethnic chauvinism of proponents of amnesty; they decry conservative paranoia over a new demography, but never liberal euphoria over just such a planned reset. They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realties, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
The elites favor de facto amnesty for a variety of self-interested reasons. For the corporate echelon, creating a guest-worker program and granting amnesty — without worrying about securing the border first — ensures continued access to millions of cheap laborers from Latin America. The United States may be suffering the most persistent unemployment since the Great Depression. There may be an unemployment rate of over 15 percent in many small towns in the American Southwest. American businesses may be flush with record amounts of cash, and farm prices may be at record levels. But we are still lectured that without cheap labor from south of the border, businesses simply cannot profit.
Unmentioned is the exploitation of illegal labor. Hard-working young Latin Americans, most of them from the interior of Mexico, cross the border illegally, usually to find jobs that pay over five times more per hour than anything they could find in Mexico, yet still less than the employer would have to pay an American. Between the ages of 18 and 40, illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working laborers in the world. However, the traditional entry-level jobs — picking peaches, nailing shingles, mowing lawns, changing diapers, cooking, making beds — for those without legality, education, or English often become a permanent dead end.
Many employers appreciate the myriad advantages of hiring illegal immigrants. Although supporters of amnesty are bold in leveling charges of illiberality against their critics, the unspoken truth is that insistence on access to cheap labor is about as reactionary and unethical as one can imagine. Off the record, employers will admit they are reluctant to hire jobless African-American youths, although the black community is suffering historic levels of unemployment. They are not even eager to hire second-generation Hispanics, who, according to the employers’ creed, have lost the firsthand memory of crushing Mexican poverty and thus their parents’ desperate work ethic.
Instead, employers want a continuing influx of young workers who will undercut the wages of American citizens. That the bargaining power of other minorities, Latino- and African-American citizens especially, is undercut by illegal labor matters little. How odd that elite Republicans pander to Latino grandees to win perhaps 35 percent of the Latino vote; that the party garners no more than 5 percent of the much larger African-American vote is never discussed. In the bizarre logic of the Republican elite, you must cater to the Hispanic elite in order to siphon votes from the liberal Latino bloc, while the much more important black demographic is simply written off. Is there one Republican politician who is more worried about the plight of unemployed African-American citizens than he is about granting amnesty to foreign nationals who broke U.S. laws to come here?
Employers do not care that the presence of 11 million illegal aliens has driven down entry-level wages. They are not concerned about the depressing cycle of illegal-immigrant labor: The young male from Latin America works extraordinarily hard for 20 years. But by the time he’s 40, he is married with children, and discovering that without education, English, or skill sets, he has no way forward.
Arms and backs that were near superhuman at 25 are often shot at 50. When the 45-year-old illegal alien can no longer pick, or cook, or rake as he once did, the employer loses interest, and the state steps in to provide him with rough parity through subsidies for housing, health care, food, and legal assistance, and meanwhile it has been educating his children. Because second-generation immigrants are deemed less industrious than their worn-out fathers and mothers — and Hispanic males in California graduate from high school at little more than a 60 percent rate — the need arises for another round of young hardy workers from Latin America.
In past times, this depressing cycle of exploitation was justified by low unemployment or ongoing wars that siphoned off American manpower. But why the need for imported labor in times of near-record joblessness, relative peace, and often-record profits? The elites simply turn a blind eye to out-of-work Americans, the low wages of illegal laborers, and the cynicism of using up human capital and letting the state pick up the subsequent social costs. How odd that profit-making from cheap labor is considered liberal, while concern for low-paid American workers is written off as xenophobia.
Most elites talk of nativism and racism as being what fuels opposition to their brand of comprehensive immigration reform. Yet I doubt that the wealthy Silicon Valley residents who clamor for “reform” send their children to public schools. Indeed, in the fashion of the Southern academies that popped up in the 1960s during court-ordered busing, Silicon Valley is currently experiencing an explosion in private schools.
