November 10th, 2011
Was that ugly, or what? I’ve been trying to think of a worse debate moment and the only thing that comes close is Bentsen-Quayle. There’s no telling what structural damage it inflicted, but my guess would be more rather than less.
That said, the entire episode is instructive of how unpredictable electoral politics can be. A few thoughts:
(1) There were plenty of Perry skeptics from the beginning. (I was not one of them.) But it turned out that none of the weaknesses they noticed actually hurt him. Remember, the argument against Perry was that he was prone to shooting from the hip; too bible-thumpin’ conservative; and would remind voters too much of W.
But what really damaged Perry was (a) He was too liberal on immigration; and (b) He had two debate moments (his attempted flip-flop attack on Romney and the Lost Third Agency) in which he looked old and doddering and lost.
The other thing that hurt Perry is that he emerged prepared to counter attacks from Romney, but was totally blind-sided when Santorum, Paul, Bachmann, et al took after him like he was a spliced hybrid of Nelson Rockefeller and Saul Alinsky. (This was not an unreasonable assumption on his part, since this group had given Romney a pass for several months.)
(2) Debates have never played as important a role in the primaries as they have this cycle. It’s unclear whether this is an aberration or a new reality. But try to remember a single moment from any primary debates since 1999. The only thing I come up with is “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” The gang-tackle of Perry in his early debates clearly crippled his candidacy–I’d argue more so than his one-on-one jousts with Romney.
(3) Is it fair that Herman Cain gets to say that China doesn’t have nuclear weapons and that he’s for-and-against abortion and that he’d trade hostages with terrorists, but that Perry doesn’t get to have a couple of brain blanks? Nope.
But fair’s got nothing to do with it.
(4) Unless the conversation changes between now and the convention, it would seem that immigration has replaced abortion as the key ideological litmus test in the Republican party. Now, maybe that’s just a function of the candidates needing a club to beat Perry with and immigration being the best-available weapon. But maybe it’s a more foundational shift. If the latter is the case, then this is a real tragedy for conservatism. A few reasons:
* Illegal immigration causes very real problems, but those problems tend to be economic. (Though some of them certainly have a cultural aspect.) Economic problems can be fixed more easily than cultural problems.
* The argument over abortion is–at least to pro-abortion forces–about a lot more than just the killing of babies. It’s about an absolute, iron-clad right to consequence-free sex. Which is, if you think about it, probably the single biggest legacy of the 1960s. If the left holds to anything at all, it’s that sex must never have negative consequences–no unwanted pregnancies, no diseases, no moral disapproval from third parties. That’s why the AIDS campaign was such a vital left-wing cause in the ’80s and ’90s. It’s the root of liberal support for same-sex marriage. It’s behind the idiotic claims that “love can never be wrong.”
All of this is why the only liberal cause Bill Clinton wasn’t willing to sell out for political gain was abortion. He vetoed the partial-birth ban at some real cost. But ingrained in liberal boomers is that this first principle is the cornerstone for the entire structure of sexual “freedom.” Admit that abortion (even in some cases) is wrong and you undermine a continent-sized chunk of liberal ideology and a huge portion of what has become our dominant cultural mores.
* For a host of complicated reasons (I go into this at some length in the book), illegal immigration is likely to significantly decrease in America during the next 20 years–no matter what policies we pursue. (Short version: As fertility rates go sub-replacement, a country’s outmigration dries up, as it has, for example, with Puerto Rico. Nearly all of Central and South America will be sub-replacement within 20 years.)
So debates over, say, building a fence or giving in-state tuition to illegals are more about ideological purity than actual consequence. Unlike abortion, where 50 million lives have been taken since 1973, with no end in sight.
“Immigration is only an economic problem.” Really? We have 30 million (soon to be 50) unassimilated, sub-100 IQ, 3rd World peasants living in homogenized, insular, non-english speaking communities, on lands they believe to have been stolen from their ancestors. In what sense does that not constitute a cultural problem?
