Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
How bad is the traveling crazy festival that is the conservative media getting when David Klinghoffer is the voice in the wilderness crying out for sanity? Klinghoffer, a Discovery Institute flack and peddler of nonsense in his own right, has an op-ed in the LA Times bemoaning the fact that conservatism's most prominent spokespeople are liars and lunatics. He begins:
Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions -- like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now. Today, far more representative is potty-mouthed Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, whose news and opinion website, Breitbart.com, is read by millions. In his most recent triumph, Breitbart got a U.S. Department of Agriculture official pushed out of her job after he released a deceptively edited video clip of her supposedly endorsing racism against white people.
And then he really gets warmed up:
But more characteristic of conservative leadership are figures on TV, radio and the Internet who make their money by stirring fears and resentments. With its descent to baiting blacks, Mexicans and Muslims, its accommodation of conspiracy theories and an increasing nastiness and vulgarity, the conservative movement has undergone a shift toward demagoguery and hucksterism. Once the talk was of "neocons" versus "paleocons." Now we observe the rule of the crazy-cons.
And then he demonstrates his own kind of creationist crazy:
The idea of purpose in the cosmos was central to the conservative vision. Another icon on the right, Whittaker Chambers, described in his 1952 memoir, "Witness," the moment he awoke from his earlier communism: It was upon looking closely one day at his young daughter's ear. Noting the exquisite beauty, the evidence of "immense design" shook him. He could never again subscribe to the secular, materialist dream.When I became a conservative, that is what I signed up for: a profound vision granting transcendent significance to public life and hope in private life. The goal wasn't to defeat Democratic officeholders or humiliate left-wing activists. It was, and still is, with those who remember, to save civilization.
Stephen Bainbridge, a very bright conservative law prof at UCLA, picks up on Klinghoffer's theme, declares that "the most prominent so-called conservatives are increasingly fit only to be cast for the next Dumb and Dumber sequel. They're dumb and crazy" and posts ten things that embarrass him about conservatism today:
Let's tick off ten things that make this conservative embarrassed by the modern conservative movement:1. A poorly educated ex-sportswriter who served half of one term of an minor state governorship is prominently featured as a -- if not the -- leading prospect for the GOP's 2012 Presidential nomination.
2. Tom Tancredo calling President Obama "the greatest threat to the United States today" and arguing that he be impeached. Bad public policy is not a high crime nor a misdemeanor, and the casual assertion that pursuing liberal policies--however misguided--is an impeachable offense is just nuts.
3. Similar nonsense from former Ford-Reagan treasury department officials Ernest Christian and Gary Robbins, who IBD column was, as Doug Marconis observed, "a wildly exaggerated attack on President Obama's record in office." Actually, it's more foaming at the mouth.
4. As Doug also observed, "The GOP controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006: Combine neocon warfare spending with entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects and you end up with a GOP welfare/warfare state driving the federal spending machine." Indeed, "when the GOP took control of Congress in 1994, and the White House in 2000, the desire to use the levers of power to create "compassionate conservatism" won our over any semblance of fiscal conservatism. Instead of tax cuts and spending cuts, we got tax cuts along with a trillion dollar entitlement program, a massive expansion of the Federal Government's role in education, and two wars. That's not fiscal conservatism it is, as others have said, fiscal insanity." Yet, today's GOP still has not articulated a message of real fiscal conservatism.
5. Thanks to the Tea Party, the Nevada GOP has probably pissed away a historic chance to out=st Harry Reid. See also Charlie Crist in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and so on. Whatever happened to not letting perfection be the enemy of the good?
6. The anti-science and anti-intellectualism that pervade the movement.
7. Trying to pretend Afghanistan is Obama's war.
8. Birthers.
9. Nativists.
10. The substitution of mouth-foaming, spittle-blasting, rabble-rousing talk radio for reasoned debate. Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Hugh Hewitt, and even Rush Limbaugh are not exactly putting on Firing Line. Whatever happened to smart, well-read, articulate leaders like Buckley, Neuhaus, Kirk, Jack Kent, Goldwater, and, yes, even Ronald Reagan?