Apple, Google, and Facebook 1-percenters are much too sophisticated to call these booming apartheid prep schools “academies,” but they are burgeoning in reaction to worries that the flood of illegal service workers from Latin America has finally lapped up to the outskirts of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Once-topnotch public schools like Menlo-Atherton are now whispered about as “problematic,” given the growing enrollment of the children of illegal aliens.
In truth, do not expect Washington politicians, La Raza leaders, or agribusiness owners to send their children to the Sanger school system in the outskirts of Fresno, or to enroll them in Cal State Bakersfield. Their elite status mostly exempts them from the ramifications of their own ideology in a myriad of ways. If taxes must rise in California to pay for one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, or to prop up public schools that have descended to 48th in the nation in math and English test scores, or to bring some parity to the nation’s highest percentage of people below the poverty line, most of the elite can afford the increases. For some, the higher taxes even become a sort of penance — a kind of abstract generosity necessary to expiate their unwillingness to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry in the concrete.
Meanwhile, forget the tire-store owner and the electrical contractor who have no such margin of error, and are written off as mean-spirited for resenting rising taxes to pay for soaring subsidies to the growing immigrant underclass. That the caricatured Neanderthal followers of Sarah Palin resent the social costs of illegal immigration and the fact that their children’s education is directly affected by the entry of millions of new non-English-speakers is, well, their own fault.
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
That well over $30 billion in remittances leaves the U.S. economy each year to prop up the Mexican and other Latin American economies is an afterthought. Indeed, Mexico is romanticized as an aggrieved partner, not excoriated as cynically opportunist for printing comic books to instruct its own citizens how to break U.S. law. How liberal is it to assist citizens to leave their own homeland, while assuming that they are almost certainly illiterate and thus need pictorial instruction?
To suggest that Mexico exports human capital in lieu of engaging in social reform, to suggest that indigenous peoples are the most likely to want to leave Mexico’s often racist social stratification, to suggest that Mexico does not care that its own expatriates suffer and scrimp to send back billions of dollars in cash to those ignored by the Mexican government, to suggest that Mexico appreciates that its citizens are more likely to cheer their homeland the longer they are away from it — all of this is considered reactionary and perhaps racist or at least culturally biased. But it is also absolutely true: Mexico, not the U.S., is the illiberal player in this entire sordid trafficking in human capital.
Mexico and American employers are not the only cynics in this drama. The La Raza elite understands well that only yearly massive infusions of the impoverished across the perpetually open border ensure a changed demography, anchored by a permanent Spanish-speaking underclass and periodically recharged by new illegal immigrants. Without massive immigration, the Latino population goes the way of the Italian or Greek community. Intermarriage, assimilation, and integration would gradually make the Chicano Studies department about as relevant as the Italian Studies department, La Raza about as catchy as La Razza, and the third-generation Hispanic with the accented last name about as much a minority in need of diversity favoritism as Rudy Giuliani’s son. How odd that illegal immigration is fueled by ethnic chauvinism, while those who criticize it are called ethnically biased. How could a Chicano Studies professor cite endemic poverty as a reason for federal attention if Mexican-Americans followed the Armenian- or Polish-American paradigm — and, of course, they soon would without the regular infusions of additional illegal immigrants.
Somehow, we have created an absurd situation in which a resident of Oaxaca, often fleeing racial and class oppression in Mexico, becomes defined as a victim of American pathologies the nanosecond he crosses the border. In turn, America, the generous host, is reinvented as a culpable oppressor that has treated the illegal alien so badly that his children deserve job and college-admission preference. Mexico likewise must be reinvented, from the exporter of superfluous human beings to the liberal champion of its stolen human assets.
Finally, there is the elite of the American Southwest, who believe that they are new 17th-century French aristocracy, entitled to $8-to-$10-an-hour nannies, gardeners, housekeepers, maids, and occasional day laborers. There are millions of white, Asian, Latino-American, and African-American youths out of work. We are simply told publicly that most of them would not do such work, and apparently if they did, they would not be trustworthy.
