Even assuming you aren’t striving for absolute perfection, I don’t believe that you could achieve the immediate and permanent expulsion of the vast majority of illegal aliens except by imposition of martial law or other police state measures. Anything short of that will already begin to include trade-offs: Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi, you’re willing to forgive and forget to some greater or lesser extent.

I stand by that statement in its entirely: The idea of an immediate and permanent expulsion of all (or, as I said, the vast majority of) illegal aliens is lunacy. The idea of the “letter of the law” enforced to the last violator, without exception or compromise, is likewise lunacy – in every province of the law. An unwillingness to acknowledge the necessity of some trade-offs in any law enforcement regime, that some violators of the law will escape punishment, that any attempt at universal enforcement of virtually any form of law-breaking (from jaywalking to tax evasion to murder) is lunatic or extremist. Some murderers will get away with murder – always. Perfect justice is not achievable by human beings, and the few times anyone has tried to get near it are usually referred to as “reigns of terror.”

For the rest of the context, you can just re-read the relevant section of the original post: There are no absolutes on this one. No one has an absolute moral high ground. It’s a simple point that a child should be able to understand. Suggesting that anyone who asserts it must be Nazi-baiting like a “lefty” is either careless or dishonest – or, to add another alternative, maybe just dense.

Have you been following Blogging the Qur’an?… there were a couple of places where a scripture quoting Christian was exactly what was called for …places where questions or assertions went unanswered. I for one would LOVE it if you’d comment over there!

Auralae on May 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM

Hey, Auralae, hope you’re doing well. I haven’t really followed the Blogging the Qur’an section all that much. Not that the topic doesn’t interest me. Maybe I’ll add a few comments in the future.

(oh-and feel free to quote to your heart’s content to me – I love it!)

Looks to me like you love truth and anybody who loves truth is a friend of mine.

Here is your exact quote – “Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi, you’re willing to forgive and forget to some greater or lesser extent.”

By all means, provide the missing “context” for your statement.

Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi

Yes, yes, yes. We are all familiar with how to lefties, all conservatives are either nuts or Nazis.

The typical carelessness – or is it just pointless dishonesty – of that comment and the tactic it represents, extracting a fragment from its obvious context in order to make a hypocritical attack, is why in the future I will refrain from wasting any more time trying to take you seriously, flenser.

As I indicated above – and as Michael Novak in particular helps to explain

I think it needs to be stressed that Catholicism is NOT conservatism. Novak seems like a good guy, but his views are no guide to what political conservatives believe.

And you don’t mention what was “dubious” about the links I gave to Reagan and jefferson.

it’s ludicrous to suggest that you alone possess the definitive summary and distillation of the collected works of Buckley, Kirk, Ronald Reagan, and on and on.

I’ve read them. You, I strongly suspect, have not. So I’ll tell you what they said, and give you page numbers or links if you need them.

I take it you’ve never read THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM

Oh, so now we’re ok again with “dubious appeals to authority”? I’m getting whiplash here. Why not simply say “Do as I say, not as I do”?

It’s amusing that you’ll reject people like Kirk and Nisbet, but you think Novak is a good guide to American conservatism. Hint- “democratic capitalism” is not conservatism. It’s not liberalism. It’s not libertarianism. And it’s not Catholic or Christian either. It’s one of the goofy abstract ideologies Reagan condemed.

In short, there is no inherent reason why assimilating even very large numbers of Latin Americans, even to the point that they constituted an ethnic plurality of the population, would have to alter the nature of the United States in a truly fundamental way

That’s a matter of quasi-religious belief for you. But by definition, the reason China is the way China is, is because it’s full of Chinese people, who think and act the way they do.

If you fill America with different people it will by definition be different. You can’t simultaneously sing the praises of change and go on about how America is defined by change and how we need immigration because change is good, and then try to insist that immigration won’t change America.

Well, you can, because you are doing just that. But you are contadicting yourself badly.

Perhaps you can name a significant set of laws that have ever been enforced perfectly and completely.

Perhaps you can name a single set of laws in American history which have been broken more consistently, with government assistance, than our immigration laws these last thirty years. Nobody is asking that they be enforced perfectly, and it’s dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. It would be nice if they were enforced about as much as the laws against selling cigarettes to minors, for instance.
]

Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi

Yes, yes, yes. We are all familiar with how to lefties, all conservatives are either nuts or Nazis.

I don’t believe that you could achieve the immediate and permanent expulsion of the vast majority of illegal aliens except by imposition of martial law

Again, this is stupifyingly dishonest. You already know the response to this silly strawman you tossed out. So why say it? Does it give you some sort of emotional pleasure?

