2004 July 12 Monday
Lawrence Auster On Universalists And Multiculturalists
Lawrence Auster, View from the Right blogger, has a long essay in Front Page Magazine on the failure of liberals and conservatives to recognize multiculturalism as their enemy.
Since multiculturalism claims to stand for the sanctity and worth of each culture, the discovery that its real tendency is to dismantle the existing European-based culture of the United States should have instantly discredited it. Yet it has not—not even among conservatives. A leading reason for this failure is that modern conservatives are themselves ethnicity-blind, democratic universalists. Their conservatism consists in seeing multiculturalism as an attack on their universalist tenets. They fail to understand multiculturalism as an attack on a particular culture and people, namely their own, because as universalists they either have no allegiance to that particular culture and people or their allegiance is defensive and weak. Thus the typical conservative today will say that multiculturalism is bad because "it divides us into different groups"—which is of course true. But he rarely says that multiculturalism is bad because "it is destroying our culture"—America's historic culture and civilization—since that would imply that he was defending a particular culture rather than a universalist idea. Because conservatives are unwilling to defend the very thing that multiculturalism is seeking to destroy, they are unable to identify the nature of multiculturalism and to oppose it effectively.
It is certainly the case that neoconservaties are universalists and highly ideological. In fact, neoconservatives are not really conservatives. They just decided they no longer fit on the political Left and included the word "conservative" in their name because that is what most (though not all) people on the Right call themselves. This has led to a lot of confusion which has benefitted the neocons as they have tried to co-op the rest of the Right to their causes.
Leaving aside the complex question of whether and under what conditions Western culture includes non-Westerners, the more immediate concern to us here is that Western culture is the culture of Westerners. Gates wants to include other cultures within Western culture so that the resulting hodgepodge will belong equally to everyone in the world. But—and this is the point overlooked both by the multiculturalists and their conservative universalist opponents—that means taking Western culture away from Westerners. The debate becomes a debate between the global multiculturalists on the left, and the global universalists on the so-called right, with no one standing up for the historical Western culture.
The universalist denial of the importance of cultural differences is a major (though not only) cause of splits on the Right between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives. The neoconservatives favor Open Borders and an aggressive military foreign policy aimed at spreading democracy. By contrast, the paleoconservatives are more interested in preserving our own culture and do not think there is a large set of universal values that we can convert the whole world to believe.
For the multiculturalists, Western individuality is nothing but a mask of illegitimate dominance, which must be stripped away. But for Westerners, Western individuality is an integral aspect of their being. Therefore to get rid of Western individuality (so as to include non-individualistic, non-Western cultures) is to destroy the very essence of Western people. Conservative critics of multiculturalism never grasp this fact, because, as universalists, the notion of a particularist Western essence is alien to them.
My only beef with Auster is that, contrary to his assertion (which is perhaps a necessary simplification and so this is more a quibble), there are conservative critics of multiculturalism who grasp that it is an enemy ideology. Granted, these conservatives have been marginalized by the neocons. But they exist. Granted, the paleos are nearly invisible in the mainstream media and even the neoconservatives pile on attacking their character labelling them racists and all sorts of other dirty words. But Auster ought to give a nod in their direction since they exist. I even suspect that in wake of the Iraq debacle and George W. Bush's idiotic immigration proposal their ranks are growing.
In the second part of his article Auster sees the fragmentation of political systems.
In every field one can think of, ranging from student groups to professional associations to legislative bodies, the former mainstream organization has been "quota-ized" via minority representation so that it no longer represents or can represent the traditional American majority culture, but only the idea of "diversity," while at the same time each of the minority groups has been granted the right to a separate and exclusive sub-organization to represent its racial interests. There is the Congressional Black Caucus that speaks for blacks as blacks, but no Congressional White Caucus that speaks for whites as whites; the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials that speaks for Hispanics as Hispanics, but no association of white elected officials that speaks for the interests of whites as whites; an Hispanic Journalists' Association, but no European-American Journalists' Association; black policeman's organizations, but no white policeman's organizations; an infinite number of nonwhite student organizations, but no white students organizations. And, of course, any attempt to create white-oriented organizations is stopped in its tracks by the same mainstream institutions that officially promote the development of non-white organizations.
