It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea

For a political junkie, the Dubai ports debacle has been a bit like the movie “Pulp Fiction”—just one freaky story inside another, unfolding at a rapid pace and leading to an unexpected ending that made no darn sense and yet was really quite satisfying emotionally. I give it two thumbs way up.

Unfortunately for the President, he played the part of “Marcellus Wallace” in “Port Fiction.” He talked tough at the start of the whole thing, but really took it hard in the end. (Bada bing!) And along the way we got to see Chuck Schumer support racial profiling, Hillary Clinton claim to be concerned about national security, Lawrence Kudlow play the (Arab) race card, Fred Barnes complain that some conservatives were too cantankerous, and Rush Limbaugh congratulate his own audience for defeating him. Now that’s a movie that should have got an Oscar!

Two of the subplots really stood out in my mind though. One was how eagerly the disciples of “free” trade took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn’t be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.

Whatever their motivation, they came across as nothing less than petty and absurd. The restructuring of the world economy and the American legal landscape by the proponents of free trade over the last two decades has been nothing short of a revolution—and it was all made possible, ultimately, by the votes of the fly-over country conservatives with whom Kudlow and company have shared a big tent for so long.

And yet at the first sign of hesitation or reluctance to indulge further on mom and pop’s part, the free trade faithful turned on them with epithets and disdain. According to some pinstriped pundits, the most open nation on earth, at the most internationalist time in its history, is suddenly and dismissively labeled “xenophobic,” “isolationist,” “protectionist,” “nativist,” “racist” and “ignorant” of the fact that world is global, or some such insight. Given 99% of everything they want, some free traders turned petulantly on their enablers over the 1% they didn’t get.

This behavior is very familiar to anyone who has small children. You can take them to the park, the mall, the museum, a game, an arcade, an ice cream shop, McDonald’s and Chuck E Cheese’s, then after spending the whole day and $200 on them, you tell them it’s time to go home and they explode into tears and theatrics while flopping about on the floor calling you “a meanie,” which is like “xenophobic,” but without the overeducated pretense.

And what was the tone-deaf expectation behind conservatives of any stripe, pin or otherwise, playing the race card in an internal political debate? Perhaps, like an abused child who grows up to be a child abuser, the name callers thought that they might get the same sort of instant capitulation from their base that they are used to giving to Democrats and the media when they themselves are accused of racism—or of just having used the word “niggardly” in a college essay once.

Way to solidify the base! Why not just say that Republicans are "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party," or "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people"? When some in the party start sounding like Howard Dean while bashing the rest of it, it could be time to take a deep breath.

The second subplot that really stood out to me, is how clueless many in the Republican Party are to the true source of public misgiving about the port deal. This does not bode well for avoiding a repeat of the debacle in the near future. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the average voter does not normally concern himself with the minutiae of cargo management and port personnel. So why the big opinion all of a sudden over Dubai Ports World?

Well, in my opinion this is sort of like an argument in a marriage. It may have started over a specific incident, but it’s really about something else and has been building for a long time.

This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.

But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody’s home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected—even more than they want another 0.3% added to next year’s GDP. Some things matter more than the economic opportunity cost we pay for having them. The American Revolution, for example, was bad for the economy while it was under way. But that was not really the point of the whole thing, was it?

The emotion surrounding the ports deal, and illegal immigration, and outsourcing, and homeland security and a dozen other aspects of breakneck international economic integration is no longer simply a quiet misgiving. It is rapidly being formed into a single coherent message from average citizens to those in power—both on the right and on the left- that see it as their job to make sure the “inevitable” rise of a single world economic entity actually happens. People are saying, “Stop!

They’re saying “OK, we’ve tried it your way and it never seems to end. No amount of globalization, tolerance, equalization, outsourcing, internationalism, interventionism, human smuggling, and security risk is ever enough. There is always a push for more—even before the last round has proven itself wise or foolish. Treaty piles upon treaty, migration upon migration, integration upon integration. Now people want a break and a reassessment. They’re not sure they are against it all. They’re just no longer sure they’re still for it.

It is not Xenophobia. It is Xenonausea. People are sick of having the whole world shoved down their throats at once and being told it tastes like ice cream. They are sick of every street corner and parking lot being filled with criminal aliens waiting to work off the books and outside the laws that are applied so enthusiastically to actual Americans. They are sick of pressing “1” for English. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists. They are sick of being told that the world is global or flat or smaller or at their doorstep or all coming for dinner on Tuesday.

They are sick of hearing that America is just an economic opportunity zone and not a distinct nation, a culture—their home. They are sick of being told that human beings are interchangeable parts, that the nation-state is passé, that there are some jobs that Americans just won’t do, that there are some contracts that Americans just won’t bid, and that any cost that cannot be measured in money cannot be very important. They are sick of having the world purposely knit together in a tighter tangle everyday and then being told we are so entangled that America must now run the whole world and solve all its problems. And they are sick of being called ignorant and racist and xenophobic just for having the temerity to raise questions when abstract trade theory conflicts with their common sense.