This is the difference between an intellectual conservative, like Bainbridge, and a partisan conservative. A guy like Newt Gingrich is probably intelligent enough to know that he is engaging in demagoguery rather than serious argument, but he doesn't care. What he wants is power and if he has to sell out any shred of intellectual integrity to get it, that's a bargain he is more than willing to make.
Folks like Bainbridge won't make that deal. And that makes them the only conservatives worth taking seriously on an intellectual level.
Politics
Comments
This isn't actually new. The GOP began openly self-destructing during the 2008 election campaign, as you covered and as Michael Heath here can personally testify.
What's bizarre is to see crazies like Klinghoffer only stepping halfway into the deep end. Usually they can't stop themselves.
Posted by: william e emba | August 11, 2010 10:24 AM
This should dovetail with Newt Ginbrich's ex-wife's article in Esquire, some of which I read online. His brand of family values includes NOT paying child support...
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | August 11, 2010 10:27 AM
Bainbridge is never going to get on TV with this kind of attitude... It is good to hear from the sane conservative now and then, rather than the dumb and dumber variety that make ratings. He represents far more of the population than the extremists.
Posted by: Rich | August 11, 2010 10:28 AM
Well, the GOP and the conservative movement is definitely going over the deep end. And the stress of election years really brings it out.
Short video of some of them going a bit batty, if you've got a minute:
http://bit.ly/bCsBxg
Posted by: bondwooley | August 11, 2010 10:28 AM
And yet, as the article indicates, millions of people still hang on these folks every word.
While they're peddling bread and circuses and aiming squarely at the lowest common denominator they are winning elections and clinging to power. What's the motivation for anyone to change? For that matter, as we increasingly see with GoP candidates, it's in people's interest emulate the crazies as they seem to have The People (or at least the voting people) with them...
Posted by: David Durant | August 11, 2010 10:31 AM
Shorter Klinghoffer: "Stop listening to the crazy-cons' loony ravings and listen to MY loony ravings instead! I'm not crazy, my fellow wingnuts are just making me look crazy!"
Another icon on the right, Whittaker Chambers, described in his 1952 memoir, "Witness," the moment he awoke from his earlier communism: It was upon looking closely one day at his young daughter's ear. Noting the exquisite beauty, the evidence of "immense design" shook him.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! The guy has an epiphany (or some other...um...sudden consuming reaction) from looking at his daughter's ear? And that brought him to God? That sounds too pervy for even me to touch. I'm really afraid to ask how much creepier these "conservatives" can get.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 11, 2010 10:33 AM
"Once, the iconic figures on the political right were urbane visionaries and builders of institutions -- like William F. Buckley Jr., Irving Kristol and Father Richard John Neuhaus, all dead now--thank you AtheoJEBUS!" There, NOW it scans correctly. Buckley, Kristol and the rest of the first batch of neo-cons are to BLAME for the current insanity. They just kept pushing their buttons, while occassionally pretending that they abhorred the PTM (Pitchfork Torch Mentality) of the more extreme members of their audience.
Posted by: democommie | August 11, 2010 10:44 AM
I'm always amazed by how it is I can share a country/language/culture/economic background with conservatives, and yet they still seem to be living in a totally different universe than I do. Something is seriously wrong here that goes beyond simple ignorance or matters of differing perspective. Look at the comments on bainbridge's blog:
"Lumping Beck and Limbaugh in with Savage is tacit admission by the writer that he either lacks discernment or is thoroughly unfamiliar with Beck and Limbaugh."
"Obama IS the greatest threat to the United States in its history. He is intentionally destroying the idea of American exceptionalism, dismantling any part of our nation that has ever made us great, and pandering to international groups that would seek to reduce the US to minor power status (islamists, eurosocialists, china, etc)."