If minority groups do not need to give up any aspect of their culture, as Ravitch and others have suggested, then it is hard to see why they shouldn't have their own systems of justice as well. Such an alternative system is already being practiced by black juries who refuse to convict their fellow blacks regardless of the evidence. Depending on the ethnic identity of the parties in a given case, there could be an African tribal council one day (complete with "enstoolment" ceremonies and ritual bows to ancestors), a Communist Chinese-style inquisition hearing the next day, a Mexican village-style gathering the next day, then an Iranian-style revolutionary tribunal presided over by a Mullah, then a trial with a black judge and jury getting revenge against the racist police. When things like this start happening, will the liberal believers in a pluralist civic culture—having encouraged non-Westerners to keep their language, dress, and folkways—cry out: "But this is not what I meant, not what I meant at all"?
That is not far-fetched. Ontario province in Canada has authorized the use of Sharia law in civil arbitrations. Of course the result will be the pressuring of Muslim women by their families to submit to Sharia court arbitration. In Canada this is the logical outcome of years of compromises with French Canadians (who may yet secede from Canada to form their own country) and native tribes as possessors of unique legally protected cultures. Increase (whether through teaching or immigration or both) the numbers of people who think of themselves as distinct enough to deserve special legal status and representation and the result will be rising levels of inter-group hostility and eventual break-up of a polity.
There is a conflict between group rights and individual rights and differences in cultures translate into incompatible desires for how to order society.
If there are no important differences between Western and other cultures, then no hard choices between Western and other cultures are necessary. When a niece of mine was in college she said to me: "Western culture is good, but others are good, too." Her point was that we should welcome all cultures and fear none. Like my niece, the typical moderate liberal cannot understand that certain differences may be irreconcilable. Confronted with dichotomies as old as the hills, the moderate innocently asks: "Why can't we have both? Why can't we have Western culture and multiculturalism? Why can't we have excellence and diversity?" When his wishful thinking collides with reality, he must resort to further evasions. Jim Bowman writing in the Chicago Tribune complained that advanced courses in the Oak Park elementary schools were being dropped because those classes tended to be all-white, which went against the school's goal of racial diversity in every classroom. "A good thing, diversity, is used as a club to bash another good thing, gifted or advanced classes." The schools, Bowman writes, "have elevated racial diversity (our civic religion) from a legitimate, permeating element to an illegitimate, all-encompassing one."(14)
But what is the difference between a "permeating" element and an "all-encompassing" one? Somehow Bowman imagines that the drive to establish proportional racial diversity in every niche of society is suddenly going to be abandoned when it threatens something he likes, such as advanced academic classes. Unable to grasp the radical essence of his own ideas, the moderate liberal always ends up believing that he can eat his civilization and have it.
This is where we are today. Moderate liberals think multiculturalism is not their enemy. Neoconservatives believe they can convert the world to their own universal culture by invading the world while simultaneously letting the world immigrate in massive numbers. They are both very wrong.
Auster agrees with Samuel P. Huntington on the importance of culture alongside creed.
Thus the multicultural ideology has advanced and entrenched itself through a variety of false and deceptive arguments, even as the leading spokesmen and ordinary members of the former mainstream culture have either actively subscribed to it or have failed, time after time, to understand what it was about and to confront it effectively. This failure is evidenced by the remarkable fact that while grassroots and Beltway activists have successfully organized themselves over the years to oppose such progressive innovations as Whole Language Learning, bilingualism, and the promotion of homosexuality in the schools, no activist organizations have come into being to fight multiculturalism as such.
And the reason the defenders of our culture, the so-called conservatives, have failed to oppose multiculturalism is that they themselves subscribe to radically liberal ideas that, without their realizing it, have for all intents and purposes defined our culture out of existence. To use Samuel Huntington's terms, today's conservatives define America almost exclusively in terms of its liberal, universalist creed rather than in terms of its historical, Anglo-Protestant culture; or, if they do claim to see America as a culture, they reductively define that culture as nothing more than the set of behavioral values needed to maintain a productive economy. Since modern conservatives see America in creedal rather than in cultural terms, when the culture began to be attacked,—through the subversion of classic works of literature, for example, or through the inclusion of cultural standards and perspectives wholly incompatible with our traditional values and sense of nationhood—many conservatives barely noticed or cared that this was happening.
Auster's lengthy essay is worth reading in full.