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Most Americans do not object to providing a green card to those who came to work, stayed off public assistance, did not commit crimes, and did not recently arrive in search of amnesty. They do not even object to offering a pathway to eventual citizenship to immigrants who pay a fine for their illegal entry, learned English, and go to the back of the legal-immigration line. But all this is a hypothetical if the border is not first secured — if we cannot guarantee that 2013 does not become another 1986, meaning that some future date will be a replay of 2013.
If we are to offer a second chance to the majority of illegal immigrants who, apart from their illegal entry, otherwise played by the rules, there must not be a second chance for the minority who broke all of them.
In the meantime, for those who profit both materially and psychologically from something that largely benefits the elite and hurts the mass, at least spare us the hypocritical aspersions and bottled pieties.
Hanson (If the Bill Passes):
Illegal and illiberal immigration exists and will continue to expand because too many special interests are invested in it. It is one of those rare anomalies — the farm bill is another — that crosses political party lines and instead unites disparate elites through their diverse but shared self-interests: live-and-let-live profits for some and raw political power for others. For corporate employers, millions of poor foreign nationals ensure cheap labor, with the state picking up the eventual social costs. For Democratic politicos, illegal immigration translates into continued expansion of favorable political demography in the American Southwest. For ethnic activists, huge annual influxes of unassimilated minorities subvert the odious melting pot and mean continuance of their own self-appointed guardianship of salad-bowl multiculturalism. Meanwhile, the upper middle classes in coastal cocoons enjoy the aristocratic privileges of having plenty of cheap household help, while having enough wealth not to worry about the social costs of illegal immigration in terms of higher taxes or the problems in public education, law enforcement, and entitlements.
No wonder our elites wink and nod at the supposed realities in the current immigration bill, while selling fantasies to the majority of skeptical Americans.
Immigration: If the Bill Passes. By Victor Davis Hanson. National Review Online, June 23, 2013.
Hanson (Elite Illiberality):
The divide over immigration reform is not primarily a Left/Right or Democratic/Republican divide; instead, it cuts, and sharply so, across class lines. Elites blur the distinction between legal and illegal immigration to ensure that the opponents of the latter appear to be against the former. They talk grandly of making legal immigration meritocratic, but fall silent when asked to what degree. They talk darkly of racist subtexts in the arguments of their opponents, but skip over the overt ethnic chauvinism of proponents of amnesty; they decry conservative paranoia over a new demography, but never liberal euphoria over just such a planned reset. They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realties, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
The elites favor de facto amnesty for a variety of self-interested reasons. For the corporate echelon, creating a guest-worker program and granting amnesty — without worrying about securing the border first — ensures continued access to millions of cheap laborers from Latin America. The United States may be suffering the most persistent unemployment since the Great Depression. There may be an unemployment rate of over 15 percent in many small towns in the American Southwest. American businesses may be flush with record amounts of cash, and farm prices may be at record levels. But we are still lectured that without cheap labor from south of the border, businesses simply cannot profit.
Unmentioned is the exploitation of illegal labor. Hard-working young Latin Americans, most of them from the interior of Mexico, cross the border illegally, usually to find jobs that pay over five times more per hour than anything they could find in Mexico, yet still less than the employer would have to pay an American. Between the ages of 18 and 40, illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working laborers in the world. However, the traditional entry-level jobs — picking peaches, nailing shingles, mowing lawns, changing diapers, cooking, making beds — for those without legality, education, or English often become a permanent dead end.
Many employers appreciate the myriad advantages of hiring illegal immigrants. Although supporters of amnesty are bold in leveling charges of illiberality against their critics, the unspoken truth is that insistence on access to cheap labor is about as reactionary and unethical as one can imagine. Off the record, employers will admit they are reluctant to hire jobless African-American youths, although the black community is suffering historic levels of unemployment. They are not even eager to hire second-generation Hispanics, who, according to the employers’ creed, have lost the firsthand memory of crushing Mexican poverty and thus their parents’ desperate work ethic.