"Those who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming theory, esp in light of climategate and exposure of extensive green propaganda treated as peer-reviewed science in the IPCC report, are not "anti-science"."
"Obama is so spectacularly bad at his job it is actually pretty rational to think he might be doing it on purpose. Doing it on purpose would amount to an impeachable offense."
"Well, bluntly Mr. Bainbridge, I have a legal education from a school regularly ranked number one in prestige. And I say it is unfair to call [Palin] poorly educated. The difference between an ivy league school and a state school is a game of inches, not miles."
"Paul and Tancredo are and were two of the most fiscally conservative members of the entire GOP House delegation. They opposed both NCLB and the Medicare expansion. When I see them attacked here its obvious that the attackers have zero interest in curing the size of government."
Posted by: JRQ | August 11, 2010 10:47 AM
Raging Bee, was there anything about what Whittaker Chambers originally wrote that suggested to you that his revelation from the beauty of his daughter's ear was in any way sexually motivated, or is this just epic level projection on your part? Because I get the feeling a guy could say "Isn't my daughter beautiful in her wedding dress?" and your reaction would be "OHMYGOD you're such a pervy creep!"
Posted by: rob | August 11, 2010 10:48 AM
Like Ed's Badass Quote yesterday from Mr Exum, a christian with no fear of SSM, why are the sane conservatives so rare in the public square? I realize the intellectual challenge presents difficulties all over America, but why have ranting 30 second soundbites so easily replaced reasoned discourse?
Posted by: MikeMa | August 11, 2010 10:48 AM
Stephen Bainbridge:
The effects of their message is perfectly clear, they favor policies that would result in economic contraction, which is a very likely result of fiscal conservatism (though not its only result). This approach is also perfectly consistent with conservatism becoming in Klinghoffer's words, "crazy-cons" since the grassroots are steering the ship and these know-nothings are increasingly attracted to the contractionary polices we encounter from the Austrian School, economics' version of creationism.
The fact Republican leaders and their base are mostly oblivious regarding their position is a defining feature of the contemporaneous U.S. conservatism. I claim 'mostly' since Glenn Beck has been promoting this economic approach and has reinvigorated book sales promoting this philosophy though I'd argue the positions came prior to the cognizance of the source of their positions - where I'd argue the Austrian School is merely Sarah Palin's "common sense" wrote down.
If Republicans were to gain an electoral advantage and deploy their policies, I see one way they might succeed though its risky.
Currently some authentic economists are wondering if consumer confidence plays a bigger role in stimulus than previously thought. They're asking this question because they've observed that in the past most Americans rallied around the federal government's efforts to stimulate the economy, which is primarily focused on getting increased private investment and increased private consumption re-invigorated. In this economy they've observed that conservatives have been very successful in denouncing the actual positive effects of the stimulus, which is a partial factor in private investment staying on the sidelines, particularly commercial lenders.
The U.K., now run by their version of conservatives, is employing a policy of "economic consolidation", which is to attempt to cut spending to better match steady-state revenues in spite of their also weak economy. David Cameron and his ex Chequer are claiming that they believe private investment will get re-invigorated if they observe a signal from the U.K. government they're serious about balancing their budget. That is contra to what Keynesian economics teaches us. Fareed Zakaria's interview with the U.K. ex Chequer several weeks ago had this gentelman unable to point to previous success deploying the exact opposite of Keynesians recessionary economics prescribes which is why I'm extremely skeptical, especially given the success of Keynesian recessionary economics when done competently (our stimulus was late, insufficient, and not optimized to conditions on the ground).
However if consumer confidence is really a primary factor perhaps the U.K. experiment would work. This seems to be the Republicans only hope if they obtained majority power; I'm still betting their getting power would be the proverbial dog catching the tiger by the tail.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2010 10:51 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | August 11, 2010 10:52 AM
On one hand, it's good that some of them are starting to be embarassed. On the other hand, there is that whole thing about reaping and sowing.
