Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Rand Paul Disappoints Big Time

I'm really not all that shocked. My support for Ron Paul was always tempered by the realization that he was ambiguous on immigration, sometimes calling for ending birthright citizenship, sometimes seeming to advocate open borders — It's like his mind was occupied with other things, and immigration just didn't register all that much on his radar. Odd, being that he's a Texan. And, we're assured, Rand is more practical and realistic than his father, which means, basically, that he's just another phony Republican in the ways that matter. When anybody says that "We're not going to deport eleven million illegal aliens," or some variation of that, we know what we're going to get. The same immigration-enthusiast blather we've been getting from both parties, all liberals, all neocons, most libertarians, and, really, everybody politically noticeable except for poor old Tom Tancredo, who's wishy-washy on immigration in my book. Oh, and another old Coloradoan, Dick Lamm, who delivered this famous speech:


I have a secret plan to destroy America. If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that “an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.” Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual-bicultural country. History shows, in my opinion, that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

2. I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a “Hispanic Quebec” without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would “celebrate diversity.” “Diversity” is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other–that is, when they are not killing each other. A “diverse,” peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf’s “World History” tells us: “The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors … (local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions …)” If we can put the emphasis on the “pluribus,” instead of the “unum,” we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits–make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to “heretic” in the 16th century that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like “racist”, “xenophobe” halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of “victimology,” I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra –”because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good.” I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson’s book “Mexifornia” –this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please–if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed–please, please–don’t buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

In contrast to that, we have Rand's little speech, which, no matter his 'probation' rhetoric, means exactly the same thing that all the other open-borders people say. He said that what we have now amounts to "de facto amnesty," and he's exactly right about that. However, his plan also will amount to de facto amnesty, no matter what he calls it. When you allow people to continue to break the law and think up new incentives for more people to break the same law, you're not solving the problem.

Now, I am a libertarian, and I've argued before that nationalism is essential to libertarianism, and that open borders is totally inimical to libertarianism. HERE'S an explanation. I feel so strongly about it that I'd happily vote for Ann Coulter over Rand Paul, despite her totally messed-up foreign policy, because immigration policy is more important than that. "Washington Watcher" elaborates HERE.
P. S.  And THIS just in from Peter Brimelow.

3 comments:

  1. A hundred years from now people who love the ideas of the Founding Fathers will write articles in a dialect of English with a lot of Spanish loan words (along with a bunch of Arabic, Farsi, and Afridi if we don't get our collective nose out of Central and Southwest Asia)wondering why diversity was valued over assimilation. They will wonder why we were willing to risk the survival of our nation by keeping people divided instead of encouraging people to become one. Modern liberals and faux conservatives have much to answer for.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ron Paul was not ambigous in his book. He angered some with his humanitarian view that those here a long time who hadn't abused their stay should get legalization - but never citizenship without leaving and coming back. Nor taxpayer funded benefits. One big difference is the lack of chain migration stemming from those legalized. But he would have required the magnets of welfare and free education availability which draws them be removed first. Ron has voted against forcing states to pay for medical care etc, and takes it seriously that you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Unlike the open borders libertarians (there is a divide on this, as on abortion), he firmly believes in national sovereignty. This is also why he opposed NAFTA, CAFTA the IMF and UN. etc

    ReplyDelete
  3. When Rand Paul went over to Israel and prostrated himself before its Likudite rulers in solemn deference to them, I knew he was just another unprincipled Republican tool.

    ReplyDelete