2006 April 30 Sunday
Dennis Dale On Neoconservatives

Dennis Dale, author of the Untethered blog, reacts to a recent David Brooks column where Brooks tried to argue that multiculturalism is dead. Dale says that identity politics is alive and well and the neoconservatives use the language of the leftists.

To be conservative is to seek the conservation of one’s civilization. It was once a given that this meant preserving morality, language, and customs while placing a high value on citizenship; the antithesis of multiculturalism. Conservatives, long ago grown weary of playing the heavy, have by now so completely absorbed the language of the opposition, trying to out-empathize the left, that they no longer recognize a challenge to civil society when they see it; indeed, in their zeal to prove their anti-racist bona fides they now join in its dismantling. The immigrants are more virtuous than the rest of us argument so gracelessly and naively offered by conservatives of Mr. Brooks' type is no less a refutation of American society than the codified cultural self-loathing of the shrillest leftist. Multiculturalism dead? I’d say it’s arrived.

Indeed, Brooks and a shocking number of his fellow “conservatives” are exhibiting many of the same zombie-like symptoms of the insensate left: imperviousness to reason, incommunicability, and inability to sense pain (inflicted on others that is; their own, well). They are gleefully joining the surging mass of walking dead as they besiege the isolated farmhouse of reason that you and I, my friend, are frantically boarding up. Duck for a moment would you? Got him. As I was saying.

He writes very well and his whole essay is worth a read.

Dennis notes the open borders Republicans use a lot of the same language that the left uses to attack those who wish to defend their country from the Hispanic onslaught.

The open-borders Republicans long ago adopted the insinuations and invective of the Left. A popular conservative blog, one that specializes in quoting articles at length and appending a sentence or paragraph of affirmation or ridicule, so regularly mingles the epithets of the left, racist, islamophobe, etc., with the neo/theo-conservatives' own curious inventions, nativist, realist, hyper-rationalist, that if it wasn’t for their pathological to-the-death defense of the slowly unfolding catastrophe that is the Bush Presidency a visitor might think he had wandered into the blog of an earnest young campus radical.

One reason the liberals have a hard time mounting effective critiques of Bush's Iraq debacle is that Bush uses very liberal-left language to defend it. He claims anyone who would argue that the Iraqis don't have what it takes to be Jeffersonian democrats are being racists. He uses the same language when arguing for open borders.

Lots of conservatives who are afraid of being called racist (and I'm clearly not in their ranks) shrink from making an empirical rational argument against this sort of nonsense. My argument to them: If you put your patriotism ahead of your fears you will challenge their assumptions about human nature and use real evidence about human differences to fight against the idiocy of Bush, the neocons, and the Open Borders libertarians. Nothing less than the truth can win the battle.

Hispanics are fighting for the power to become privileged minorities eligible for the same racial preferences blacks get. Every amnestied illegal and every child born in this country to an illegal is a future claimant on racial preferences for jobs, university admissions, and other slots.

Multiculturalism has in fact achieved a great deal; now one need not even be a citizen to feel that he, by virtue of his sense of racial solidarity, is entitled to not only the same rights as a citizen but to special considerations above and beyond that. As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, under current affirmative action policy an illegal immigrant amnestied by something like the Kennedy/McCain Bill will instantly become eligible for preferential treatment as an assumed victim of white American discrimination and its “legacy.” How’s that for dead, Mr. Brooks?

Racial conflict will rise as whites become another one of Amy Chua's "market dominant minorities". Declining living standards and racial conflict are in America's future unless we build a wall, deport the illegals, and cut way back on legal immigration as well.

In an earlier post Dennis quoted from Francis Fukuyama's break with the neoconservatives.

"The End of History," in other words, presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism. In the formulation of the scholar Ken Jowitt, the neoconservative position articulated by people like Kristol and Kagan was, by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support.

Think about that. One neocon splits from the movement because while he finds his own Marxist style of analysis acceptable he thinks his fellow travellers are Leninists and that embracing Leninist modes of thinking amounts to a bridge too far. This has what to do with Burkean conservatism? The mind boggles. On the bright side Fukuyama draws needed attention to the leftist roots of neocon thought.