Posted by: Observer | August 11, 2010 11:02 AM
Michael Heath,
I don't know if its a typo or if you have been misinformed but the title of the British finance minister is Chancellor of the Exchequer not ex chequer.
On a more substantial note I'm pleased to hear that there are people who actually understand economics who share my concerns about the conservative cuts. Of course I hope the long term policy succeeds (what sane person would want the economy they make a living in to fail?) but in the short term a lot of people I know are facing pay cuts and possible redundancy so the benefits had better exceed the pain.
Posted by: Matty | August 11, 2010 11:07 AM
Alas, Professor Bainbridge's current employment is sufficiently more remunerative than elected office that he is unlikely to pursue candidacy.
Posted by: abb3w | August 11, 2010 11:10 AM
From Bainbridge's list of bugaboos:
Heaven forbid that the citizens of this country desire representatives who think of them and their children before, e.g. illiterate Somali tribesmen!Posted by: Cynical | August 11, 2010 11:31 AM
The early 21st century will be remembered by political historians as a collision between the resounding success of conservative politics and the resounding failure of conservative policies.
Posted by: DaveL | August 11, 2010 11:33 AM
And it's also why he gets nervous any time the words "tar" or "feathers" come up.
That kind of "reasoned conservatism" got the GOP a total of eight years in the White House between 1932 and 1968. The bare-knuckles, take-no-prisoners, "winning isn't the most important thing, winning is the only thing" approach of today got the POG 28 years in the White House from 1968 to 2008, an increasingly dominant position in the courts, and quite a few years in control of Congress.
Politics is like footballl: winning isn't the most important thing, it's the only thing.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 11, 2010 11:43 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 11, 2010 11:43 AM
1) Conservative/Republicans from Ronald Reagan on through Karl Rove actively invited the Religious right into their tent in order to make the numbers to win elections. Sow, Reap.
2) Since Conservatives/Republicans have their own TV network now in Faux News, they no longer have to worry about their message being filtered by sane objective reporters.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 11, 2010 11:52 AM
Who's Jack Kent? Does he mean Jack Kemp?
Posted by: Dave M | August 11, 2010 12:03 PM
And he's missing, you know, the 80s.
Cynical [9. Nativists.] "Heaven forbid that the citizens of this country desire representatives who think of them and their children before, e.g. illiterate Somali tribesmen!"
Cynical, read this. Then you'll at least know a little about what you appear to be trying to spin to be less ugly than it actually is.
DaveL "The early 21st century will be remembered by political historians as a collision between the resounding success of conservative politics and the resounding failure of conservative policies."
They're like the Girl Scouts. The cookies are a huge success, but the organization behind it is darker than hell itself. (And I say this knowing full well that the GS will come after me with all the malevolent might that it can muster. I may not survive to see the end of the day. Tell my family I love them)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 11, 2010 12:10 PM
DaveL states:
That when in my 'best quotes' file.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2010 12:23 PM
"You'll get the vote of every thinking American."
"That's fine, but I need a majority."
Notice how people didn't quit watching "professional" wrestling after they quit trying to claim it wasn't fake? Rush and Glen and Sarah could publicly announce that they know what they say is bat guano, and I'll bet they wouldn't lose a single viewer.
Posted by: BaldApe | August 11, 2010 12:24 PM
You know, I've seen the human ear, and it's ugly as hell.
@Rich, #3:
If that's the case, how come the extremists win so many primaries?
Posted by: Nemo | August 11, 2010 12:56 PM
You know, I think what's going on here is a little more than baseline sanity vs. chiropteran excrement. I think there's got to be a major class element here -- the traditional chattering classes are all upper-class twits, but they're being outclassed by the uneducated rabble, and more than anything else, they're not embarrassed -- they're jealous. They're kind of annoyed that no one is listening to them, that they're not the cool kids anymore, that the heart of the conservative movement no longer belongs to the Ivy League boy's club but to the Birchers, the basement dwellers, and the snakehandlers, all of which they've always treated as useful idiots at best.