Unfortunately, I think one major problem with the elite is that many elites begin to see everyone as essentially like themselves, because they insulate themselves from the masses. Their contacts may be fairly diverse racially but are likely to be economically, intellectually, and culturally fairly uniform, fostering a view that there are no real or important differences either between individuals or especially average differences between groups. Such views not only lead to misguided notions of "social justice" (if society were really fair, everyone would be able to be just like the elites because everyone is really the same!), but also encourage support of open borders and multiculturalism. The elites are likely to support open borders for multiple reasons. First, many are likely to have hired unskilled workers for low wages, and don't really think of the fact that the work they have done for them super-cheaply is subsidized with the taxes they and others pay. Second, the members of immigrant groups they come into contact with that aren't doing their dirty work are likely to be like themselves--highly educated and well-off economically. The elites' insulation from the masses not only leads to a skewed view of the the populace in general but of immigrants as well, thus support of loose or open borders.
You have certainly put your finger on the problem, Randall. Owing to its committment to tolerance, and to the idea of "liberty and justice for all" as a universal value -- committments that I share by the way -- the liberal idea as it has evolved in the West, seems incapable of defending itself against the multi-culturalist challenge. Though I am not in a very articulate mood, let me say this: Part of the answer is a renewed emphasis on the importance of history in our public school curriculum. Our Western ideas of freedom and justice and human equality have their origins in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and in the Hebraic conception of God which is at the heart of that tradition. The separation of churlch and state does not mean we have to neglect to study of the faith of our fathers as the source of these values, nor does it mean ignoring the history of Christainity as the religion that inspired our ancestors in their long strugge to establish these values on earth. The Bible, in particular, is THE primary document in Western culture and civilization; whether or not it is the word of God, it is indisputably the word about God, and, as such, diserves to be at the very center of the curriculum. This, in my judgment, is one constitutionally permissable way to fight back, about which liberals anc conservatives should be able to agree.
"Their contacts may be fairly diverse racially"
I take it you've never been to Vermont or New Hampshire.
"but are likely to be economically, intellectually, and culturally fairly uniform"
The Elite support open borders but segregate themselves away.Trendy-left soccer moms in gated suburban communities do not have "Save The Earth" bumper stickers because they think their own SUV's should be banned.The Elites,as you define them,are not so naive,they in fact tend to be far most racist and class consious than any Archie Bunker type.Having a black maid would make them ideologically uncomfortable(tho they have managed neatly to reconcicle they're anti-capitalism with personal affluence),but a latina maid,well,that's what they do,it's why they're here,right?They are quite comfortable with a latin servant class.
Fifty years ago the elite experience of minorities was contact through servants, or service employees (doormen, janitors, etc.), or as laughable stereotypes on radio or in movies. There were very few minority doctors or lawyers or bankers or scientists. Many business and social organizations were segregated. The old mindset was “white male” culture is superior. (I’m simplifying, as there have always been movements that glorified the noble savage, the outlaw, and the rebel.) The multi-culturalism movement was useful to break down racial barriers, and gender barriers, and to break stereotypes. It made the US re-examine its values and beliefs and that was good.
However, now many people and groups have made careers out of the de-construction of “white male” culture. The US is always in the wrong and white men are always the villains. What started as a moral movement fifty years ago has become a monster in its own right.
From my perspective the anti-idiotarian movement is about rejecting PC thought control and multi-culturalism. Every culture, nation, religion, and race should be judged just as critically as Christianity, white men, and the US have been judged. No more free passes.
I don’t see the battle against multi-culturalism as being between neo-conservatives and conservatives, or between liberals and conservatives, or between democrats and republicans.
Many liberal democrats are dismayed by the “hate America” message getting play in the Democratic Party. Their dismay is causing them to re-evaluate mutli-culturalism. Bill Cosby’s remarks about blacks taking more responsibility for their own failures can be seen as a rejection of the “blame whitey” mentality.
I agree. Each of us has a limited number of models of humanity. If you work and socialize with intelligent, educated immigrants then they form your primary models.
"Their contacts may be fairly diverse racially"
I take it you've never been to Vermont or New Hampshire.
True, many elites do live in nearly all-white areas (though even these areas are likely to have some "token" minorities that can make the elites in such areas feel diverse). However, many other elites do not live in nearly all-white areas, especially those who live in or near cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Many college campuses (certainly in California) have a substantial if not majority nonwhite population, and surrounding areas are likely to be substantially nonwhite as well.
fwiw, this article was also published @thesocialcontract.com. And you get it all on one page which makes for easier reading.