Instead, employers want a continuing influx of young workers who will undercut the wages of American citizens. That the bargaining power of other minorities, Latino- and African-American citizens especially, is undercut by illegal labor matters little. How odd that elite Republicans pander to Latino grandees to win perhaps 35 percent of the Latino vote; that the party garners no more than 5 percent of the much larger African-American vote is never discussed. In the bizarre logic of the Republican elite, you must cater to the Hispanic elite in order to siphon votes from the liberal Latino bloc, while the much more important black demographic is simply written off. Is there one Republican politician who is more worried about the plight of unemployed African-American citizens than he is about granting amnesty to foreign nationals who broke U.S. laws to come here?
Employers do not care that the presence of 11 million illegal aliens has driven down entry-level wages. They are not concerned about the depressing cycle of illegal-immigrant labor: The young male from Latin America works extraordinarily hard for 20 years. But by the time he’s 40, he is married with children, and discovering that without education, English, or skill sets, he has no way forward.
Arms and backs that were near superhuman at 25 are often shot at 50. When the 45-year-old illegal alien can no longer pick, or cook, or rake as he once did, the employer loses interest, and the state steps in to provide him with rough parity through subsidies for housing, health care, food, and legal assistance, and meanwhile it has been educating his children. Because second-generation immigrants are deemed less industrious than their worn-out fathers and mothers — and Hispanic males in California graduate from high school at little more than a 60 percent rate — the need arises for another round of young hardy workers from Latin America.
In past times, this depressing cycle of exploitation was justified by low unemployment or ongoing wars that siphoned off American manpower. But why the need for imported labor in times of near-record joblessness, relative peace, and often-record profits? The elites simply turn a blind eye to out-of-work Americans, the low wages of illegal laborers, and the cynicism of using up human capital and letting the state pick up the subsequent social costs. How odd that profit-making from cheap labor is considered liberal, while concern for low-paid American workers is written off as xenophobia.
Most elites talk of nativism and racism as being what fuels opposition to their brand of comprehensive immigration reform. Yet I doubt that the wealthy Silicon Valley residents who clamor for “reform” send their children to public schools. Indeed, in the fashion of the Southern academies that popped up in the 1960s during court-ordered busing, Silicon Valley is currently experiencing an explosion in private schools.
Apple, Google, and Facebook 1-percenters are much too sophisticated to call these booming apartheid prep schools “academies,” but they are burgeoning in reaction to worries that the flood of illegal service workers from Latin America has finally lapped up to the outskirts of Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Once-topnotch public schools like Menlo-Atherton are now whispered about as “problematic,” given the growing enrollment of the children of illegal aliens.
In truth, do not expect Washington politicians, La Raza leaders, or agribusiness owners to send their children to the Sanger school system in the outskirts of Fresno, or to enroll them in Cal State Bakersfield. Their elite status mostly exempts them from the ramifications of their own ideology in a myriad of ways. If taxes must rise in California to pay for one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, or to prop up public schools that have descended to 48th in the nation in math and English test scores, or to bring some parity to the nation’s highest percentage of people below the poverty line, most of the elite can afford the increases. For some, the higher taxes even become a sort of penance — a kind of abstract generosity necessary to expiate their unwillingness to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry in the concrete.
Meanwhile, forget the tire-store owner and the electrical contractor who have no such margin of error, and are written off as mean-spirited for resenting rising taxes to pay for soaring subsidies to the growing immigrant underclass. That the caricatured Neanderthal followers of Sarah Palin resent the social costs of illegal immigration and the fact that their children’s education is directly affected by the entry of millions of new non-English-speakers is, well, their own fault.
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
That well over $30 billion in remittances leaves the U.S. economy each year to prop up the Mexican and other Latin American economies is an afterthought. Indeed, Mexico is romanticized as an aggrieved partner, not excoriated as cynically opportunist for printing comic books to instruct its own citizens how to break U.S. law. How liberal is it to assist citizens to leave their own homeland, while assuming that they are almost certainly illiterate and thus need pictorial instruction?