In other words, whether they have a better grip on reality is irrelevant -- the followers are leading now, and they're driving the whole lot of them off a cliff.
Posted by: BrianX | August 11, 2010 1:19 PM
Nemo:
Two words: circle jerk.
Movement conservatism is an echo chamber. It's all about stroking each other's egos. The dark side is that anyone who would question it winds up being kicked out of the movement, until the leaders are just a bunch of Robespierre wannabes. And we know what happened to Robespierre...
Posted by: BrianX | August 11, 2010 1:25 PM
Here's something more for conservatives to be embarrassed about: Dan "Potatoe" Quayle's son Ben:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/2010_elections/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/08/11/ben_quayle_dirty_ad
The rotten fruit doesn't fall far from the undernourished tree.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 11, 2010 2:02 PM
My personal litmus test for a sane conservative over a hopeless one is how accepting they are of the modern state of scientific discovery—especially evolution. If they are at least that well tethered to reality, I figure there is some chance of having a semi-rational discussion/debate—or it is worth reading what they write. Klinghoffer obviously fails this test. Bainbridge looks to be OK, from what I can tell. One reason why I can at least respect Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by: EricJ | August 11, 2010 2:17 PM
EricJ:
Where do they stand with you if they accept the fact of anthropogenic global warming?
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2010 2:21 PM
"The guy has an epiphany ... from looking at his daughter's ear?"
He had an "epinneaphany?"
or maybe
He started banging the drum for god?
or even
He realized there was a ring of truth
Posted by: Buffoon | August 11, 2010 2:41 PM
30
It isn't a mark of sanity to believe or disbelieve a prediction, only to review past predictions against outcome.
Posted by: Buffoon | August 11, 2010 2:43 PM
Ben Quayle’s run has been thoroughly amusing so far. You’d think that someone running for Congress, someone who wants to be a leader, would at least announce it himself. But no, his father did it for him on Fox News. Then there was that whole campaign mailer thing where he talked about how thrilled he was to raise a family in Arizona. The mailer featured a picture of him with a couple young girls one might naturally assume were his daughters. But no, he has no kids, a move drew him criticism from both the Left and Right for his deceptive practices.
While he’s no, Kevin Pezzi, his campaign site bio is still pretty funny. One example, during his brief stint as a junior associate in the real-estate department of a local law firm, "Quayle learned the importance of individual property rights." Oh, and he can see Mexico from his house.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2010 3:41 PM
Buffoon @ 30:
Past predictions against an outcome was exactly what I was referencing and made that point explicitly by noting AGW as an observed fact, which it is.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2010 4:37 PM
@Buffoon, #30
So when can we expect global warming deniers going to finally start "reviewing past predictions?" Jeez, its only been 114 years:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
Posted by: JRQ | August 11, 2010 6:39 PM
Folks like Bainbridge won't make that deal. And that makes them the only conservatives worth taking seriously on an intellectual level.
While he might be embarrassed, how will he vote? I've watched 'reasonable' conservatives line up for decades and align themselves with bigots, hate-peddlers, and liars. The current crop of Tea Partiers that Bainbridge derides really aren't any crazier than the far-right conservatives of the past (e.g., John Birchers, the Moral Majority), and conservatives didn't seem embarrassed by them when they were winning.
Not very serious at all.
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | August 11, 2010 7:42 PM
Re Micheal Heath:
Yes, similar idea, although I would at least make a distinction between acknowledging global warming itself and accepting AGW. Only a delusional ideologue would deny the former, while the later can at least be debated. But I agree that the best evidence favors AGW. As to the best solution to the problem, that is where the real conservative vs liberal vs libertarian discussion should lie.