You’re very concerned with labels, and seem to claim for yourself the ability to decide who is and is not a conservative or a liberal.

As usual, your hypocrisy is breathtaking. You are the one who decided that he would describe what is and what is not conservatism. I’m simply correcting some of your misconceptions.

As I indicated above – and as Michael Novak in particular helps to explain – I don’t believe that American conservatism reduces without remainder to the protection of classical liberal values, or can ever be a completely abstract ideal devoid of cultural (or moral, ethical, and historical) content, but it’s not and can’t be exclusionary on the basis of “race, color, or creed” either, and in my opinion it even more certainly can’t be reduced to some privileged, quasi-mythical racial-cultural essence. If my position makes me less a conservative in your eyes, then we’ll have to differ, for, if I have understood you correctly, then you believe something that I consider to be both deeply un-American and profoundly un-conservative in an American context.

God, you’re a long winded bore. You go on for paragraphs in order to express a six word concept.

To the extend that the Founders were “classical liberals”, it’s important to observe that todays “classical liberalism” has little resemblence to the liberalism of the late 18th century. The Founders may have been “classical liberals”. You can argue that Burke was a “classical liberal”. But classical liberalism was not remotely as equalitarian or as individualistic as the modern so-called “classical liberals” like to think.

Again, simply reading Madison in the Federalist papers would make this clear. The Founders “classical liberalism” was indifferent, even hostile, to the universalist ideas you and the other modern “classical liberals” are tossing around. Read Federalist #54, then try to square it with your grand sweeping ideas of a brotherhood of man.

This ideology is nowadays sometimes referred to as “classical liberalism” in order to distinguish it from 20th Century American liberalism, which has been shaped by history and practice, not to mention the influence of Progressivist and other, mainly leftwing influences, into something very different.

As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about. Modern left liberalism is a close cousin to you and your ideas. They have simply carried your ideas to their logical conclusion.

I’m also not interested on page 7 of a dying thread in addressing your multiple impertinent or simply ill-founded asides and quibbles, much less in starting up a little food fight with MR PC, who appears to have appointed himself unofficial CK MacLeod scold.

I believe that the crux of our disagreement is first in the greater weight you put on what, in order to avoid buzzwords, we can perhaps call the objective cultural content of conservatism in the American context. I think that we both believe that there is more to American conservatism than affinity with some abstract American idea or appreciation for the mechanics of a checks-and-balances governmental system. You appear, however, to operate under a more strict, if never precisely delineated definition of what that cultural inheritance consists of, and you also appear to conceive of it as much more vulnerable to dissolution and devaluation.

Finally, you appear to believe that immigration – and by no means just illegal immigration, as you’ve underlined above in your response to Johan Klaus – poses the single greatest threat to this all-important cultural inheritance, and that the greatest immigration “problem” is the one caused by Latin Americans. You say:

The culture of Latin America is not conducive to our way of life. It is not conducive to “democratic capitalism”. A glance at Latin America should make this obvious to you.

I take it you’ve never read THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM, since the greater resistance to democratic capitalism on the part of Catholic and other cultures, as compared to predominantly Protestant and also Jewish cultures, is one of the book’s major themes. However, the fact that the author himself is a Catholic, as well as the obviously more important fact that recognizably democratic capitalist cultures have taken root in Catholic as well as in largely non-Judeo-Christian cultures (in Japan and South Korea, for instance), demonstrates that there are no absolutes in this matter. I guess it also needs to be said that there are numerous successful individuals of Latin American derivation living in the present-day USA, along with other individuals from groups that would be considered even more resistant to assimilation.

In short, there is no inherent reason why assimilating even very large numbers of Latin Americans, even to the point that they constituted an ethnic plurality of the population, would have to alter the nature of the United States in a truly fundamental way – unless you believe that the United States is (like most nations) primarily the expression and possession of a particular ethnic group or culture. This view – “all men are created equal, though my ethnic group is more equal than others” – would put you, in my opinion, far outside the mainstream of American political life. If that is what you believe, I strongly doubt that all of the individuals whose authority you invoke would be glad about the association.

You’ll have to explain to me how enforcing the law will “destroy the country”. If I cheat on my taxes, will it “destroy the country” if I am prosecuted for it? If not, why will enforcing the law with respect to illegal aliens and illegal employers do so?