And they want a break. They want some breathing room and some limits; and they don’t want to hear elitist children cry themselves hoarse after all they’ve been given already.

If absolute globalization really is inevitable, it doesn’t need such a vociferous lobby. It will happen at its own organic pace. Trying to force it prematurely will just cause a backlash here and abroad—as it already has from Van Nuys to Venezuela to Vladivostok.

And if it is not inevitable, then it needs to be justified beyond the boardroom and the lecture hall. It may not be something that everyone wants to pay the costs of, whatever benefits it may bring to our bank accounts and stock exchanges.

Soon, Congress will consider a new illegal immigration bill. Failure to acknowledge the new mood in the country could break the Republican Party.

Mr. Johnson, a writer and medical researcher in Cambridge, MA., is a regular contributor to Human Events. His column generally appears on Mondays. Archives and additional material can be found at www.macjohnson.com.

Your entire case on this thread is based upon what W has called 9/10 thinking.

Then why am *I* the one pointing out that 9/11 changed everything?

Before 9/11, UAE was on friendlier terms with some of the bad guys. After 9/11, UAE turned on the bad guys.

My entire case is based on a simple premise, so simple I'm amazed you'd find a need to mischaracterize it:

There is ample evidence that the UAE is currently a trusted ally.
There is *no* evidence that the UAE is currently a threat to our ports.

Simple, and clearly stated.

You have not provide any evidence they are our friends other then Jorge (Rockefeller Republican) Arbusto said so.

We have bases there, they are friendly to us and our troops, they have caught several terrorists including the Cole bomber, etc, etc, etc.

There is ample evidence that they are a trusted ally. If they wanted to hurt us with a bomb, they'd just wait until one of our carriers were in port and do it then.

And as you know, I *have* read all the things you all have posted.

Not one single valid bit of evidence has come up yet. Just things like, "But they have crime there" and "In the past, they were friendly with some of these organizations" and "But they build houses for Hamas!"

Forgive me, but it's just not evidence that UAE is a danger to us.

"Clearly, the fact that 2 were born there means *nothing* about who they grew up to be or what they ended up doing. You lose that point."

Your assertion was addressed, and to the point, in my previous post. These were foreign-nationals engaging in an act of international terror that was committed outside the borders of their own country. They were acting in accordance with beliefs widely held (if not alway publicly proclaimed) by their society and religion vis-a-vis Islam, personal anti-American sentiment among Muslims, and governmental anti-American actions evidenced by votes in the UN, and post 9/11 celebrations.

Please try to follow along. Do I need to start drawing picto-grams for you?

"Again, forgive me if I require some actual evidence of this. The only thing that is known about 9/11 is that some Dubai banks were part of a chain that laundered money. Which does *not* mean that the UAE citizens partly paid for 9/11. That is a bold inaccuracy, on your part."

One last time... please visit the links supplied, and respond in an informed manner, rather than re-stating your personal prejudice and bias based solely upon emotion, and the opinion of others. I've done half your homework for you by providing you with links to 9/11 commission reports, and findings of the US Department of the Treasury clearly linking UAE entities to Al Qaeda both pre, and post, 9/11.

If you're really up for an enlightened debate (beginning to have doubts), please state legal precedent, facts, or some sort of reasoning supporting your position other than 'Bush said so'. Otherwise, please see post #27 in this thread, and re-read the article up for discussion, which are revealing themselves as increasingly apropos regarding your POV and comments.

Your assertion was addressed, and to the point, in my previous post.

Addressed, yes. But you failed to show a connection between the 2 being born and raised there 20+ years ago and the UAE's danger to our ports today.

As *I* pointed out in a previous post. That's why you have to repeatedly address this point -- what you think answers it doesn't. You still lose the point. The govt of their home country does not get blamed for their actions unless you can show govt involvement with their actions.

If you're really up for an enlightened debate (beginning to have doubts), please state legal precedent, facts, or some sort of reasoning supporting your position other than 'Bush said so'.

"Bush said so"??? Looking back, I can't see once where I've said that. That's a deliberate mischaracterization of my clearly stated position. Getting a little off-base, aren'tcha?

Are you here to have a serious debate at all yourself? Cuz that 'Bush said so" comment makes it seem like you're not listening to me at all.

I've been quite clear in my position --

there is ample evidence that the UAE has been our ally since 9/11 changed everything
There is no evidence that UAE is a threat to port security.

Misrepresenting that clear statment to disparage me personally really seems to indicate a weak argument. Which I suppose I don't mind, but it just isn't entertaining. I want debate, ideas, evidence, facts. I could change my mind easily, if some real facts were put on the table. Yet you folks act like you don't even know what facts *are*, and several on several other threads have outright admitted this is just a "hunch" or a "feeling".