Posted by: EricJ | August 11, 2010 8:26 PM
EricJ:
I'm not sure what there is to debate given that we can distinguish and measure the impact of the individual forcings causing warming where the only imagined explanation with evidence is anthropogenic. Here's a graph that breaks down the impact of forcings resulting in increased temperature anomalies; this is the same model used in the IPCC's 4th synthesis report.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 11, 2010 9:35 PM
Michael Heath:
I for one am glad to see some alternative approaches to Keynesianism being attempted. It's not like there a surfeit of evidence in favour of Keynesian theories (admittedly this is because there's no real evidence for anything in macro), and there are some historical economic conditions (like stagflation) that Keynesian theory cannot explain.
Fiscal stimulus is especially appealing to politicians because it given them licence to spend a lot of money, and politicians like doing that. While it may be the case that Keynesian approaches will win the day, it's far from certain and our ability to weather future crises will be vastly improved by having countries try different responses, so we can gather at least a little data.
Posted by: James K | August 12, 2010 1:35 AM
What the Republicant's don't seem to realize is that just because you don't actually devise a plan to collect the money, when you start 2 wars, lower taxes for billionares, increase Non-Military spending by 50%, and don't cut spending to offset these costs, YOU ARE RAISING TAXES. Just because some other poor bastard (Obama) gets stuck with the
bill, doesn't mean you didn't raise taxes.
Posted by: bamaboy | August 12, 2010 6:38 AM
James K:
I think there's sufficient evidence if one filters out incompetently executed attempts.
James K:
And yet in America and Europe Keynesians were unable to get the political support to stimulate the economy sufficiently early and with the calculated amount. The U.S.'s efforts were months late and about $400 - $600 billion shy of optimal.
China, run by a collective of technocrats, did use Keynesian principles, both in good times (unlike the U.S.) and when the recession started; their economy quickly went back to 11% growth rates of GDP.
I too am interested in the U.K. experiment simply because they're small enough to fail without starting a contagion. It will be interesting to see if their effort will work and to better understand the importance of investor and consumer confidence. More than one way to skin a cat is always helpful; especially if previous governance was especially damaging like it was in the U.S. where the Republicans ran deficits in good times that did not promote either growth or jobs and thereby created the worst of all possible worlds.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2010 6:44 AM
Michael Heath:
There isn't enough evidence in any aspect of macroeconomics to be even close to clarity. Sufficient evidence and macroeconomics just don't belong in the same sentence. After all, the consensus of macroeconomists was that the business cycle had been conquered by the Fed and that deep recession was no longer a realistic prospect.
European countries (Germany in particular) are wary of inflation because they remember what happened to the Weimar Republic. It's why New Zealand politicians are careful about deficits - we've been burned once before. As for the US, your stimulus wasn't months late - more like years. Given the lags involved and the fact a lot of the money hasn't even been spent yet, by the time the stimulus starts to stimulate you'll probably be well out of recession. And just because Krugman thinks the stimulus is too small doesn't make it so, his speciality is trade theory, not stabilisation policy; he's no more an expert in this field than I am. Besides which there's still stimulus money unspent, adding more money to the stimulus would just mean more unspent stimulus money and I think we can all agree that unspent stimulus will have no stimulative effect.
China is in the process of becoming a developed country, it's growth rates are very high because it has a lot of lucrative investment opportunities relative to a more developed country. Their stabilisation policy is almost besides the point.
I should clarify here that I'm not saying that no country should try fiscal stimulus. All I'm saying is that the evidence for Keynesian macro is not at the level of evolution (where there's no room for disagreement), nor even at the level of Climate Change (where there's a lot of uncertainty, but the evidence still leans in one direction). There is very little evidence of any sort, so I recommend a lot of diverse experimentation. Just once I'd like to see your politicians go for a solution that didn't involve borrowing billions of dollars and spending it, after all you've got quite enough fiscal problems, especially over the next 20-30 years.
Posted by: James K | August 12, 2010 7:21 AM
That's nuts if that is what they are thinking. We solved the management of the inflation decades later by employing Monetarist tools not available during the Weimar Republic. Those tools have worked since the early-80s where deflation is and remains a far greater threat to an economy than inflation - especially now since we can and have controlled inflation.