What isn't expressed in your piece and why multiculturalism is so powerful is the role of feminism: specifically white feminism. Under the age old tactic of "splitting your enemy" this is what the multiculturalists have done effectively. It's tough to resist the tide of multiculturalism when half of your own blood is against you.
Both ethnic multiculturalists and gender ones have similar goals such as deposing the reigning literary canon in the curriculum in favor of their own. Whether their long term strategy is the same remains to be seen. It seems strange that radical feminists would go out on a limb defending things like honor killings in Jordan but feminists do see attacks on these practices as attacks on the brown 'Other' by white males.
Steve Sailer had an interesting insight about the OJ Simpson trial where Marcia Clarke went with an all black female jury gambling that the feminist appeal to the Sisterhood would trump the appeal to the race. As we know she lost. Race trumps gender in all ethnic communities. Why doesn't it in the white one?
Nowadays any younger male(paleo)conservative who challenges multiculturalism not only runs the risk of the usual slings and arrows (being denied tenure, not allowed to pracice one's profession a la Sam Francis, denied access to media channels (CNN, BBC) heavily censored against opposing views) he can bargain on an involuntary vow of celibacy.
Half the guys at these world summit protests are there only because that's where the girls are, not from any ideological committment.
Without grappling with feminism we are probably doomed. And how many non-religious conservatives even want to touch that, to assail feminism for alot of us would be like making war on ourselves.
Given this, any counterweight to multiculturalism can't just be built on the same old rational arguments against it - even when these arguments are made to emotional appeals to one's pride in culture etc.
Paleo's have got to learn to party!
One way to consider Auster's theme may be as multiculturalism being an equivocation, with conservatives being driven to connect to the more presentable side of the equivocation. Multiculturalism tries to value diversity of language ,customs, ideas and even behavior; but mainly genetic diversity in racial groupings. It is pro-diversity and anti-dominant; but it does not love the diversity. It hates the dominant. There can't be a diversity of truths which contradict each other; (that is) not logically. Shall we value and tolerate diversity of behavior, and of misbehavior, and the diversity of utterly subhuman misbehavior? Can diversity-enhancing attributes which take away from the value of something, also add to its value, at the same time and in the same respect? Repeating the above sentence with 'can multiculturalism-enhancing...', would reduce multiculturalism to a contradiction-in-terms. Yet the two terms (multiculturalism and diversity-valuing) are really interchangeable, as they are used today, aren't they?
I want to post about just a little part of you commentary on Auster text that interest me directly.
You write in : Comments: Lawrence Auster On Universalists And Multiculturalists
"That is not far-fetched. Ontario province in Canada has authorized the use of Sharia law in civil arbitrations. Of course the result will be the pressuring of Muslim women by their families to submit to Sharia court arbitration. In Canada this is the logical outcome of years of compromises with French Canadians (who may yet secede from Canada to form their own country) and native tribes as possessors of unique legally protected cultures."
The first "compromise" that Canada (in fact British government then ) give to "French Canadians" was by the Quebec Act of 1774 that permit the Canadiens (as French Canadians call themselves at thoses times) to be catholics in public and to use french language in public services. Thoses compromises was given to this conquered population that was then the great majority of the european population on Canada... Those compromises was also a tacit alliance between Brits and Canadiens against the American Revolution...
Many compromises was given or retired during the last two centuries (the last act was in 1981) to the "French Canadians" part of Canada, but suffice to say that the Canadian multiculturalism was an american imitation to abolish the traditional canadian "bicultural" concept. Instead of the traditional counpound compromise of bilingualism and biculturalism, the last was abolished for the profit of multicultural concept. So those "French Canadians should just be minorised to an another "Hyphen Canadian" (jewish-canadian, arab -canadian, chinese-canadian, etc.) and not stay the traditional partner of a Canadian nationalism against USA...The passage to bicultural to multicultural concept means now : "French Canadia gest lost you are of no use now and you are losers. Arabs and Chineses are better use for having babies and money"
At last I just want to remember you that "French Canadians" are from a "Western culture" and thoses "compromises" was "given" to peoples that are truly from the European Tradition. Perhaps as an adept of "anglospere" are you convinced that Catholic religion and French language and culture should not be included in the Western civilization. Myself I was educated in a French traditional "classic" college, with curses in french, english, latin, greek and italian languages and literatures and I had philosophical curses about St-Augustine, Thomas d'Aquino, Pascal, Voltaire, etc. So that was the kind of "French Canadians" that Anglo-Canada make "compromises" with long ago. So what is the problem if thoses compromises are make "inside" our cherised common Western culture? So I hope very much that your definition and Auster's one of Western culture are not limited to the Anglo-rican culture strictu sensu...