Immigration trumps abortion because it’s about “Who Are We?” as a country. What do we look like, sound like and act like, and how does this shape our governing philosophy, institutions and common heritage? You don’t get more “foundational” than that.
As a right winger, I’d much rather gamble on abortion going our way politically/culturally (which it is, thanks to science) than roll the dice on the demographics of the country 20 years out. Politically, more immigration=Democrat/Liberal hegemony for the next 50 years, bank on it. Culturally, high immigration levels mean Balkanization and Idiocracy.
Birthrates don’t lie, and the Rovian GOP Hispanic gambit has been proven to be a failure.
If you’re going to pretend-quote me–you know what quotation marks are supposed to denote, right?–then it might be best not to pretend-quote the opposite of what my *actual* quote is: “Illegal immigration causes very real problems, but those problems tend to be economic. (Though some of them certainly have a cultural aspect.)”
Also, you’re underselling your case in terms of numbers of immigrants: Current foreign-born population in the US is 26.6 million legals and (estimated) 11.3 million illegals.
Though I’m not sure what the IQ breakdowns are, nor the geographic dispersions. I’d love to see your data, though.
You’re not sure what the IQ breakdowns are? Don’t you think you should be sure before you blithely dismiss the cultural impact of mass immigration?
You’re right—that was sloppy on my part. My apologies. Thrust/spirit of post still stands though.
We have 30 million (soon to be 50) unassimilated, sub-100 IQ, 3rd World peasants living in homogenized, insular, non-english speaking communities, on lands they believe to have been stolen from their ancestors. In what sense does that not constitute a cultural problem?
Were that true, that could be damning. I’d really love to see that data, too.
What part of the argument are you disputing? All of it? Parts of it? Which parts?
We have 30 million (soon to be 50) industrious, typically distributed, pious rural workers, living in supportive, bi-lingual communities, on lands on which they are thankful to be allowed to reside.
Now YOU prove ME wrong!
There is a problem with this argumentative posture….
He didn’t ask anyone to prove anything, he just asked which one of the points was being disputed.
If the question is about the IQ of Hispanics in the US, I’ve generally found that no amount of evidence will convince people who refuse to believe their own eyes. If you’re really curious, here’s the data from PISA:
JVL…concerning your points about the abortion culture in our country and the number of children it has taken, have you seen the http://www.180movie.com documentary? Not sure if you know anything about it (I highly recommend checking it out) but I posted it on my fb page because I was interested to see what my “friends” thought of a highly logical argument against abortion. I was amazed at how some pretty smart, normally level-headed people totally became close-minded and downright ANGRY. Posted it weeks ago and I am STILL hearing about it. Check it out…I’d love to hear your thoughts on it.
Illegal immigrant fertility has been much higher in the U.S. than has been Mexican fertility in Mexico.
So they’re making more Americans than their countrymen are making Mexicans? Is that a bad thing?
No, they’re making more Mexicans that happen to reside in America. They don’t see themselves as Americans and they’re not required by societal elites to assimilate they way previous generations of immigrants were. In fact, quite the opposite. They are told by cultural elites to maintain their ethnic heritage because it’s more “authentic.” At the same time, political elites/race hustlers in the Democrat party encourage them to vote as an ethnic block and promise them goodies from the whole diversity/welfare/affirmative action regime in return. In addition, assimilation is further aggravated by cheap travel/advanced communications technologies that were unavailable to previous waves of immigrants such as the Italians, Irish, and Germans. Any other questions?
Shouldn’t let GOP elites off hook here either—the Cheap Labor Lobby that owns much of the GOP forms an immigration Iron Triangle of sorts with cultural and political left. Classic example was Bob Bennet, senator from Utah that the Tea Party took down in 2010. Total sellout to big business lobby for cheap workers.
