Immigration: Is There A Lack of Courage on The Blogospheric Right?
I'm traveling today and can post only lightly, so I'll leave these two questions: Are some "stars" of the conservative blogosphere, like some talk radio stars, afraid of their audience? Does their success give them a large reader following -- let's call it a "base"-- that they know insists on ideological purity on certain issues, with the result that the star bloggers fear offending that reader base?
We see this phenomenon, I think, in talk radio. Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity will pick up a conservative issue and flog it to death, hour after hour, day after day, never admitting the slightest possibility of a weakness in their position or a strength in opposing views. It's as boring as watching paint dry, but I suspect that Laura and Sean know they must throw nothing but red meat to their audience daily in order to sustain their ratings.
Now consider Michelle Malkin (and other prominent conservative bloggers) who so far have not said a word about a slimy post written by a person named Vox Day on the WorldNetDaily site.
Called As Seen has the rundown. Read his post and reflect on the deafening silence emanating from too many sites on our side of the blogosphere.
posted by Lowell Brown at 6:11 AM
|
3 Comments:
I'm having trouble understanding the uproar over the dearth of response to Vox Day's column. Who is the guy, anyway, to be worthy of so much blog space? He's a Libertarian, not a Republican, and I've never heard of him outside WorldNetDaily. You never call for major blog objections when I say something apalling--because nobody's ever heard of me! What makes Vox Day any different?
I read WorldNetDaily, even though it's pretty far to the right of my views (they even promote various conspiracy theories now and then). I like it because the layout lets me glance at the headlines, see what interests me, skip the over-the-cliff articles, and read the articles that catch my eye. I especially like their links to the strange stories, like the exploding toads in Denmark, or how to extricate yourself from quicksand, or the Mormon women Down Under who knit sweaters for penguins.
But their Commentary page is all over the map. Vox Day is just one more in their stable of commentators of all stripes. I ignore him most of the time, just like I ignore Pat Buchanan and Ellen Ratner.
So, I didn't read Vox Day's column when it was published. I didn't even read it the first time you mentioned it, because he's normally not my cup of tea. But I finally read it with this post, and I have a question for you: Is the Sliminess Factor because he talked about Hitler in conjunction with deportation in such a cavalier manner (which I agree is revolting), or is it because he wants to deport 12 million illegals?
On some of your more recent immigration-related posts, I get the impression that you're heading into ad hominem attack territory for the people who call for the deportation of the 12 million illegals. For the record, I am not one of those people. Yet you've got a double standard, where you decry those who disagree with you as "implacable, uncompromising, shrill conservative[s]" for decrying those who disagree with them. You can't have it both ways.
My biggest concern about President Bush's proposal is that I don't trust Congress (especially the Senate) to comprehend the totality of the "comprehensive" approach to immigration. Experience has shown that the Senate doesn't have the will to enforce the border. My cynical perspective is that they will quickly enact a slippery road to citizenship for the illegals, and then they'll take the money that President Bush proposes for border enforcement and use it for pork projects instead. That's why I want to see enforcement first--not enforcement only.
Posted by SkyePuppy
I cannot speak for the Hedgehog, but as the person whose post he linked to, I would like to respond.
The column in question labeled President Bush a liar, and then went on to say, "If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society."
That looks like a tacit endorsement of their methods to me. That was what made it very odious to me. But what was also disconcerting is the silence with which it has been treated. And to be very honest, Michelle Malkin has been one of the loudest people to claim that her critics mischaracterize. But I've noticed some things that strike me as not being right , and I want to know just what is going on. Yet the usual response when some of the hard-liners is to be accused of shouting "Racist!/Nativist!/Xenophobe!" or being a liberal.
And in some cases, these people are implacable. Look at Polipundit, and his recent purge of guest bloggers who disagreed with him on immigration. Look at the way some are threatening to stay home in November unless they get their way. There is an implication that I do not have the right to ask what is going on there. I respectfully disagree.
And speaking of "enforcement first", I'd like to ask a question - is there a point at which you would accept increased quotas for visas, a guest-worker program, and cutting some of those who are already here some slack? Because "enforcement first" can just as easily be manipulated.
Posted by Harold C. Hutchison
Mr. Hutchison,
Thanks for your reply.
I still don't know why Vox Day deserves rebuttal, when so many vulgar, vicious people on the left get ignored, and when Day is not a Republican. But I'll let that go, I guess.
As for your question, I have already called for increased legal immigration quotas as well as streamlining the process, so the people we want to let in can actually get here (but then again, I'm not on a lot of people's radar so you may not have seen that).
For the people who are already here and have been here a long time, I'm willing to cut them some slack, but they absolutely should go the the end of the line after people who have been trying to get their citizenship the legal way (like the Canadian man at my church who is married to an American and has been in the legal morass for years, so far without citizenship).
A guest-worker program is more problematic, because it's a complex question of document-checking and employer penalties and jobs Americans really would do if the employers weren't jumping at the chance to pay sub-minimum wage and enforcement on the back-end when the guest-work is finished. I'm open to the discussion on this one.
For me, the crucial point is that we really must close the border to all but the people we want to let in (tourists, legal immigrants, etc), or else we're going to be in this mess all over again ad nauseum . And so far, I haven't seen Congress's willingness to do this.
Posted by SkyePuppy
Post a Comment
<< Home