Depends upon what you mean by “enforcing the law.” Perhaps you can name a significant set of laws that have ever been enforced perfectly and completely. Even assuming you aren’t striving for absolute perfection, I don’t believe that you could achieve the immediate and permanent expulsion of the vast majority of illegal aliens except by imposition of martial law or other police state measures. Anything short of that will already begin to include trade-offs: Unless you’re either a nut or a Nazi, you’re willing to forgive and forget to some greater or lesser extent.

On this note, you ask your questions about taxes backwards. The issue isn’t whether a given individual should or shouldn’t be prosecuted for tax evasion. The comparison would be to a regime aimed at enforcing all tax laws to the letter on every single person subject to them. Because such a goal would be absurdly impractical (without massively altering the laws), we accept that in the real world many, many people will get away with evading full payment of the taxes that they lawfully owe.

I know of no one in the mainstream of the immigration debate who is really contemplating full enforcement of all laws regardless of cost and effect. No can realistically claim to occupy some absolute moral high ground vis-a-vis “respect for the law.” There will always be compromises and revisions, means and ends. Alteration of impractical laws is always an alternative when they are regularly violated and can’t be enforced.

In the expectation or at least the hope that this will be my final contribution on this thread, I’ll close by answering the question you posed regarding my views of the differences between liberalism and conservatism. You’re very concerned with labels, and seem to claim for yourself the ability to decide who is and is not a conservative or a liberal. You may again be disappointed with my replies, however, as they’re not very unconventional or unusual.

In one of my earlier posts, I offered a shorthand version of what I believe conservatism means in the American context. Even shorter: Unlike conservatives in other countries and traditions, American conservatives have the ideas of the founding, the so-called American experiment, to conserve.

The American founding has sometimes been associated with the ideas of the European Enlightenment, as well as with the ideas of the ancient democracies, but it’s also associated with values and political mechanisms (representative government, freedom of speech and conscience, etc.) conventionally referred to as “liberal” in the 19th Century context. This ideology is nowadays sometimes referred to as “classical liberalism” in order to distinguish it from 20th Century American liberalism, which has been shaped by history and practice, not to mention the influence of Progressivist and other, mainly leftwing influences, into something very different.

All of the Founders were liberals in this classic sense of the term, in that preserving and protecting “liberty” was one of their chief preoccupations, arguably their central preoccupation. In that sense, the United States has been and, thankfully, remains a liberal nation. However, that also means – and it’s only superficially a paradox to say so – that maintaining classically liberal values and civic life is in the United States a conservative project.

As I indicated above – and as Michael Novak in particular helps to explain – I don’t believe that American conservatism reduces without remainder to the protection of classical liberal values, or can ever be a completely abstract ideal devoid of cultural (or moral, ethical, and historical) content, but it’s not and can’t be exclusionary on the basis of “race, color, or creed” either, and in my opinion it even more certainly can’t be reduced to some privileged, quasi-mythical racial-cultural essence. If my position makes me less a conservative in your eyes, then we’ll have to differ, for, if I have understood you correctly, then you believe something that I consider to be both deeply un-American and profoundly un-conservative in an American context.

And when somebody ignores the distinction between illegal and legal immigration, you know they aren’t arguing in good faith.

“The rule of law cover.” Priceless!

apacalyps

,
have you been following Blogging the Qur’an?

I had to catch up there–it took me quite a while to read every single comment…but there were a couple of places where a scripture quoting Christian was exactly what was called for…places where questions or assertions went unanswered. I for one would LOVE it if you’d comment over there! (oh-and feel free to quote to your heart’s content to me–I love it!)

techno_barbarian,

Glad I lurked! I’ll take your requests to apacalyps to heart, as I’m of a similar bent…I love including scripture in my posts…not to lecture in any way-it’s just, well, it makes my heart sing! –but I understand completely where you’re coming from, things like tone, inflection, etc just can not be communicated clearly in this medium, and an apparent lecture, or condescension of any kind can be very offensive; whether intentional or not. I’m with apacalyps, I view myself as in the company of some of the vilest of sinners…which I guess is why I’m so very grateful for His grace
.

Doctor Zero on May 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM

For example, if a secular candidate gave a reasoned speech in favor of the pro-life position, without using any religious language, the Religious Right would, on the whole, be pleased to support that candidate, and many swing voters might be convinced as well. On the other hand, giving the same argument wrapped in Biblical verse really doesn’t make the RR any happier, but it drives off the swing voters in droves. The Religious Right sincerely cares about its issues, not flattery of its religious sensibilities. They sure won’t say “no” to a nice big helping of that flattery, but it’s the sugary dessert at the end of a three-course meal – they don’t really need it, and they can live without it.

. AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Yep-Doctor Zero, you’re my hero too!

flenser,

The shy easily startled part of me would of course much prefer a less abrasive debating style (yes, on the part of both sides) but I have enjoyed especially these later posts.

Any and all ad hominem attack really puts me off. Other than that, this has been a great thread!

I would like to mention that illegal immigration crosses the conservative/liberal spectrum more than we might realize. My Dad describes himself as a “knee jerk liberal” quite proudly (a state employee of over thirty years, a social worker) and my Mom, a registered Democrat, herself a adult basic education teacher–including English as a Second Language–both of them–from EXPERIENCE are more anti-illegal immigration than any of my so called conservative friends….but then, my parents always took such pleasure in “tag teaming” the people they came across in their jobs…Mom helping get their GED, or ready for vocational training (Doctors from places like Pakistan didn’t make it through their LPN training) –while Dad in “Work and Training” helped people take those steps away from “the dole” and toward being more financially independant. They were looking more at “teaching a man to fish” rather than job security!

“Politically Correct” and “Melting Pot” just don’t mix. America desperately needs to remain a melting pot, and multiculturalism is like tossing water on the burner. (just my two cents)

Here’s a great speech he gave in 1977.

I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean — and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it — it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. ….

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way — this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right – those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

MacLeod, he’s talking to you. Reagan again;

Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

I don’t think you do defer to him, but you’ll use him if you can.

The problem is Illegal immigration.

Than just make it legal, as Bush and McCain and Kennedy want. The problem is immigration which is not serving the best interests of America and Americans.

CK MacLeod on May 19, 2008 at 5:35 PM

The problem is Illegal immigration.

“I wish I could give better hopes of our southern brethren. The achievement of their independence of Spain is no longer a question. But it is a very serious one, what will then become of them? Ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government. They will fall under military despotism, and become the murderous tools of the ambition of their respective Bonapartes; and whether this will be for their greater happiness, the rule of one only has taught you to judge. No one, I hope, can doubt my wish to see them and all mankind exercising self-government, and capable of exercising it. But the question is not what we wish, but what is practicable? As their sincere friend and brother then, I do believe the best thing for them, would be for themselves to come to an accord with Spain, under the guarantee of France, Russia, Holland, and the United States, allowing to Spain a nominal supremacy, with authority only to keep the peace among them, leaving them otherwise all the powers of self-government, until their experience in them, their emancipation from their priests, and advancement in information, shall prepare them for complete independence.”

In this he was prescient. Even many Latin American political theotists have come to the same conclusion – that their people are not suited to American style liberty. And how did Jefferson feel about the people in the then United States?

“The federalists who were truly American, and their great mass was so, have separated from their brethren who were mere Anglomen, and are received with cordiality into the republican ranks. Even Connecticut, as a State, and the last one expected to yield its steady habits (which were essentially bigoted in politics as well as religion), has chosen a republican governor, and republican legislature. Massachusetts indeed still lags; because most deeply involved in the parricide crimes and treasons of the war. But her gangrene is contracting, the sound flesh advancing on it, and all there will be well. I mentioned Connecticut as the most hopeless of our States. Little Delaware had escaped my attention. That is essentially a Quaker State, the fragment of a religious sect which, there, in the other States, in England, are a homogeneous mass, acting with one mind, and that directed by the mother society in England. Dispersed, as the Jews, they still form, as those do, one nation, foreign to the land they live in. They are Protestant Jesuits, implicitly devoted to the will of their superior, and forgetting all duties to their country in the execution of the policy of their order.”

Hmmm. Not exactly what we consider “inclusive” and “liberal” by todays standards. Are you sure that Jefferson was a forerunner of your political theories? You might want to read the man himself instead of taking Kagans word.

can’t tell you how sorry I am to have caused you to feel irritated, flenser.

I was expecting better than this, I must admit.

My own position on illegal immigrants is that it’s unfortunate, in many ways extremely unfortunate, that a sizable population is here illegally. Unlike you, however, I consider measures that would allow a significant number of them to become citizens in good standing to be desirable.

Yes, so I gathered.

As for my actual argument dealing with the alignment of incentives and processes of assimilation, you were apparently too irritated to address it.

I did address it. Immigrants should be assimilated. Non-citizen illegal aliens should be expelled.

Apparently, beneath the rule of law cover

Yes, I know that liberals always think that “rule of law” is a conservative “cover” for “lets get the brown people”. Thanks for sharing. Again, I was hoping for more than a rote recitation of liberal talking points.

your anti-immigration position is in no small part motivated by fears that the U.S. will become, as you put it, “a Latin American country within the lifetime of many readers here.”