That’s true, by a lot. In 2002, for instance, the TFR in Mexico was 2.40, but the TFR of Mexican-born immigrants in America was 3.51. This difference holds even when you control for education. Interestingly, that 3.51 was for *legal* Mexican immigrants. Illegals had a lower TFR (3.06).
What’s really interesting about this is two things:
(1) This phenomenon is true for a number of countries and their emigrant population in America–for instance, Canada, China, the U.K. Yet some countries exhibit the reverse (the Philippines, India, and Vietnam)–so this is a country-specific, not a general, trend.
(2) Once they’re here, the TFR of Hispanic-born immigrants in America falls at a *much higher rate* than the general populace, so they’re regressing to the mean very quickly.
Jonathon Last —
Out here in the real world, Mexicans have kids at 16 and don’t go to college, mostly. As a result, California went from 80% White and able to afford the Pat Brown infrastructure building to what it is today (Whites less than 40%), Tijuana Norte or in Victor Davis Hanson’s book title, “Mexifornia.” A crumbling third world hell-hole. One desperately poor, unable to pay for the kids it has ceaselessly (Santa Ana Unified had so many kids on free breakfasts/lunches that it got a waiver from the Dept. of Agriculture to give them to ALL students — approximately 89% qualified for the program — or put it another way 89% of the Mexican parents depended on White taxpayers to pay for their kids meals).
Here’s why what you wrote above is the dumbest thing you’ve ever written. Mass immigration by Mexicans makes ordinary White people third-class (if that) people in their own country given the legal structure of Civil Rights (Whites don’t qualify, see Eric Holder), Multiculturalism, and PC. It guarantees the mother of all fights over welfare, spoils, and wealth transfers based largely on race. Already schools forbid the flying of the American Flag or American flags on Cinco De Mayo.
The Pew Hispanic Trusts estimates the White median net worth is $113K, Black at $5K, and Hispanic at $6K. Even sealing the border now (impossible with Democratic obstruction and RINO-esque) means “it’s all over in Texas for Anglos” as one noted demographer put it. Over three quarters of all kids in Texas are Mexican. The White Texas we knew is just gone. Replaced by Tijuana or Nuevo Laredo. Moreover as Mexico collapses due to narco-terror, with killing be the object (what gain is had by killing people on Twitter for god’s sake) mass immigration will only continue regardless of fertility rate. Already foreign investment in Mexico according to the WSJ is declining due to narco-terror. The huge wealth disparities GUARANTEE that Mexicans (filled with modern PC loathing and hatred for White people and America) will vote themselves White people’s money, land, and everything else they can think of. Rich White people like Nancy Pelosi won’t be troubled (they can hide it abroad or pay off people). For the rest of us that means a bitter, awful fight. One that will make the Civil War look like a picnic.
Never EVER in History has one people been replaced by another peacefully. Abortion is irrelevant, compared to the National Question of America remaining America. America is not a random scoop of people dumped on the continent. It is a White Majority nation mostly at peace among itself, mostly able to afford things it wants. America is an English speaking nation, derived from various English regions and traditions, with minor influences from former slaves and various other European peoples. That is what America is. Not Mexico. If we closed the borders today, we’d be in for massive and brutal, violent fights over who gets taxed to pay for whom. If three quarters of Texas kids are Mexican, who’s going to pay for all the stuff they want? White people, of course. Who will reliably FIGHT THAT.
Since newsflash, no one wants to be made a sudden minority, conquered and tax-farmed, in their own nation. Democrats are the anti-White guy party (comprised of White elites and every non-White they can think of). They have been for years. Republicans are finally waking up and demanding Republicans endorse America, not Mexico Norte.
I and most other White people who lack the money to flee to Switzerland or New Zealand object to turning America into Mexico so RINO Colin Powell (a race man if ever there was one) can get cheap help around the house.
Perry and other Republicans like GWB do NOT love America, as it is (65% White) and figure it needs to be replaced so their liberal elite friends and Bono at Davos will love them. The hell with them. Liberals like Tom Hayden look forward to “the peaceful extermination of the White race.” The hell with them too.
