Political and social observations from two aspiring hedgehogs who love the Isaiah Berlin essay.
Congressman and Chief Immigration Demagogue Tom Tancredo mounted a furious assault against Chris Cannon, another Republican from Utah, because Cannon dared to support President Bush's approach to immigration. A Tancredo-anointed candidate ran on that single issue in the Utah GOP primary.
posted by Lowell Brown at 6:40 AM
|
"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." --Archilochus
What Do We Mean by "Hedgehog," Anyway?Read Article6blog: Presidential Politics and Religion!
Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
What a real hedgehog looks like
13 Comments:
The question now will be whether the Tancredo hard-liners will choose to believe their own spin rather than accept reality.
Posted by Harold C. Hutchison
As a Utah 3rd District activist who has been trying to get rid of Chris Cannon for three cycles now, let me tell you that I think you're reading too much into the election.
The strongest thing yesterday's primary proved is that it's hard to defeat an incumbent, and it's especially hard for an intraparty challenge to succeed absent a scandal.
People resist change. Nobody resists it more than Utah County voters.
I dislike Chris Cannon, and had questions about him long before anybody had ever heard of Tom Tancredo or cared about immigration.
It is fair to say that focusing on immigration is not sufficient to beat Cannon. I'll give you that. But again, all it says is that a single issue is insufficient to unseat an incumbent in a primary.
But this blog is quite predictable. I don't read it every day, but I came here today knowing that you would be gloating.
Wisdom. Goodness. Honesty. Mormons are told to look for those in a candidate. Chris Cannon possesses an ordinary mortal's amount of those traits -- he is a gray-suited man of his times. People who knew John Jacob long before he ran for office (and whose judgment I trust) tell me that John is something special, a rare individual possessed of great talent, goodness and honesty.
But in our society today, you're not allowed to run on the platform "vote for me because I'm morally better than the other guy" even if it's true.
The end result is that we in Utah have missed a chance to improve our nation's government, and that is a real shame.
Feel free to gloat. You "won" on a single issue. But regardless of the immigration issue, America lost yesterday.
Posted by Steve Setzer
Steve: I've no intention of gloating, and have not really been following the Cannon challenge, other than what national publications have been saying about it. As you know, I strongly support a comprehensive approach to illegal immigration. I am appalled at the the tactics of some of those who support an "enforcement only" approach, and I think those folks are terribly mistaken in their view. I also thikn they do not realize that they are in a small minority of Americans. Cannon's survival of a ferocious challenge is simply evidence of the latter point, and I am pointing to it for that purpose only.
Posted by The Hedgehog
Fair enough, and I wish I hadn't said "gloat" because it's unkind.
Posted by Steve Setzer
No offense taken, Steve. I appreciate being asked to clarify what I am saying here-- I try to be clear but sometimes miss the mark.
Posted by The Hedgehog
I will also say, though, in the area of tactics, that I am appalled at the tactics of George and Laura Bush in supporting Cannon. In radio ads and automated phone calls they publicly questioned the loyalty of any Republican who supported the challenger.
As nearly as I can tell (and I've followed this issue closely for over two years) there is at best (worst?) a moral equivalence of tactics between the "comprehensive" and "enforcement only" teams. Both appall me at times.
Posted by Steve Setzer
You're fine, and the clarification is fine.
What law school and year were you? (I'm BYU - 2000)
I think I better get back to work :-0
Posted by Steve Setzer
Mr. Setzer, as the author of the post linked to, I have some thoughts as well.
I donated to Cannon's primary campaign. Not just because of his support for a comprehensive bill (I think his advisory committee came up with a good starting point for discussion ), but also because he has the courage to point out a slimy underside to certain groups invovled in the immigration debate and is willing to call the slime for what it is.
Cannon not only had honesty, but he rejected people who seemed to be connected to the evil pseudo-science of eugenics. He did not let a Laura Ingraham or a Sean Hannity tell him what his principles should be - he came up with his own, acted on them, and let the Republicans of his district make the decision as to whether he should still be their nominee.
It is a black mark on the right that Chris Cannon and the Wall Street Journal are the only people who seem willing to point out the apparent anti-life agenda of some of the groups involved in the immigration debate - and that many others vilify them for it.
Posted by Harold C. Hutchison
I am ancient -- Utah College of Law, 1982.
Posted by The Hedgehog
Mr. Hutchison
But "certain groups involved" is not the same as "all groups involved", a point that I think is sometimes missed.
For example, I am not a eugenicist; as for anti-life, well, we are raising three children which puts us ahead of the curve in the US.
Yet I support immigration enforcement. I am willing to talk about "enforcement first" rather than "enforcement only".
Why do I support immigration enforcement? That's kind of complicated.
I believe in Western Civilization as exemplified in the United States. I think it's worth preserving. Our civilization is unique in that anyone can join it, regardless of birthplace or family, simply by adopting certain principles--the rule of law, a general sense of honesty, a willingness to avoid corruption, a solid work ethic. You can learn to be an American.
Immigration is healthy for our society; closed societies stagnate and die. I don't think it much matters where the immigrants come from; individual characteristics such as criminal record do matter, however (we don't need to let in ex-dictators for example). The key is that the immigrants we do admit all need time and space to learn how to be Americans, and limitation is the only way I see to make that possible.
Is such a position eugenicist, or racist, or anti-life? No. Logically, there is no connection between my position and those three slimy agendas.
Therefore, I'm glad that you said "certain groups." I wish others were as careful and considerate.
Cheers.
Posted by Steve Setzer
Immigration is healthy for our society; closed societies stagnate and die.
And some of the groups that Tancredo and Malkin pal around with and accept money from will call you a "Quisling" and worse for having that sentiment. They explicitly want an end to ALL immigration.
I want immigration laws enforced. Unfortunately, the first step to that goal is to have some laws that are actually enforceable, as opposed to the present set, which were written as a combination of liberal social engineering and paying off the AFL-CIO for favors rendered, and are about as closely attached to reality as the Volstead Act.
I have joked that an enforcement-only approach using the present laws will require reactivating the draft, and it will require drafting both men and women.
The men will be drafted to provide enough manpower to chase down and apprehend illegal aliens throughout the country.
A wall, absent a lot of additional manpower to patrol it, will only reduce the present unacceptable levels of illegal immigration to levels that are lower, but still unacceptable. Even then, it won't have a lot of effect, because even 100% effective enforcement along all of the land borders of the United States will only catch the border jumpers, and not the ones who overstay their visas.
So, you will have a lot of menfolk running around all over America, trying to catch the illegal aliens, and trying to do so without annoying those here legally, lest the citizenry decide that the game isn't worth the candle. Good luck on that one.
The women? Oh, the women will be drafted to whelp the next generation of draftees needed. Unauthorized infertility will have to become a court-martial offense.
Posted by Ken Prescott
Thanks - but to be very honest, these groups are not deal with, or ostracized. Tom Tancredo reportedly spoke at one event that was heavily being promoted on Stormfront. Michelle Malkin has promoted VDARE and described it as a "great resource".
What I think we are dealing with is a system that has broken - and it has broken so badly that enforcing it is, in my view, not possible nor wise. We need to fix things, and the repairs will not be easy, nor will the solution be perfect.
Posted by Harold C. Hutchison
I don't ordinarily come to this blog, but found it thru a google search on the anti-immigration candidate's debacle against Cannon. I believe that immigration is as American as apple pie. Those who dont support large scale, massive immigration to the US are un-American and should be deported!
Posted by American Patriot
Post a Comment
<< Home