I’m so glad you were able to deduce that fact, aided I’m sure by my telling you. Spare me your triumpant “Aha!”. On to the substance.

Before I know how to respond to that prospect, I’d have to know what you mean by “Latin American country.”

Culture. People are not fungible units, regardless of what liberals think. They carry a culture, a way of looking at the world embedded in them. In computer terms, people are PROM’s. The culture of Latin America is not conducive to our way of life. It is not conducive to “democratic capitalism”. A glance at Latin America should make this obvious to you.

certainly wouldn’t be disturbed enough to support measures that would destroy the country – the land of opportunity and freedom – in order to save it.

You’ll have to explain to me how enforcing the law will “destroy the country”. If I cheat on my taxes, will it “destroy the country” if I am prosecuted for it? If not, why will enforcing the law with respect to illegal aliens and illegal employers do so?

“Opportunity and freedom” are not a blank check for anyone on earth to walk in here if they feel like, any more than they are a blank check for you to walk into a bank and help yourself to money.

I’ll observe, however, that in my opinion the scholarship and the tradition are both heavily on my side. I’ve already referred to one book on the diverse ethnic and ideological make-up of colonial America. There are many, many other studies on the subject. As I said, Jay’s views on the Founders notwithstanding, I don’t think the larger view I’m advocating is very controversial.

Not in the liberal halls of academia, I’m sure. Outside of them, however, your notions of the triumpant march of liberalism are not widely shared.

Read the Federalist papers in their entirety and you won’t find any support for your ideas.

Robert Kagan references Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” and to the “great destinies” and “noble career” of the new nation as envisioned by Hamilton, and argues that, “[f]or those early generations of Americans, the promise of national greatness was not merely a comforting hope but an integral part of the national identity, inextricably entwined with the national ideology.”

So what? Robert Kagan is not a conservative, so your citing him in support of your theory is underwhelming. Everything you say is liberalism. My objection is to you trying to pass off liberalism as conservatism. So far you wan’t even concede that’s what you’re doing.

“The proof of the transcendent importance of the American experiment would be found not only in the continual perfection of American institutions at home but also in the spread of American influence in the world.”

Poppycock. The Founders were what we would call “isolationists”. For instance, George Washington – “The great rule of conduct for us,” Washington wrote, “in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith”.

Or John Adams – “we should separate ourselves, as far as possible and as long as possible, from all European politics and wars.”

To a large extent “Manifest Destiny” was an isolationist creed. In the place of US entanglements abroad it substituted American expansion to the Pacific. That was Adams view, and he was very much an isolationist.

At one point you give your own views of what you call “conservatism”:

No, I give the definition as understood by the founders of conservatism. Read Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Richard Weaver, Bill Buckely, and the others who got the American conservative movement into politics. Read F. A. Hayek. Even read Irving Kristol, who wote some very critical things about the capitalism you want to champion. In fact, though you don’t seem aware of it, conservatism all the way back to Adam Smith has been far from being a cheerleader for “capitalism”. I’m telling you what conservatism is understood to be by conservatives. The disciples of Ayn Rand may worship businessmen, but conservatives never have.

I can’t imagine how an ideology of the sort you otherwise appear to be espousing, defying the central experiences of the country’s history, from the Founders all the way across the continent

What on earth is “all the way across the contintent” supposed to have to do with this topic? The population that did exist prior to American expansion was killed and/or displaced by your imagined “inclusionists”! How is the settling of the West supposed to be a support for your theory, rather than a confirmation of mine?

I regret that you skipped over the sentences where I described Americanism as being, in my opinion, accepting of change, and a great cause and driver of change,

Can you explain the difference between liberalism on the one hand, and your conception of conservatism on the other? I think that will throw some needed light on the differences here. What specific differences exist between liberalism and your conservatism?

I was hoping you would be a bigger person and take it in the conciliatory spirit in which it was offered.

techno_barbarian on May 19, 2008 at 6:37 PM

No animosity on my part techno. None at all. You actually seem like a pretty nice guy (from our brief conversation).

Fair enough. I’m not pure enough for you. I get it.

That has nothing to do with it. Sorry if I came across like that. When I as a Christian point out sin that is going on around me, it’s not because I’m better than anyone, it’s because I love God and I desire to see His will done in the lives of others as His will is done in heaven. In the process of judging, I must also examine myself, and I do.

I still maintain that you give Huckabee WAY too much credit.