James K:
A massive strawman given I never even referred to Dr. Krugman regarding the quality of the stimulus. I could care less about what Paul Krugman alone thinks about the stimulus and do not rely on any one single economist just like I look to synthesis reports to understand the scientific perspective.
Re the rest of your argument - we are in two very different paradigms but I have to get to work now so I can't meaningfully respond.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 12, 2010 7:33 AM
Lunatics or Liars only? Where's the Lords. It's the Republican trilemma, they're trying their best to be just like Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma
Posted by: twh | August 12, 2010 7:56 AM
Re James @ #42
I would point out to Mr. K that former Reagan economic adviser, Martin Feldstein, who no one in his right mind would consider a left winger, also stated at the time that the stimulus package that was passed was too small and that a second package might well be needed.
Posted by: SLC | August 12, 2010 8:27 AM
modusoperandi:
Let's take a look at that, shall we?
(original footnotes deleted, replaced with my references)
1. Lowering the political or legal status of ethnic or cultural groups. Right now, racial and ethnic preferences put immigrants ahead of many natives for jobs, education, loans and other programs even if they just stepped off the plane. Who are they to expect to even be considered EQUAL to new arrivals, let alone take priority?
2. "assumed that they cannot be assimilated". Increasing numbers of Spanish-speaking immigrants take their television in Spanish from e.g. Telemundo. They have more cultural identification with people thousands of miles and one or more national borders away than with the people they live and work with (assuming they haven't ghettoized themselves too). Isn't it so unreasonable for anyone to see this refusal to assimilate as evidence of an inability to assimilate them? And the Aztlan movement and La Raza ("for the race, everything; outside the race, nothing"): obviously somebody made all that up for a presentation to people wearing white robes in front of a burning cross.
3. "spoil existing cultural values". The people who make national parks to preserve unique biomes couldn't differ in any meaningful way from the people who tear them up to grow marijuana. And no group which has about 30% of its members with 4-year degrees and about 6% high-school dropouts could POSSIBLY have a negative influence from immigrants of whom only about 9% get degrees and 25% drop out. Nope, nothing to see here.
4. Opposing multiculturalism. Well, goodness, nobody could possibly complain about your political and cultural opposition's main tool for crushing your schools and communities, to the point of destroying your social capital. Having to put up with feeling culturally deracinated and atomized in addition to more crime, worse schools and the irritant of "Press 1 for English". Obviously it is just mean-spirited of them to want to be left alone!
And it's really ugly of these people to take the unwilling conclusions from the research of a committed multi-culturalist that diversity destroys social capital and conclude that maybe the whole program of replacing the American population of 1900 with some sampling of the rest of the world—without consulting the people involved—was not a good idea. Self-determination, feh! The multi-cultural elites and elitists will determine what's good for them, just like all the great socialist experiments back to the USSR.
Thanks so much for that, MO. I had no idea until now just how nasty those pasty white people were.
Posted by: Cynical | August 12, 2010 2:35 PM
34
Sorry Michael! I didn't mean to talk bad about your religion :(
Posted by: Buffoon | August 12, 2010 2:46 PM
Cynical, if the purpose of your latest comment was to perfectly demonstrate modus' point, as well as cement everyone's impression of you as a racist twit, very well done.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 12, 2010 2:49 PM
They have more cultural identification with people thousands of miles and one or more national borders away than with the people they live and work with (assuming they haven't ghettoized themselves too).
And this makes "them" different from any other previous immigrant ethnic group...how?
Isn't it so unreasonable for anyone to see this refusal to assimilate as evidence of an inability to assimilate them?
News flash: identification with one's home country is not the same thing as "refusal to assimilate." Your segue here is dishonest.
And the Aztlan movement and La Raza ("for the race, everything; outside the race, nothing")...
What?! You mean some of this latest wave of immigrants are racist? That's unheard of! We certainly can't have that, what with the Irish, Italian, German, Chinese, Jamaican, African, and other racists already here, can we? Thank you so much for alerting us to this new and unprecedented development.