That evolution explain a little bit why French-Canadian nationalism is almost gone now. Actually it's replaced by a quebecer nationalism (a territorial nationalism instead of the old traditional ethnic-religious nationalist creed). It's because the old implicite canadian pact summarized before was unilaterally abolished by the now English-canadian majority in the constitutional amendment of 1981.
The problem with the concept of "multiculturalism" in USA (but much less in Canada) is that it lost almost any reference to western cultures (as plural cultures). It means that more and more of those western cultures are translated in english language only (because less and less second languages of the western cultures (sic) are learned in public or even private schools in USA) , and transmit more and more under caricatures by Hollywood or by American campus throught only "French deconstructionism or post-modernism" (those are long forgotten intellectual fashion now in France...). Actual Europena thoughts are not very well known in United States. Why bother about those cultures if it's only "Old Europe" and are of no practical use now? Get lost! In fact I read many specialised american periodicals and elite is less and less awared of the original european culture, and more instructed about an erzats version of it.
If I can make an analogy, we are old Greece (like "Old Europe"!?) and French Canada is like the colonial Sicily "Great Greece", conquered by Rome (anglo-ricans) and you forget that Rome, then and during centuries, make very good compromises with Greeks against the Barbarous, because they know very well that they both was inside the same "western civilisation". So in summary I suggest you just to learn a little more about your northern neighbors where it's supposed to happen nothing interesting, except the same cold weather upstairs...
I must say that in general I like your blog(s) and they are well written. And the comment about islamic civil tribunal in Ontario is truth. Sorry if on my side my english language is "couci-couca".
Louis Le Borgne
I understand that the French-speakers of Canada have had a number of legitimate complaints. I even sympathsize with their desire to maintain their distinct culture and language zone. One can make a good argument for the secession of the Quebecois from Canada precisely because their culture is sufficiently different from the Anglosphere culture of the rest of Canada.
But this all argues for my and Auster's position. When two different peoples are sufficiently different they do end up coming into deep conflict in the political realm. So why should a country inflict more such divisions upon itself?
Thanks for your comment. Just a last answer from me.
I agree with you about those much differences. But my post was just to remember you that the existence of Canada as a independant state is the result of those politics of compromises during these two centuries of british rules. So the compromises you mention was not resulting in problems for Canada but some kind of solution for the Brits and the loyalist exiles in Canada that feared the american revolution and later the american civil war.
An another difference with the so called multicultural policies in Canada applied to the French canadian case is about multuculturalism as individual rights that applied only for some categories of peoples (black, islamaic, latino etc) when in Canada the quebec question is about same, but different, rights for everybody in a specific territory of Canada (Quebec). For exemple french civil law applied for everybody in Quebec and only there. This kind of compromise is about federalism applied to linguistic minority, just like Porto Rico (yes I know it's not a state...) or like Belgium or Swisszerland or Spain or even United Kingdom with the Devolution in Scotland! It's about territorial minority policy and not about "luftmench" in the Pale (jewish statut in the prewar Poland ans Russia.
fundamentaly, I agree with your conclusion of the perverse consequences of multiculturalism because it have the same consequences in Canada and in Quebec, at the expense of the english version of the Western culture and of the french version of the same westerne culture.
Louis Le Borgne
The other point I'd make on this is that French and English cultures, which are, as you point out, both part of the West (and share considerable elements due to common Christian, Greek, and Roman, influences as well as other later intellectual influences) and yet are different enough to generate considerable political conflict when they co-exist in the same nation-state. So then that makes it crazy for Western nations to inflict upon themselves influxes of immigrants from cultures that are far far less compatible with Western cultures.
What I see as happening in Canada is that the intellectual arguments made for defending the continued existence of French culture in Canada have been extended to some generalized "all cultures are equal and equally deserving of existing in any society" which has been used to justify the influx of Muslims and others who have cultural differences that make the English-French squabbles seem small and tame by comparison.
More generally, cultural differences really do matter. There is not a single world culture and there will not be for a very long time - if ever. Conflicts over values and religious beliefs can not be wished away. One way to minimize the depth of these conflicts and the impositions of conflicting cultures is to keep them separated. Good fences make good neighbors and that applies between nations as well.