I think the current neocons deceive and use conventional conservatives for their own purposes. The Democrats have become too anti-militaristic for neocon purposes. Hence the embrace of the Republicans who are much more fond of guns and soldiers. Don't be their tools. Reject these guys.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 April 30 07:58 PM  Immigration Societal Decay

John S Bolton said at May 1, 2006 3:01 AM:

Multiculturalism, as pro-diversity, is anything but dead, if it has even the representatives of the right, on puppet strings, pretending that immigrants are better than citizens, just by being diverse.
Consider the contradiction-in-terms here: every country would have to have the worst people in the world, if immigrants, through their very nature as bearers of immigrant diversity, must improve that country by immigrating.
The false dilemma of: either traitorous anti-nationalism, to the extent of making excuses for any immigration cohorts' aggression and failings; or violent, murderous nationalism, should be obvious to everyone, as an abuse of intellectual capacities.
Neocons don't dare to demand an end to bilingual education, which shows how wretchedly and ignorantly they cower before a multiculturalism, which is more than lively enough to extract gross appeasement from the neocons.
We're all about getting the Hispanic vote, we love immigrants, the more diverse the better, we hate the fat selfish white

man, and so on, in the neocon chorus of blind appeasement of overbearing multiculturalism.
Brooks seems to be admitting that Hispanic immigrants are low-income and have more children than the citizenry.
Somehow these get turned into virtues, even though to have those characteristics itself shows mass aggression by such immigration cohorts on the net taxpayer.
We owe loyalty to our fellow citizen, the net taxpayer, when he is attacked by net public subsidy-grabbing immigrants in that way.
Brooks reads himself outside the nation by taking the side of the foreign aggressors against our fellow nationals, since the nation cannot mean less than that we owe such loyalty.

KD Fillion said at May 1, 2006 3:16 AM:

My feeling on this matter and those of many of the Legal United States citizens are that if you came into this country illegally you had expectations of possible deportation... And the American Law enforcers should deport you and rightfully so as you broke the laws of our country coming into it by illegal means; immediatly making you criminals in the United States. If I am to understand this correctly, you also feel you should not have to addapt to our country's language, customs, laws, recieve our hard erned tax money in the form of family destress relief *aka lowered housing, food stamps, medicare, medicaid, etc*.

Why should you be allowed to recieve all the benifits of any upstanding citizen, who has not broken the laws, paid taxes all of their lives, addapted to speaking the national language while soluting our flag with The Pledge Of ALLEGIENCE and National Anthem *the way it was written by our founding fathers*, While your families work under the table, not paying taxes, refusing to addapt to the country you have chosen to live in, but demanding that we all addapt to your lack of fortatude and learn your language.

I think that the NIS should be out during these "free speach ralleys" to check green cards! I feel that if they walk off their jobs to incite civil unrest, that they should no longer have employment to return to. Is this going to hurt the business owners/sure it will. They will no longer be able to ignore the base wage laws and tax laws because their will no longer be illegal help for them to hire to do the little jobs that they could pay less than to a licensed contractor or legally hirable employee to perform. But without the enablers, there would be no under the table jobs for them to illegally immigrate to our country to take. Forget Amnesty Mr. Bush, do your JOB and protect our country!!!

Randite said at May 1, 2006 11:04 AM:

"Declining living standards and racial conflict are in America's future unless we build a wall, deport the illegals, and cut way back on legal immigration as well."

Randall, I'm glad you added in the 3rd part here, the part about cutting way back on legal immigration, now at one and half million people per year. This is probably the least-mentioned aspect of immigration reform, but it's by far the most necessary. I've become a bit worried with all the focus on the illegals lately to the exclusion of the legal quotas problem, and particularly with the foolish attempt to differentiate "legal" (in these high numbers) as "good" vs. the supposedly bad illegals. In reality, because of the old big-chain-immigration provisions stretching back to 1965, misuse of the 14th amendment, and other abuses, the legal immigrants are as much or even more hostile than the illegals. If we focus entirely on illegals but fail to curb the numbers of legals, we'll achieve nothing of consequence. Whites in the US will still become a minority in a couple decades or so, and the country will fall apart. The answer isn't to push all kinds of "assimilating" things onto the unmanageably high numbers of legals, the answer is to reduce their arrivals in teh first place.

Mik said at May 1, 2006 12:55 PM:

What conservative blog article is refering to?