4. Opposing multiculturalism. Well, goodness, nobody could possibly complain about your political and cultural opposition's main tool for crushing your schools and communities, to the point of destroying your social capital.
Describe exactly what you mean by "multiculturalism," and describe exactly how it's destroying our social capital. The only destructive influence I see is UNIculturalism: hysterical white bigots trying to change our lesson plans to erase all contributions by non-whites to American history, advancement and culture.
...and conclude that maybe the whole program of replacing the American population of 1900 with some sampling of the rest of the world...
What the fuck are you talking about? "The American population of 1900" has already been replaced -- they're all dead! Populations get replaced ALL THE FUCKING TIME!
Cynical, your ignorance, insanity and unvarnished uneducable bigotry never cease to amaze me. Thanks for reminding us all how fucking stupid some people can be, and how little it takes to melt their brains.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 3:07 PM
I have reduced Raging Bee to sputtering nonsense. My work here is done.
Posted by: Cynical | August 12, 2010 3:13 PM
Some choice quotes from the article:
Or more on point:
Posted by: DaveL | August 12, 2010 3:20 PM
If increasing diversity in American was inevitable, why is there any concern about people who oppose it? If that was true, they would be on a fool's errand. But the "inevitable" diversity, like Putnam's "valuable and enriching" diversity, is only a desire. Arizona has shown that "diversity" would be reversed if the law was only enforced as written, which is why Eric Holder has filed suit to halt the enforcement of US immigration law.
Posted by: Cynical | August 12, 2010 3:55 PM
As he worried in the second quote, you see only what you want to. I particularly like how you deliberately excised "Putnam cites the work done by Page and others". His work on the relationship between diversity and depressed civic engagement is a small part of the whole picture.
Racist assholes like you will not succeed in preventing diversity, that's true. But they you can do and what they have done is create oppressive situations for minorities that are already here.
Has shown? Cite?
Posted by: DaveL | August 12, 2010 4:02 PM
If increasing diversity in American was inevitable, why is there any concern about people who oppose it?
Because, whether or not diversity is inevitable, those who oppose it are liars, bigots and morons, their mindset is pure poison, and the policies they advocate tend to violate basic rights and do more harm than good.
Arizona has shown that "diversity" would be reversed if the law was only enforced as written...
How can Arizona have shown any such thing, when the law hasn't even taken effect yet? (And is that law intended to "reverse diversity" or to get rid of illegal immigrants? They're not the same thing.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 12, 2010 4:04 PM
Michael Heath, SLC:
You're right, I shouldn't have brought Krugman into it, my bad. All I'll say is that while there were some calling for a larger stimulus, this was hardly a universal opinion, and was actually at odds with the consensus of academic macroeconomics up until very recently. I didn't need to bring up Krugman to make that point, and so I shouldn't have.
Posted by: James K | August 13, 2010 4:34 AM
DaveL:
If you really like diversity, you should go live where it has triumphed. The Balkans are like that. Oh, there's the little matter of needing a totalitarian dictatorship to keep the various religious and ethnic factions from going to war against each other, but really... it's everything the multi-culturalist left always wanted. You'll love it!
Having to go home... for fear of being caught and sent home. What a terribly oppressive thing that would be. It's so good that Eric Holder is on watch, suing state governments which try to enforce the nasty Federal immigration laws that the Feds would rather ignore.
Even before SB1070, the employer-sanctions law and the recession caused Arizona's illegal-alien population to drop by a third. That's a "reduction in diversity", which I'm sure you consider either a tragedy or tantamount to genocide.
Must... quote... Raging... Bee...
Requiring immigration law to be obeyed and enforced = pure poison, to Raging Bee. It must be so nice to have a clean, simple world-view (like fundamentalists). Raging Bee even has rage-a-holism in common with them. I guess that's what happens when someone adopts leftism as their religion.
Posted by: Cynical | August 13, 2010 5:28 PM