No problem. You’re entitled to your opinion. Oh, and I never said people must vote for Huckabee or they are not Christians. That’s propoganda coming from the scoffers.

You are not my keeper nor are you my spiritual better, but thanks for offering.

Never said I was your keeper. You said that. I didn’t. I’m a wicked, vile, sinner, just like everbody else. And if don’t like the things I say then don’t respond to me. My plates already full dealing with all the scoffers anyway. My prayers are for you techno. May the good Lord Jesus bless you for ever. Thanks.

apacalyps on May 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Pretty much exactly what I expected from you, though I was hoping you would be a bigger person and take it in the conciliatory spirit in which it was offered.

I stated my opinions and my reasons for forming them. You can’t handle it. Fair enough. I’m not pure enough for you. I get it.

I still maintain that you give Huckabee WAY too much credit. I do not find him to be the man of God, nor the man of honor that you do. His actions indicate otherwise, and a man should be judged on the fruit of his actions.

Just do me a favor, if you would. Lecture and preach at somebody else from now on. I’m not interested in hearing it from you.

We clear?

You are not my keeper nor are you my spiritual better, but thanks for offering. I know you mean well.

I was replying to someone else on the subject of assimilation. My own position on illegal immigrants is that it’s unfortunate, in many ways extremely unfortunate, that a sizable population is here illegally. Unlike you, however, I consider measures that would allow a significant number of them to become citizens in good standing to be desirable. As for my actual argument dealing with the alignment of incentives and processes of assimilation, you were apparently too irritated to address it.

Apparently, beneath the rule of law cover, your anti-immigration position is in no small part motivated by fears that the U.S. will become, as you put it, “a Latin American country within the lifetime of many readers here.” Before I know how to respond to that prospect, I’d have to know what you mean by “Latin American country.” Language use? Typical skin color? Breakfast burritos instead of bacon and eggs? Catholics? Espanol?

Whatever you mean precisely, I don’t accept your assertion on face value. If, however, you’re referring to some rising-line extrapolation into the future of current birth rates among the legal Latin American population, along some 10 – 20 million formerly illegal new citizens, eventually resulting in a plurality of US citizens being of Latin American derivation, I frankly can’t say that I would be terribly disturbed by the idea. I certainly wouldn’t be disturbed enough to support measures that would destroy the country – the land of opportunity and freedom – in order to save it.

As for the idea that the Founders and each successive generation afterward were characterized less by ethnic or ideological uniformity and isolationism than by divisions and differences that threatened the country’s integrity and survival, as countered, however, by constitutional government guided by a shared sense of America’s unique mission in the world – that’s a subject for a study of history that can’t be undertaken here.

I’ll observe, however, that in my opinion the scholarship and the tradition are both heavily on my side. I’ve already referred to one book on the diverse ethnic and ideological make-up of colonial America. There are many, many other studies on the subject. As I said, Jay’s views on the Founders notwithstanding, I don’t think the larger view I’m advocating is very controversial.

As for the ideological history, I do happen to have to hand one concise take on the subject. In passages from OF PARADISE AND POWER aimed at the “remarkably resilient… myth” of American isolationism, Robert Kagan references Jefferson’s “empire of liberty” and to the “great destinies” and “noble career” of the new nation as envisioned by Hamilton, and argues that, “[f]or those early generations of Americans, the promise of national greatness was not merely a comforting hope but an integral part of the national identity, inextricably entwined with the national ideology.” Continuing:

The United States must become a great power, and perhaps the greatest power, they and many subsequent generations of Americans believed, because the principles and ideals upon which it was founded were unquestionably superior[...] The proof of the transcendent importance of the American experiment would be found not only in the continual perfection of American institutions at home but also in the spread of American influence in the world. Americans have always been internationalists, therefore, but their internationalism has always been a by-product of their nationalism[...] That is why it was always so easy for so many Americans to believe, as so many still believe today, that by advancing their own interests they advance the interests of humanity. As Benjamin Franklin put it, America’s cause is the cause of all mankind.”

At one point you give your own views of what you call “conservatism”:

Conservatism, by definition, is not universal. This makes it distinct from all the other totalist ideologies in the world – liberalism, communism, Islam, Christianity, what have you. Conservatism is founded on the idea of pluralism, that people are not fungible.

Whose definition? I don’t understand what exactly you’re associating yourself with here, or what precisely you think it has to do with the other issues we’ve been discussing. I can’t imagine how an ideology of the sort you otherwise appear to be espousing, defying the central experiences of the country’s history, from the Founders all the way across the continent and the globe and 230 years to the present day, could be characterized as “conservative” except in some very contingent sense: i.e., you think you’re a conservative, so whatever you believe is conservative, and whatever you don’t believe is un-conservative.