To suggest that Mexico exports human capital in lieu of engaging in social reform, to suggest that indigenous peoples are the most likely to want to leave Mexico’s often racist social stratification, to suggest that Mexico does not care that its own expatriates suffer and scrimp to send back billions of dollars in cash to those ignored by the Mexican government, to suggest that Mexico appreciates that its citizens are more likely to cheer their homeland the longer they are away from it — all of this is considered reactionary and perhaps racist or at least culturally biased. But it is also absolutely true: Mexico, not the U.S., is the illiberal player in this entire sordid trafficking in human capital.
Mexico and American employers are not the only cynics in this drama. The La Raza elite understands well that only yearly massive infusions of the impoverished across the perpetually open border ensure a changed demography, anchored by a permanent Spanish-speaking underclass and periodically recharged by new illegal immigrants. Without massive immigration, the Latino population goes the way of the Italian or Greek community. Intermarriage, assimilation, and integration would gradually make the Chicano Studies department about as relevant as the Italian Studies department, La Raza about as catchy as La Razza, and the third-generation Hispanic with the accented last name about as much a minority in need of diversity favoritism as Rudy Giuliani’s son. How odd that illegal immigration is fueled by ethnic chauvinism, while those who criticize it are called ethnically biased. How could a Chicano Studies professor cite endemic poverty as a reason for federal attention if Mexican-Americans followed the Armenian- or Polish-American paradigm — and, of course, they soon would without the regular infusions of additional illegal immigrants.
Somehow, we have created an absurd situation in which a resident of Oaxaca, often fleeing racial and class oppression in Mexico, becomes defined as a victim of American pathologies the nanosecond he crosses the border. In turn, America, the generous host, is reinvented as a culpable oppressor that has treated the illegal alien so badly that his children deserve job and college-admission preference. Mexico likewise must be reinvented, from the exporter of superfluous human beings to the liberal champion of its stolen human assets.
Finally, there is the elite of the American Southwest, who believe that they are new 17th-century French aristocracy, entitled to $8-to-$10-an-hour nannies, gardeners, housekeepers, maids, and occasional day laborers. There are millions of white, Asian, Latino-American, and African-American youths out of work. We are simply told publicly that most of them would not do such work, and apparently if they did, they would not be trustworthy.
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Most Americans do not object to providing a green card to those who came to work, stayed off public assistance, did not commit crimes, and did not recently arrive in search of amnesty. They do not even object to offering a pathway to eventual citizenship to immigrants who pay a fine for their illegal entry, learned English, and go to the back of the legal-immigration line. But all this is a hypothetical if the border is not first secured — if we cannot guarantee that 2013 does not become another 1986, meaning that some future date will be a replay of 2013.
If we are to offer a second chance to the majority of illegal immigrants who, apart from their illegal entry, otherwise played by the rules, there must not be a second chance for the minority who broke all of them.
In the meantime, for those who profit both materially and psychologically from something that largely benefits the elite and hurts the mass, at least spare us the hypocritical aspersions and bottled pieties.
Hanson (If the Bill Passes):
Illegal and illiberal immigration exists and will continue to expand because too many special interests are invested in it. It is one of those rare anomalies — the farm bill is another — that crosses political party lines and instead unites disparate elites through their diverse but shared self-interests: live-and-let-live profits for some and raw political power for others. For corporate employers, millions of poor foreign nationals ensure cheap labor, with the state picking up the eventual social costs. For Democratic politicos, illegal immigration translates into continued expansion of favorable political demography in the American Southwest. For ethnic activists, huge annual influxes of unassimilated minorities subvert the odious melting pot and mean continuance of their own self-appointed guardianship of salad-bowl multiculturalism. Meanwhile, the upper middle classes in coastal cocoons enjoy the aristocratic privileges of having plenty of cheap household help, while having enough wealth not to worry about the social costs of illegal immigration in terms of higher taxes or the problems in public education, law enforcement, and entitlements.
No wonder our elites wink and nod at the supposed realities in the current immigration bill, while selling fantasies to the majority of skeptical Americans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)