I’ve seen your future of America. For non-elite White guys like me, it looks like being a Jew in Czarist Russia. I’d rather go back to the America of 1940 (89% White, 10% Black, and 1% everything else). Mexicans belong in America like White people belong in Zimbabwe.
What a bunch of bigoted clap-trap. And a total lack of historical information on immigration itself. I am sure that if you were a New York shop owner in 1850, you would be hanging out the sign “No Irish Need Apply.”
Almost all ethnic groups in the U.S. have, at one time or another, experienced a surge in their numbers, be it the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Germans, et al. Yet, we seemed to have survived those surges. 19th century American newspapers depicted the Irish as uneducated monkeys, or drunks, whose only talent seemed to be their ability to reproduce. As the population of Irish and Italians grew, they were reduced to taking those jobs that no self-respecting “white” wanted; as police officer or fire fighters (then, as now, dangerous jobs), and it was the Irish, and the Chinese that built the railroads, also dangerous jobs that no self-respecting “white” were drawn to.
Now, the very term “illegal” is synonymous in the minds of people like you with “Mexican” although the very research center you quote, Pew, reported in 2009 there were 1.9 million illegal Chinese in the U.S. compared to 7 million illegal Mexicans. An amazing feat when you consider that Mexicans simply have to walk across our unprotected borders, while the Chinese must travel over large expanses of water, as well.
As to a Texas/Caifornia comparison; there is none. California, unlike Texas, provides all social welfare services to illegals, even if there is no U.S. born child in the family. California provides its own draw, with free services that are not granted in other states. Texas, on the other hand, was a Mexican colony to begin with. And much of its Hispanic population increase is due to the fact that Hispanics, by and large, reproduce in greater numbers than whites, or even modern day blacks.
Yes, the Hispanic population is growing, just as it did in the Irish and Italian, German and Polish ethnic groups, decades ago. And your claim that “white” America is at risk of dying is pathetic, at best. And your objections are no different that the Anglo/English complaints of the Americans in the 19th Century, nor any less bigoted.
Part of the problem is how our government defines “minority.”
When a friend of mine’s daughter, that applied to a university, is classified as “Hispanic” simply because her great, great, great, great grandfather’s last name was Navarro (who also was a signer of the first Texas Constitution) although there has not been a Hispanic in her family tree since before 1880, we have a problem. Can you imagine the surprise to see that this girl, classifed a Hispanic minority, has the blondest hair and bluest eyes every seen?
Your bigotry has no place in America. Not now, not ever. But it is people like you that will guarantee that all NEW ethnic groups will be easily recruited to the Democrat Party, although their personal standards (faith, marriage, hard work) are more in line with modern day conservatism. It worked for the Democrats as they painted the Republicans as nothing but rober barrons to the Irish and Italians and gave us huge enclaves of Irish/Italian Democrats that still stand today.
But I would present you with a thought to ponder: would you prefer a hard working uneducated Hispanic, say from Honduras, who is willing to be on the enery end of a shovel all day, or cleaning hotel rooms after nasty people left, or the millions of “assimilated”, generations old Americans who live in public housing, having children they can’t afford, demanding more and more in goverment largess because they turned their backs on an education that was provided to them freely by the taxpayer?
I have a problem with those who come here illegally. But the truth of the matter is that our current immigration laws are fairly new. And if you want to blame anyone for the migration from the south, you must start with FDR and the Bracero Program. FDR had no problem allowing immigration when it served our nation during a war, but did nothing to ensure those who were allowed to work her for a specific time returned to their native lands.
As long as other nations experience turmoil, and financial hardships (the Irish potato famine, for one, the drug wars in Mexico for another) those people will flee their lands to come here. Will we see a surge in Greeks, Italians, Spanish and Irish if those nations fall financially? Probably.