“One way to minimize the depth of these conflicts and the impositions of conflicting cultures is to keep them separated.”
In the early history of the global Internet it was commonly believed that people talking to people across the globe would lead to better understanding and hence to more tolerance and acceptance of different cultures.
The global Internet did lead to more communication and better understanding. Now an American could directly talk to a Frenchman, German, Brazilian, or Syrian and find out first hand what they thought about Americans and why. The clash of stereotypes, false information, willful blindness, and deep antagonism became obvious. Better communication and understanding did not lead to more tolerance and acceptance.
I expect the globalization of culture to be a wrenching process for all countries. (By globalization I don’t mean the disappearance of nations or cultures. I mean a common global culture that embraces many tolerant subcultures. I expect the intolerant or predatory subcultures to be isolated or destroyed.)
It is interesting that Randall Parker basically seems to identify the weakness of the mainstream conservative, aka neoconservative, critique of multiculturalism as basic to its acceptance of it, Re:
“And the reason the defenders of our culture, the so-called conservatives, have failed to oppose multiculturalism is that they themselves subscribe to radically liberal ideas that, without their realizing it, have for all intents and purposes defined our culture out of existence. To use Samuel Huntington's terms, today's conservatives define America almost exclusively in terms of its liberal, universalist creed rather than in terms of its historical, Anglo-Protestant culture; or, if they do claim to see America as a culture, they reductively define that culture as nothing more than the set of behavioral values needed to maintain a productive economy. “
Kevin MacDonald has thoroughly analyzed this weakness
Given that the continued existence of Judaism implies that the society will be composed of competing, more or less impermeable groups, the neoconservative condemnation of multiculturalism must be viewed as lacking in intellectual consistency. The neoconservative prescription for society embraces a particular brand of multiculturalism in which the society as a whole will be culturally fragmented and socially atomistic. These social attributes not only allow Jewish upward mobility, but also are incompatible with the development of highly cohesive, anti-Semitic groups of gentiles; they are also incompatible with group-based entitlements and affirmative action programs that would necessarily discriminate against Jews. As Horowitz (1993, 86) notes, "High levels of cultural fragmentation coupled with religious options are likely to find relatively benign forms of anti-Semitism coupled with a stable Jewish condition. Presumed Jewish cleverness or brilliance readily emerges under such pluralistic conditions, and such cleverness readily dissolves with equal suddenness under politically monistic or totalitarian conditions."
Kevin MacDonald in “Culture of Critique”, Last Chapter
Along with many other issues associated with the weaknesses of multiculturalism, which we discuss fairly often at Original Dissent (www.originaldissent.com)
Hi my name is Frank Tardy. I attend the Key learning Community. And we have this project on values and beliefs. And I wanted to know what Christaianity values and beliefs are. So if there is anything that you can tell me about christianity. That would help me on my project.Thanks you so munch/
Randall Parker criticizes my article on multiculturalism because I focus on the blindness of _conservatives_, rather than of _neoconservatives_, on this issue. I think Mr. Parker underestimates the extent to which ordinary, grass-roots, mainstream conservatives (not just neoconservatives) are a part of this problem. The problem is not just urban, largely Jewish and Catholic, neocons; the problem is grassroots, largely Protestant, Reaganite conservatives. There are mainstream conservative organizations opposing every kind of left-wing movement from Whole Language teaching to bilingualism to homosexual marriage. There are no mainstream conservative organizations devoted to opposing multiculturalism and reducing immigration. The issue is barely on their radar screen.
At bottom, they avoid the issue because it has to do with ethnicity and race. The core idea of modern mainstream conservatives (not just neoconservatives) is that ethnicity and race do not matter and that it's wrong and un-American to think they do. For them to admit that multiculturalism is aimed at destroying the historic culture of white America would require these conservatives to defend that culture rather than merely defending democracy or equal rights or free enterprise. This they are unwilling or unable to do. See my article, "Immigration and Multiculturalism: Why are the Conservatives silent"? http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/000637.html
The mainstream conservative movement has many times more followers than the neoconservative movement; it is the core of red-state America. Its failure to grasp the threat of multiculturalism is, in my opinion, the single greatest factor in the ongoing progress of multiculturalism. If the issue is to turn around, the mainstream conservatives are the only ones who can do it. As I write this weekend at View from the Right, the neocons will never do it, because they have no loyalty to the distinct historical civilization of Europe and the West.