2007 May 21 Monday
Immigration Makes Bush Defenders Into Enablers
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Congressional rush to pass a massive immigration amnesty is George W. Bush's deal with Senate Democrats on immigration and on Bush's total and absolute willingness to shaft and defy the Republican base on this issue. Steve Sailer asks why is Bush so incredibly willing to just totally ignore the wishes of the Republicans who elected him?
Still, you would think that the fact that a few of the ideas of
immigration skeptics like me made it into Kennedy-Bush bill (although
I'm sure they were put in by Senate Republicans like Sen. Kyl, not the
Administration) would have been used by the Bush Administration in an
attempt to butter up the immigration skeptic wing to not be so
immediately hostile to the bill. That's straight out of Lobbying 101 --
appeal to the ego of potential critics. Tell us we are helping make this
a better country through some of our brilliant ideas.
I certainly am not surprised I didn't get a get a phone call from
Karl Rove before last Thursday, trying to get me excited about bits of
the upcoming package, but, what about, say, Hugh
Hewitt or the National
boys? They've been good soldiers in the Bush Army, except on
immigration. So, why didn't they get a call?
The simplest answer seems to be that the Bush Administration is
deeply emotional about immigration, trumping even Iraq. On Invade the
World, Invite the World, the latter comes first in George W. Bush's
heart. They'll deal happily with Ted Kennedy, but if you don't toe the
Bush line on the borders, you are a bad, bad person.
The immigration issue, even more than Iraq, demonstrates how deep down Bush is not a conservative. He's a radical liberal who wants to remake the world. There's nothing conservative about his support for a massive demographic remaking of America.
The National Review gang have to be feeling betrayed at this point. No, Bush is not one of them. No, he does not heed their advice on the issue that works up the Republican base more than just about any other issue. I have a question for the National Review folks: Can you bring your selves to break with Bush, to totally withdraw your support from Bush? Can you bring yourselves to denounce George W. Bush and admit that he's been a disaster for the Republican Party, a disaster that looks set to scale up the damage he's done even higher? Can you bring yourselves to admit that Bushie wants to make a move that will make the Republican Party a permanent minority party?
One of the polemically talented defenders of the Bush Administration has been columnist Mark Steyn. I wish I could weave prose half as good as he can. Now Steyn is shocked by Bush's immigration stand and seems to have undergone a Damascene conversion on immigration policy. This is the same Mark Steyn that not that long ago managed to see three options for reducing the threat of Muslim terrorism, none of which was an end to Muslim immigration. Mark, has reality finally slapped you upside the head hard enough? Have you waken from the dream into the reality of the nightmare? Pretty grim reality, eh?
I remember when commentators on the Right used to claim that Hillary Clinton was an enabler for Bill's philandering. Well, Bush defenders, you are Bush's enablers. How does it feel to be George's bitches?
If you aren't George's bitch then get the phone numbers for both your Senators from the US Senate contact list. Make a call to tell them you oppose immigration amnesty. Do it first thing in the morning. Put the needed phone numbers in your pocket now. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list.. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121. Make the calls before work in the morning. Or take a break during the day and make some cell phone calls.
I'm optimistic. This was supposed to be the express train with unstoppable momentum, but it's on a sidetrack for a week or so they say.
I'm not weary, I'm ready to send even more messages to more traitors.
If they act like the foreigners have a say on how our government is run, but the citizens don't, even if for no other reason than but the laws and the rights empower the citizen,
I can still lobby them the same as a foreigner could.
Have people noticed the attempted disfranchising of the citizenry on this issue?
The more they try that, though, the more justification the citizen has to go and pressure them without regard to the niceties of who is one's Senator, and who isn't.
I have a number of Democrat friends who still despise the Clintons because of the damage they did to their party. In 1993, when Clinton became president, he had a majority in both houses of Congress. The Democrats had controlled the White House for only four of the preceding 24 years. It looked like the glory days had finally arrived for the Democrats. But after two years of the Clintons' antics, the Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 50 years and, even though Bill was reelected in 1996, the Republicans who controlled Congress spent their time blocking his programs and eventually impeaching him. In 2000, of course, the Clinton scandals probably cost the Democrats the presidential election. Now many of my Republican friends feel the same way about Bush. Following the 2004 election, it looked like the Republicans were set for life -- they controlled both Congress and the White House. But under Bush's capable leadership, they managed to fritter away every advantage, so that the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, not because they were so good, but because the Republicans were so bad. Many Republicans regard Bush the same way that Democrats regard the Clintons -- as shallow opportunists with little commitment to their parties' core values.
Randall, Mark Steyn seems to deserve more respectful treatment than this. He walks a fine line as regards what it seems he can and cannot usefully say at any given time. One of his tactics, in my opinion, is to attempt to make everyone aware of the problems, while deliberately withholding much of what he could say about solutions. This is a tactic that seems to serve his aims well; if he were to become a strong, public advocate of various specific solutions, his message about the problems themselves would be denied and attacked by people made morally indignant by the proposals. Give some consideration to the fruitless work of Pat Buchanan and the causes of his failure. Give some consideration also to Spinoza's advice, "Ad captum vulgi loqui."
I do not buy your argument. He basically can't say anything useful if he follows the guidelines you think he has to follow.
I also think you are wrong on the facts. Look at Lou Dobbs. Has he gotten marginalized by being an immigration restrictionist? Nope. As for Pat Buchanan: Yes, he's so marginalized that he only gets to go on cable TV political debate shows and get time to spew extremely immigration restrictionist positions. I just saw him on either MSNBC or Fox less than a week ago and he was getting more than a quarter of the time with 3 other panelists. Didn't seem marginalized to me.
I figure the conservative commentator who do not argue for a lower level of immigration support it for the most part.
I share John's optimism. It's not just Steyn who appears to have undergone a conversion on the road to Damascus--Rush Limbaugh has been fabulous on S1348, from it being the death knell of the Republican Party to it being a guarantee of future race-based politics to it being a desire for big business to have second-class serf labor to it lowering the standard of living for natives. He's been hitting hard. For most of the Bush Presidency, he's been an Administration rah rah.
Lots of people are jumping from Bush's sinking ship. The only legislation he can push are his most leftist ideas. His approval rating is hovering around 30%. The 'surge' has, predictably, not been able to overcome the intractable aspects of Iraqi society that make a functioning non-authoritarian state impossible. The Presidential candidates are moving to the right on immigration, and virtually all of the 'conservative' movement's populist leaders are going with them.
I can't do better in regard to Mark Steyn than to recommend that one read his America Alone. It's best read with an eye for detail and in light of the consideration that Steyn can say whatever he thinks fit, whatever at all he thinks fit, because he's liberated himself from the merely conventional demand to be blunt.
Lawrence Auster has done a great job critiquing Mark Steyn's writings on Islam and the problems from Muslim immigration. See here for some of Auster's critiques of various of Steyn's writings.