I think you have essentially agreed with my summation of your position. You think that “American conservatism” is just another way of saying liberalism, and that the only thing it seeks to “conserve” is endless change for it’s own sake. Do you agree?

Not at all. Among other things, I regret that you skipped over the sentences where I described Americanism as being, in my opinion, accepting of change, and a great cause and driver of change, but not a fetishization of the idea of change at the cost of liberty. To close, I’ll defer to Ronald Reagan who said, famously – and long before Barack Obama started distorting the line for his own purposes – “We hear talk that it’s time for a change. Well, ladies and gentlemen, another friendly reminder: We are the change.”

techno_barbarian on May 19, 2008 at 9:20 AM

I think I disagreed with pretty well everything you said here techno. Um.. (thinks it over) ..it’s ‘Church Lady’-like tongue-clucking condescention for pointing out that you have a foul mouth? The Bible says we shouldn’t swear Techno. And how’s about it’s offensive to me! That comment to me about oral sex the other day was horrible. And I couldn’t disagree more when you say I support Mike Huckabee because of the Shepard/Sheep relationship. C’mon now.. talk about condescention… sheesh… Governor Huckabee is a genuine 100% pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, Christian conservative! That’s why I like him. It has nothing to do with this…uh, whatever you call it, that Shepard/Sheep thing … and that other stuff you said about Christians not using Scripture because it turns people off. Techno, the Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Romans 10:11). I’m not ashamed to use God’s Word. It’s music to my ears. I used it correctly to point you your support for homosexual marriage is wrong. Now I’m sorry if you disagree with me techno, but it’s not me you’re disagreeing with. That’s what God’s Word says so don’t be upset with me for pointing that out to you. “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105). Anyways, I’m tired today. Don’t want to debate. Have a good day/night. Seeya.

Between 10% and 20% of the entire Mexican population is already in America, illegally. Mexicans are taught that we took their land unjustly, and it is still rightfully theirs, and eventually it will be part of Mexico again.

If we reward their criminal behavior with amnesty and welfare benefits, isn’t that aligning the incentives for the rest of them to do the same thing?

All those waves of immigration in the past were not illegal, and the immigrants were not granted instant and full membership into a welfare state. It’s mind-bogglilng to me how anyone could think that adding 12-20+ million poor and uneducated people to the welfare rolls would be a good thing, in light of our already massive problem with Social Security and the impending retirement of the boomers.

They don’t want to be assimilated, as a general rule. They don’t want to be American citizens, as a general rule. They don’t want to learn English and be fine upstanding civic-minded members of the community, as a general rule. They want to work and make money to send back to Mexico, and when they’re ready to retire, they want to go back to Mexico. Unless, of course, Mexico has reclaimed its land by that time.

We’ve tried this before. Reagan granted amnesty to only about 3 million(?) criminals. This is what we got. Secure the borders, enforce the laws, and then we can talk about changing the laws and/or expanding guest worker programs.

Immigration Pollyannas scare me.

An individual with an opportunity to become a full-fledged citizen has a much greater incentive to learn about and join the culture than an individual who is under actual or potential threat of being expelled, and denied full participation.

That seems like a remarkably disingenuous way to comment on illeal aliens, who are not supposed to be in the country to begin with. The manner in which you conflate them with your own mother’s parents, who I’m sure came here via the proper channels, is likewise quite irritating.

Treating unlike things alike is unjust.

Maybe the 1660s. In that general time frame, American colonists, drawn from diverse cultures and regions, often following very different customs, began to recognize their commonalities and mutual dependence, partly in contradistinction to the “savages.” It was around that time that the idea of “white people” became popular – as opposed to Germans, Britons, Highland or Lowland Scots, Irish, French, and all the varietous religious and socio-economic sub-groups

Fine, I won’t argue with that. Not too much any way. The French were certainly not part of the initial American founding, though some were absorbed later on. But you are describing more a “melting pot” model than a mosaic one. And a melting pot is defined by commonality, not by difference.

Jay was accentuating perceptions of commonality among members the first post-Revolution generation, which were arguably just as real as any differences, but don’t change the fact that, even then, Americans were by heredity, social status, and outlook a motley amalgam

I don’t know exactly what that even means. I think you’re saying that Jay was either confused or lying. I think you’re wrong in either case. Jay was refering to the British Founders, and his comments describe them accurately.