I find your misrepresenting my clearly stated points to be most instructive.

I have read and responded to your all points in detail. I am not calling names, and hope I'm not being rude. Your side ignores my clear points, calls names, and is constantly rude.

That alone should tell you something about which side has the facts . . . :-)

Then why am *I* the one pointing out that 9/11 changed everything?

9/11 undoubtedly changed the strategic thinking on the part of a lot of countries..."you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," does tend to fucus the question.

9/11 didn't just change how other countries made decisions...it changes the way we made decisions also. There was no "proof" that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, and there was no "proof" he was a danger to us. The point W made was that if you wait long enough for someone to be a danger, you've waited too long.

The idea of "proof" has been turned on its head. So has the notion that the elites will decide what's safe enough, and we'll go along...that got buried in the rubble of the twin towers.

The method of decision making has been changed; no one is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This deal has three strikes against it....

1) This company is owned by the government.

2) The government is primarily Muslim.

3) There is no separation of church and state in the Muslim world; they're assumed to be the same.

Start there, and prove there's no harm, rather than the other way around. That's what changed on 9/11.

There has been a wealth of evidence listed in this thread explaining in detail why UAE is a potential threat to us.

I responded to each, as it was posted.

I guess I'm looking for something different than you guys. I'm looking for evidence that the current UAE govt has supported terrorists, endangered port security, etc, sometime since becoming our ally.

Seems simple enough. And ya'lls refusal to answer is instructive, to say the least.

There was no "proof" that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, and there was no "proof" he was a danger to us.

There was indeed evidence to suggest that Saddam was working with al queda before 9/11.

So has the notion that the elites will decide what's safe enough, and we'll go along...that got buried in the rubble of the twin towers.

"The Elites"??? Tell me you aren't serious??? This and the 'no evidence sadam was part of 9/11' are dangerously close to DU talking points.

This deal has three strikes against it....

Its part govt owned, like Chinese companies. They're muslims. We don't agree with their govt style.

If that's good enough for you, so be it. But like the Soviets during WWII, alliances with govts you don't like are part of the real world. So none of those 3 points are relevant to trusting an ally -- based on history and power politics.

The only thing that would be a 'strike' against this deal would be evidence that this company has, or would, endanger our ports by moving containers.

Something your side seems to be very short on . . .

Wait until the shamnesty votes start in a few weeks. The free traitor globalist will start howling in earnest then.

I am against any sort of Amnesty. You're just full of misconceptions, aren't you?

I understand. You made your choice, on what was posted here.

I'm simply pointing out that there is no evidence suggesting that UAE is a danger to us. Do with that what you will.

There is a load of evidence.

So ya'll have been saying.

But so far, not one thing that would seem to suggest that the UAE is a threat to US port security has been posted.

Lots of "we don't like their govt", and "but they're arab muslims" and "before 9/11 . . . "

Forgive me, but I require some evidence before declaring an ally a sponsor of terrorism. Something like, "This person in the UAE govt did this that helped these folks blow this up."

Maybe that's just me. Maybe it's too much to ask for. But I don't honestly believe you can fault me for waiting for such evidence before declaring an ally to be untrustworthy.

not one thing that would seem to suggest that the UAE is a threat to US port security has been posted.

So you say. And not ONE thing has ever been posted that proves we should trust them. Not one. This isn't a court of law. Common sense prevails here. We disagree on what makes sense. To you it's George Bush. To us, it's everybody else.

Let's agree to disagree on the facts and stop with this silly discussion.

And not ONE thing has ever been posted that proves we should trust them.

They base our ships, host our troops, have been a partner in the WoT, caught and turned over terrorists, and on, and on.

Evidence that they are an ally to be trusted.

Let's agree to disagree on the facts and stop with this silly discussion.

Well, I am having fun with this 'silly discussion'. If you're not, then ciao, and thanks for the discussion.

(cricket-watch)

:-)

You guys are too funny.

I did answer this once -- in 192.

You guys are so wrong about me, it puts the rest of your opinions in an interesting light.

If you read back over my history of posts, you'd find out I'm not a "free trader" (traitor is *such* a silly word!). I'm *not* a bush-bot by a long-shot.

I just have a simple, clear opinion -- for me, I would like to see some real, solid evidence to suggest that UAE is a risk to us before declaring them to be a terrorist-sponsoring state.

Ya'lls reaction to my simple question says a lot about your side. I would have expected a lot of ya'll to understand, but explain to me why in your opinion, it was too dangerous to wait for what I'm looking for.

Instead, I've gotten name-calling, and people who seem to think that my quest for evidence is stupid. And ya'll, who actually question my nationality!?! Now *that* is a stupid line of argument, forgive me for pointing out.

Something I *never* would have expected from FR.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.