JohnS said at May 1, 2006 4:13 PM:

The chain migration multiplier is estimated to be about 5 (5 family members allowed in per 1 legal immigrant). While many of these illegals have family members already in the US, I think a multiplier of 3 is decent conservative estimate. Official census estimates are ~ 11 million illegals, my guess is that the number is 20 million or higher (as estimated by Bear Stearns). The 1986 amnesty was estimated to be for 1.5 million and the real number is 3 - 5 million, which shows census estimates are absolutely unreliable and understate the true number.

The American people have no idea what is about to happen and the pollsters never paint the true picture of what this amnesty will bring.

We're talking an additional 50 million plus legal immigrants via the chain in the next 10-15 years. This excludes the large increases in legal immigration that are part of the Senate bill. This excludes what's certain to be a rush on the borders as effective border enforcement has never been carried out before.

The implications of this are so big its hard to imagine what's going to happen.

Jorge D.C. said at May 1, 2006 6:14 PM:

Along with Mik I am also wondering what is the "conservative" blog in question. It could be James Taranto's Best of the Web at the Wall Street Journal site.


WSJ is ostensibly financially conservative - whatever that means. On cultural issues Taranto and everyone else over there are transnational neocons. The concept of conserving culture and enforcing borders are fundamentally alien to them. To these "conservative" elites in New York City, America is a "Proposition Nation". Which is just more diluted blank slate (cultural) marxism.

The blog in question could certainly be something else. But Best of the Web fits the description by Dale. A lot of people have no idea how popular the Wall Street Journal is: it's #2 ranked just behind the USA Today by daily circulation in the country I believe. But probably the USA Today circulation numbers include massive numbers of complimentary papers delivered to hotel rooms etc.

...accuracy in newspaper circulation figures is another interesting topic.

noone said at May 1, 2006 6:39 PM:

For those still deluded by GOP propoganda,try this from the poison pen of liberal GOP neo-con statist David Frum:


"The retirement of the baby boomers is now closely pending?and the time in which they could make adjustments to altered programs has drastically shrunk. The Medicare program has been vastly expanded by the Bush administration?and Social Security reform collapsed without so much as a bill ever being introduced into Congress. Defense budgets, which dropped from 6% of GDP in the mid-1980s to 3% in the late 1990s, have recovered to about 4.5% of GDP and will likely remain at that level for many years to come. And deficits in the $400 billion range not only preclude future tax cuts ? but also raise real doubts about the sustainability of the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the pressures for even further expansion of government are gathering. Health care costs bear ever more heavily on the middle-class: Rising health burdens help explain why wage growth has stalled despite strong overall economic growth. The ranks of the uninsured continue to grow.

The tax bite is pre-programmed to gulp down ever greater portions of individual income. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, and the Alternative Minimum Tax applies to ever more millions of upper-middle-class families.

The free-trade momentum of the 1990s has likewise evaporated. American policy has turned in a protectionist direction since 2001: steel tariffs, the abuse of ?mad cow? disease to bar Canadian beef from US markets, and so on. Populist-nationalist governments have come to power in Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and (likely) soon in Mexico, dooming President Bush?s once-bright hopes for a Free Trade Area of the Americas."

He's justifying the sell out of conservative voters.

"Whether you interpret these facts, as say Bruce Bartlett does, as a deliberate betrayal of the Goldwater-Reagan-Gingrich limited government agenda ? or as an unfortunate series of unintended consequences?the result is more or less the same:
The fairest chance to achieve the limited-government agenda passed with only very limited conservative success.
The state is growing again?and it is preprogrammed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise."

It's inevitable,so lie back and enjoy it.

"So what does that leave?
Two things I?d say.
One is memory."

Let the band play as the boat sinks and we all ponder the glorious days when we coulda been a contendah.

"The second possibility is that conservatism will live on as a tendency within both parties rather than as a compact and self-conscious movement in control of one of them. And again the parallel may be with the Whigs and Progressives."

Please forward all mail for Mr. Frum to the DNC,as he clearly intends to declare free agency and sell himself to the highest bidder.

I think I'm going to vomit.The depth of the parties betrayel is breathtaking,even the old Byzantines would be shocked at this naked kiss off.

JohnS said at May 1, 2006 8:44 PM:

I guess Frum has changed his tune because over at NRO he's a restrictionist now.

Jorge D.C. said at May 2, 2006 2:03 AM:

Let the band play as the boat sinks and we all ponder the glorious days when we coulda been a contendah.