Ideological differences over issues such as whether to maintain a standing army etc

Completely off topic. By that definition, not even England or Germany or France or China are “exclusive”. We are discussing whether America can and should exclude people on the basis of things such as race and religion, not the question of a standing army. That you need to resort to this sort of ideological issue to conjure up an America riven on ethnic grounds suggests a weakness in your position.

The idea that it was in our interests and also a unique national mission to foster democracy and/or Americanism around the world has also been there since the beginning, and is hardly an invention of George Bush and the neo-cons

Lots of ideas have been there since the beginning, this among them. But your response above completely skips my point, which you quoted. Here it is again.

Me – you seem to think that it was a reflection of some ideological impulse driving the American people to get outsiders to join us.

This has noting to do with Manifest Destiny, unless you think Manifest Destinity should logically lead to all the people on earth becoming part of America. So I’m still wating for a response here.

As for the whole Manifest Destiny/Wilsonianism/neoconism strain of thought, the mere fact that it’s been around for a long time does not make it conservative. By that standard the ideas of Rousseau can be called conservative. So can the ideas of Karl Marx. Longevity does not equal conservative.

Conservatism, by definition, is not universal. This makes it distinct from all the other totalist ideologies in the world – liberalism, communism, Islam, Christianity, what have you. Conservatism is founded on the idea of pluralism, that people are not fungible.

As for immigration, it’s often excited controversy, but the fact remains that the country is itself an immigrant construct

All countries are immigrant constructs. No country on earth is populated by people who sprung up from the ground.

And it was of course in recognition of these and other centrifugal forces embedded within the very nature of the country

You don’t point to any such forces “embedded within the very nature of the country”. Differences of opinion on how to accomplish goals are natural.

You seem to be celebrating differences of opinion as to what the goals are. Those differences can only lead to the destruction of the polity.

massive alterations whose relative sizes dwarf the current estimated numbers of illegals

You don’t know what you are talking about. The current wave of immigrants will make the US a Latin American country within the lifetime of many readers here. Now, you may want to “celebrate” that fact for some reasons of your own, but it’s not a conservative action.

I think you have essentially agreed with my summation of your position. You think that “American conservatism” is just another way of saying liberalism, and that the only thing it seeks to “conserve” is endless change for it’s own sake. Do you agree?

I’m not arguing that “open borders” are a good thing, or that the current situation is supportable

But you ARE arguing that people who say otherwise are “apocalypticists”, driven by “fear”, and are at least implicitly un-American, as evidenced by their resistance to the change in the ethnic and ideological makeup of their country. So what exactly are you saying?

Of course, in the “America as propositional nation” school of which you seem to be a member, America is NOT their country. America is not the American people. America is an “idea”, and an ideal, one you define and the unfortunate American people have to live up to.

However, as this IS the internet, I will still take a moment to put my two cents in:

I think the real problem with this study is that is assumes that there is an unmoving “center” in politics. The problem with this theory is that politics is a fungible and flexible thing.

A more accurate animation of the chart would show the “center” of the chart moving to the RIGHT at a FASTER rate than the GOP voting or McCain shows. McCain would still fall on the right, and the COP would still be moving to the right, but not NEARLY as rapidly as the “center” is moving to the right.

So, in the corrected model, a view from the “center” as a static entity would show both McCain and the GOP moving SLOWLY to the LEFT, with the Democrats RACING to the left, rather than the slow creep of each party away from the center as their charts show.

.

Auralae on May 19, 2008 at 5:07 AM

Thank you for your kind words. I agree that assimilation is key, but I also wonder whether our application to the task would be as important as aligning the incentives. An individual with an opportunity to become a full-fledged citizen has a much greater incentive to learn about and join the culture than an individual who is under actual or potential threat of being expelled, and denied full participation. I don’t think it was the brilliant public education system of 1920, and it certainly wasn’t teams of social workers or access to public funds and services that turned my mother’s parents into patriotic and highly productive Americans. They were presented with opportunities that, considering where they came from, were breathtaking. It was something that they still marveled about almost literally up to the day they died. On my father’s side, immigration to the colonies occurred a few hundred years earlier, but every move west was a new immigration experience and new founding, and every generation of Americans in its own way has had to re-create the country. Democratic capitalism is a huge adaptation and assimilation machine (kind of like a Borg Cube, but in a good way).

Voting against say Lieberman’s new climate change bill is much more important than voting against a group of earmarks that may total a billion or two. (Not that a billion or two isn’t important, it’s just that the bill in question will be more costly by 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.)