Will you then be defending a “white” America that only became so white due to the genocide of the Native American?
Hey Zane, of the following countries—Ireland, Italy, Germany, China and Mexicio, which one of them shares a 3000 mile border with the U.S. and considers a large chunk of U.S. territory stolen land?
Also, with your vast reservoir of knowledge re U.S. immigration history, I’m sure you are aware that from 1925-1965 there was just about ZERO net immigration into the United States as a result of the National Origins Act of 1925, right? It’s sort of what made the whole “Melting Pot” possible in the first place. Oh, silly me, of course a big brain like you knew that!
But what of when economic problems stem from cultural problems? I think illegal immigration is overrated (in that it neither helps or nor really hurts us) but in present form it gradually reinforces the entitlement edifice. How does that split as an economic/cultural issue? Abortion is hugely important in California or Oklahoma, but in the rest of the states it is secondary, though hewing rightward over time, thanks to contraceptives, sonograms, and the re-assertion of women’s human nature.
As for the debates, the only reason they’ve hurt him so much was that bizarre ultimatum about college tuition. People were looking for a reason to ditch Perry after that. Irrespective of Romney’s *complete* hypocrisy you can’t go calling other Republicans heartless.
Why can’t Perry come back? Gingrich is apparently surging right now, and he was a joke, a non factor, a gadfly just 4 weeks ago.
Steve, JVL, and the somewhat excitable jonsmythe,
“What’s really interesting about this is two things:
(1) This phenomenon is true for a number of countries and their emigrant population in America–for instance, Canada, China, the U.K. Yet some countries exhibit the reverse (the Philippines, India, and Vietnam)–so this is a country-specific, not a general, trend.
(2) Once they’re here, the TFR of Hispanic-born immigrants in America falls at a *much higher rate* than the general populace, so they’re regressing to the mean very quickly.”
This got me thinking about the real reason I am so concerned about Hispanic-born immigrants. Whatever their IQ, work ethic upon leaving Mexico, religious values, etc. they seem to be regressing to a mean that is problematic — the ghetto mean. Single parenthood (now at 50% of Hispanic births), gang culture (which I know exists in Mexico), lack of social mobility and low value on education, etc. For all these reason, plus our current screwed up liberal preoccupation with diversity and multi-culturalism, these Hispanic immigrants are forming a new underclass that are not assimilating or becoming second and third generation productive American citizens (i.e. there are real long-term consequences, whatever the TFR of Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, winds up being).
Which is why immigration should be a top priority for the GOP right now (although, since I agree with JVL on abortion, I’m not sure why conservative voters don’t make these issues both/and rather than either/or).
That’s it exactly—to the degree that Mexicans do assimilate, they do so downward, to the worst parts of American culture. They lose the hardworking, modest Catholicism of the 1st generation, and join gangs, have kids out of wedlock, etc. That’s A-OK with the democrat party though, because it means more welfare/affirmative action goodies it gets to hand out in return for votes. Hispanics have consistently voted 65-35 (at best) against the GOP. It will only get worse if we import millions up millions more of them.
No, abortion is still key to the GOP, its just that the pro-lifers have won, so no one’s fighting the issue in the primaries anymore. Remember the amazing success of the Giuliani campaign? If any GOP presidential aspirant said that pro-lifers were “heartless,” that aspirant would be polling at less than 1% and would be denounced loud and long by all the other candidates and practically every right-wing media outlet out there.
It’s the same way that gun control is no longer a national issue.
The GOP elites are a little late getting the message on immigration, but I for one am happy to make an example of Rick Perry for the more slow-witted among them.
One other difference between abortion and immigration is that its harder to see what, exactly, to do about abortion. The Supreme Court has made that tricky. On immigration there are a whole host of policy options that can take place in the sphere of normal politics: e-verify, border fence, dream act, amnesty, chain immigration, etc.
Very interesting, but what does any of it have to do with Rick Ankiel?