The implications of this are so big its hard to imagine what's going to happen.

...and the country will fall apart.

Don't give up!

The biggest victories in this war will be gifts from the other side and we got a huge one this past week: the Spanish language version of the national anthem produced by a left wing maniac foreign record producer. What a gigantic misstep!

And the rallies are backfiring bigtime. Remember: in the struggle for control of the USA, the Left is chronically hampered by their own impossible-to-conceal hatred of the USA.

So after monitoring the cable news media on this important day I can say that American patriots are facing an uphill struggle for sure. But there are some signs of life...



Lou Dobbs is kicking ass on his own show and also turned in a heroic performance as a guest on Larry King's show tonight. This guy Dobbs is a true American patriot, and when he jumps into the fray on one of these talk shows where there are two or three transnationalist bullshitters spewing their nonsense, it is truly an intellectual smackdown.

Anderson Cooper actually delivered an in-depth and very fair story on the Minutemen building a symbolic section of border fence.

I stumbled on the Nancy Grace show on headline news and Dobbs was a guest there also. Apparently Dobbs was working overtime on this very important media spin day. Too bad Nancy Grace represented the classic female view even though she was formerly a prosecutor. Her comments were soft, bleeding heart stuff. I've never seen her show before but I know from experience that there are no female talk show hosts that are going to report on the immigration issue with the logical side of their brain. Sorry but that is truth. Depending on women to enforce the law is like depending on men to vacuum the house.

FOX News:

O'Reilly is pretty good on the immigration issue.

Hannity is good on immigration as far as I know.

Unfortunately Brit Hume is a disgrace on the immigration issue. His panel discussion tonight was a kibuki dance. Actually uncomfortable to watch. Brit Hume and Fred Barnes and their paymaster Murdoch just wish the immigration issue would go the hell away. It's written all over their faces.


This network gets very low ratings despite the financial genius of Bill Gates. So for what it's worth Tucker Carlson is pretty good on immigration.


So there are some bright spots. But the primetime network news shows are a monolithic force of Leftist gruel as far as I know. And they still have the vast majority of viewers.

The scariest aspect of the media situation is the hard Left female slant of the morning news shows. If your wife or mother or girlfriend or daughter is clueless about immigration it could be that her main source of "hard" news is Katie Couric or Good Morning America etc. The power and influence of these morning shows is real.

I wrote my congressmen today. I hope all you lurkers will do the same. The looming amnesty is bigger issue than any supreme court appointment or the War in Iraq. The resulting chain-migration will mean 30-40 million more new Left-leaning citizens if amnesty goes through. We will blow right past the demographic tipping point of no return.

Conservatism will go into permanent exile in most if not all of the larger states - as it has in California - if amnesty happens. The stakes couldn't be higher. Yes, things look iffy now. But think about how the argument has evolved in only the past 12 months. The tide is slowly turning against the post-nationalists. It will be a very interesting election in November. The Open Borders crowd is scared.

Now is the time to get angry and get involved...and not throw in the towel.

JohnS said at May 2, 2006 5:17 AM:

Jorge, I wish I could share your "glass half full" view. By the time the American people really understand what is happening it will be too late. There's no way to put the genie back in the bottle once it's out. Retroactive nullification of chain migration will be impossible to get through. Once the Democrats have their permanent, multicultural/racial majority they will be impossible to stop. This welfare state will collapse under its own weight at some point. Maybe then conservatism will reappear but not even that is certain.

We do have freedom of movement and I plan to seek out and move to an area with a lot of open space, expensive real estate, and good local government that will enforce density limits. The mountain states are going to see substantial inflows, imo. The balkanization of this country is probably inevitable, it's time to plan ahead for this. It's probably wise for anyone with substantial wealth to begin to think about an offshore plan to protect some assets as well.

Rick Darby said at May 2, 2006 6:24 AM:

The next few weeks will probably be decisive. Yesterday, of course, the demonstrations dominated the media coverage. But every action brings a reaction. That may be less dramatic but no less powerful. The open borders forces can't hold a demo every day, but immigration restrictionists can keep up a steady pressure.

Randall, I agree with Randite: you are one of the few to make the important point that it isn't just illegal immigration that's the problem. If every illegal left tomorrow, we'd still be in trouble.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©