A few days back, columnist Scott Morefield posted a piece arguing that all issues of concern to conservatives must be subordinated to imposing some semblance of order upon our wide-open immigration door. I fully understand Mr. Morefield’s position. It’s incorrect, in that the insecure power grid is an even more preemptive issue: abortion, gender-engineering, “canceling”, and all the rest go away if ninety percent of us die within a year of an EMP attack or powerful solar flare. But… put that to one side. The deliberate and overnight tribalization of electoral decisions is undoubtedly a clever way around the civil marketplace of ideas. In fact, the detour’s diabolical path has been mapped out clearly by others for years. Ann Coulter leaps to mind—but I believe Pat Buchanan has been sounding the alert even longer.
The view has a certain “squirm factor” in that it might be said to reflect genuine racism: i.e., it implies that immigrants of non-European origin are incapable of valuing freedom and, instead, bring with them a genetic craving for servitude. This may be an unfair interpretation of the Coulter/Buchanan hypothesis (I’m more confident that it is in the former than the latter instance). Unfortunately, rank-and-file proponents of restricted immigration rarely take the time to draw fine distinctions. It’s worth stressing—and is not stressed enough—that comfort with subjugation is a cultural acquisition; it’s not encoded in anyone’s DNA. I am not a racist if I discover and announce that a certain culture’s preferred food is unhealthy, even though I’m sure to encounter resistance if I try to steer that culture’s members toward a different diet. In the same way, the proper objection to the ongoing deluge of non-European immigrants (both legal and illegal) is that they import with their other baggage a learned and customary tolerance of paternalistic, top-down governance. It’s what they’ve always known.
Now, though I have a degree of sympathy with this argument when its emphasis falls in the right place, it always fails to convince me fully. Many of our immigrants who fled from totalitarian regimes became, quite logically, our strongest promoters of basic freedoms. They or their immediate families had experienced the abject misery at the spectrum’s other end. Elia Kazan (pilloried in his lifetime and despised in memory for exposing the thorough communist infiltration of Hollywood) was born to Greek Orthodox parents who fled the oppression of Muslim Turkey. Sebastian Gorka’s parents similarly fled Soviet-dominated Hungary to find asylum in England. Gordon Chang’s father had escaped Communist China, into which Chang won further insights after working as a legal counsel for almost two decades in Hong Kong and on the mainland. Humberto Fontova was brought to America from Castro’s Cuba at the age of seven, his father following after three months of detention and his cousin murdered while in the hands of interrogators.
The reason, therefore, that our present horde of immigrants votes almost to a person for Big Brotherly government (including those hundreds of thousands who vote illegally) isn’t that its masses just can’t say goodbye to the joys of having a patrón peering down upon them from his proud, snorting alazán. No: the problem is that we pay them to vote for new masters. They get “free stuff” (a phrase which AOC has declared she will hunt to extinction—but I hope to be dead to this world long before she has the power to act upon her whimsy). When you get paid by a corrupt system just to breathe air, you probably don’t hold your breath in principled protest. I’m about to start drawing Social Security. I would willingly forego every dime of it if I thought the savings to the government would be fully deducted from our national debt (for I’ve known throughout my adult life that Uncle Sam couldn’t be trusted to provide for my retirement, and I invested accordingly). But why strike that noble pose when the corrupt demagogues who lord it over us would only use my gift to fund further vote-buying schemes? Oh, they’ll do that, anyway, I know. Part of the Grand Plan is to spend the nation into ruin—which will then precipitate the coalescence of a one-world government (with an elite oligarchy at the top, after the Chinese fashion). All the more reason, though, just to grab my own few pennies while I can.
I’m confident that nothing I’ve written so far will have left anyone behind in the dust. This isn’t climate science (which appears to be infinitely harder to grasp than rocket science). Yet we make a mistake, I think, to disdain others who will never visit a site like this, and who instead are influenced by “optics”. It does look bad to be advocating constantly an approach to political and economic life that puts one on the far side from people of color; and when one’s program for political survival amounts to keeping more people of color from entering the country… well, it looks even worse. We know that the situation is more complicated than that. From numerous angles, however, we should also be able to see that couching the struggle in Morefield/Coulter/Buchanan terms isn’t the road to victory. (For instance, even if we stemmed the flow of non-European immigration, we’d have our own self-hating tribe to contend with in colleges and the media—a tribe that also doesn’t reproduce at replacement-rate.) In the meantime… we’re surrounded by those terrible optics.
May I ask why we cannot strengthen our position by actively recruiting people of color for positions of power? Yes, that flies in the face of our principled commitment to choosing “the best man for the job”… but isn’t it a little suspicious, after all, that so many men are on the job for us, and all of them (with the retirement of William Hurd from the House) white? And are they so plainly the best? I was in the fight to push Brian Kemp across the finish line ahead of rabid socialist Soros-and-Oprah tool Stacey Abrams a year ago. This past week I was treated to the prospect of our “best man” appointing a career Romneyite to serve out Johnny Isakson’s term—and providing no other explanation to us, his frustrated constituents, other than the Peerless Leader’s, “I know what’s good for you.” With friends like that….
So I submit that, other things being equal, there’s nothing at all wrong with having a candidate who happens to be black, and female, and—dare I say it?—physically attractive. I know virtually nothing about the three women running for the House in Georgia-7 beyond what I’ve read on their websites; but one of them, Dr. Lerah Lee, is of African descent. In addition to that “credential” (if it be such), her site specifies the following objectives: “Secure our borders, defend our Second Amendment rights, support our veterans, hold the line on spending and taxes, help the next generation have better opportunities.” Not a bad list! If Dr. Lee’s competition is similarly inclined, though, should her racial heritage tip the balance in her favor—would I be condoning quotas and identity-politics if I pressed my thumb on her scale? Perhaps. But I don’t think standing in inflexible defense of color-blindness is fully worth the sacrifice of the republic. Such a consequence may just be the price of principle.
And again… exactly why are there no black females in Congress with “R” behind their name (President Trump having peevishly declined to support Mia Love in ’16 after her lukewarm reaction to his lifestyle)? Is that absence just a statistical anomaly? An ongoing statistical anomaly? Or is there some Al Campanis variety of explanation? Yeah… that’s what I’m afraid of.
We’ve seen how courageously Kim Klacik stood up against both the corrupt Baltimore machine and the national news media. Isn’t that recommendation enough? She’s running for the House seat in Maryland-7. I can’t afford to give her much—but she can have some of my first Social Security check when it arrives.
Has this discussion turned offensive to my typical readership? I can well imagine why it might have. We wish to judge people only by the content of their character. But it’s painfully evident that we haven’t done so with great success—or that, more likely, some once-good characters were altered soon after entering the corridors of power. Maybe, some day, term limits will minimize the almost Satanic transformation of virtuous characters into caricatures of goodness which we observe in Washington, over and over.
In the meantime, why not give optics a chance? Why concede, in Coulter/Buchanan fashion, that the “hive-advocates” have people of color permanently on their side of the chessboard, and that only some move of inspired brilliance can save our democratic republic from checkmate?