Ah, yes, there must be a grand conspiracy behind Rick Perry’s fall from grace. It can’t be that he sucks. The Perriwinkles make the Palinistas look blase’ and aloof. And who is this GOP-against-immigration of whom you speak? Have you read the WSJ, listened to Karl Rove, watched a Jeb Bush speech lately? The GOP establishment never shuts about the importance of the Hispanic vote.
“The GOP establishment never shuts about the importance of the Hispanic vote.”
And rightfully so, just as the Democrats in the 19th century never shut up about the importance of the Irish and Italian vote. And just as the Democrats could not win without those votes in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Republicans cannot win without the ever increasing Hispanic vote. 21 million Hispanic voters is a bloc to be taken seriously.
Hey Zane, how did we retake the House in 2010 without the all important Hispanic Vote? That voting block only keeps growing because of policy decisions—it’s not a given that it has to keep growing.
Social Conservatives will not get rid of abortion. Abortion is good for White people — it keeps the Black population from growing.
This is a good thing for Whites in America, as Whites are down to 65% from 89% in 1940 (no margin for error in the spoils fights of who gets taxed and who gets money sent to them). This is doubly good because Black people who use abortion the most are ghetto poor, and massive tax burdens. Without Abortion, the Black population could be as high as 25% or more, as opposed to 12% (it went down 0.9% in the last decade). Black people mostly hate White people (see the massive popularity of Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan). Perhaps they’re entitled, maybe its karma, regardless most White people don’t figure THEY need to be punished for the sins of John C. Calhoun or Strom Thurmond.
Abortion keeps the population of people who hate Whites the most (and seem destined to always hate them the most) down, while also keeping the population growth of the poorest among them down. Not only does this decrease the growth rate of the demands of the poor upon the shrinking White middle class, but it increases personal security. Fewer poor Blacks means fewer games of “Polar Bear Hunting” or “Knockout King” or Flash Mobs.
No one will say it because of PC jihads, but that is what everyone is thinking. A bare White majority has to think like this. A minority gets even more ruthless, the more so as there is no place to run to anymore.
The reason abortion cannot be the ultimate litmus test on its own is that it tales many generations to do anything about it. In all the years since Roe, pro-lifers have accomplished essentially nothing. Getting rid of Roe is as far off as ever.
The only way to look on this is that it is a cause that has to be won not in a period of years, or decades, but one that has to be won demographically, over very long time-spans, as long as it takes.
Dates like when Whites become a minority are key for pro-lifers, because there is no point in planning on any smaller scale.
There is no point in supporting policy X, however morally urgent it is, while at the same time agreeing to the creation of a new majority that will vote against that policy forever.
You want to win, right?
If all you want from “pro-life” as a litmus test is that candidates present themselves as good people who favor good things, theoretically, then what’s wrong with being “personally opposed” (feeling good about yourself morally) while practically supporting abortion?
If we have to win or at least do our best, then demographics are key.
If you want to argue that demographic change from mass migration into America (and into the Democrat coalition) is irrelevant from a pro-life point of view, you need a convincing argument that pro-lifers can win the cultural and legal argument on life decisively and permanently in a time frame that will make long term demographic change irrelevant. Do you have such an argument?
Is it “rude” to talk about race, Mexican culture, generational regression, and the nature of the Democrat coalition? Sure. But it’s also “rude” to show people what abortion is (that is, that it’s killing human beings), and it’s “rude” to insist that people look at ultrasounds, to see the people that abortion kills.
The left always tries to define “rudeness” so that it wins. It tries to rule out information that the right needs to get out there (like the unborn, alive and slain) and even information that right wing people simply need to know, like what demographic changes are happening and what the consequences will be of going along with these changes. Accepting left-wing rules on what speech is out of bounds means giving up on life and everything else.
The reason abortion cannot be the ultimate litmus test on its own is that it takes many generations to do anything about it.