A Lot Is Still Wrong With the European Right

Wall St Journal ^ | May 8, 2002 | FREDERICK KEMPE

[SJackson]

At first glance, it would seem that center-right parties are on a roll across Europe. President Jacques Chirac was re-elected Sunday by the widest margin in French history. Italy's Silvio Berlusconi is finishing his first year atop Italy. Right-of-center parties rule in Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg.

[LarryLied]

the intensifying politics of hate that likely produced the Monday murder of Holland's anti-immigrant politician Pim Fortuyn and the killing in March of a senior Italian official whose job was to reform Italy's labor market. It is the politics of hate that has synagogues burning and helps Le Pen reach the French election's final round.

The left is responsible for all this (except Le Pen) yet the writer implies it is the fault of the right. Such "haters".

[MarkWar]

>Yet it's hard for the center-right to celebrate any new political wind favoring freer markets and individual initiative amid Europe's ugly new stench of intolerance

I'll admit that I stopped reading this article at this sentence. But I must say that the writer has captured a profound truth about the modern world here in the thoughts behind this sequence of words.

Until we all learn to rid ourselves of our own "ugly new stench of intolerance," until we all learn to embrace the people blowing us up and shooting us and knifing us and dragging our dead and dying bodies through their street celebrations, and flying jet liners into our office buildings, we will never fit in with the Establishment, we will never be ready to take our place as global citizens in the New World Order.

Could anything be more clear, really?

Mark W.

[skeeter]

How does a paper historically seen as 'conservative' reconcile itself to the fact it is beginning to have more in common with the one-world no-borders socialist left?

The WSJ sucks harder every year.

[Clemenza]

The WSJ is a great paper (the only one I subscribe to), but it is DEAD STUPID WRONG on immigration.

[Kobyashi1942]

The WSJ is a great paper (the only one I subscribe to), but it is DEAD STUPID WRONG on immigration.

Hear, Hear! Immigration is the defining issue of the day and the Republicans are missing the boat. I used to enjoy reading the WSJ until they started shilling for Kemp-Bennett (those NWO idiots). People like Kemp and Newt are the reasons that the Republican party have lost the Senate and will probably lose the house.

If Newt had only embraced the proposition 187 movement we wouldn't be in this boat that we are in today.

[Paradox]

He notes that George W. Bush Sr. is taking over leadership of the International Democratic Union, the worldwide gathering of conservatives, from the leader of Britain's Conservatives, William Hague, at its June meeting.

"Wouldn't be prudent...."

[Clemenza]

Much to the dismay of many on this site, I am a moderate on immigration. I have seen in my own life and neighborhoods both the positive and negative consequences of immigration. I believe that "family reunification" (read:chain migration) should be abolished and illegal immigration cracked down, largely by severely penalizing business that knowingly hire illegals. At the same time, I am all for letting in entrepeneurial and skilled immigrants, who I believe are overburdened by the immigration bureaucracy. The Venezuelan and Panamanian banking professionals must spend a sh-tload of money on legal fees so that they can work in the US, while the US government appears to turn a blind eye to uneducated grape pickers and dishwashers. It is a sad situation indeed.

[B Knotts]

But you sound like you would be in favor of perhaps reducing the overall level of immigration to reasonable levels, no? That's where I am on this issue. I don't think there's that many who are seriously arguing for zero immigration in the U.S. (although such a policy might be reasonable for some small European countries, at least for the time being). And fewer still embrace arguably racist policies like repatriation.

See, I think conservatives could wipe the floor with liberals if they would take on the immigration issue in a moderate and reasonable way, instead of running from it.

[SJackson]

The WSJ is a great paper (the only one I subscribe to), but it is DEAD STUPID WRONG on immigration…Much to the dismay of many on this site, I am a moderate on immigration. I have seen in my own life and neighborhoods both the positive and negative consequences of immigration. I believe that "family reunification" (read:chain migration) should be abolished and illegal immigration cracked down, largely by severely penalizing business that knowingly hire illegals. At the same time, I am all for letting in entrepeneurial and skilled immigrants…

I think you’re missing the writers point.

The best antidote against extremists is beating them at their own game. The center needs to campaign against the politics of hate at the same time that it clearly addresses public fears of growing crime and illegal or excessive immigration.

IMO, immigration and crime are not inherently conservative or liberal issues, at least in the context of values such as economic and personal freedom or the size of government. They can be adopted (or rejected) by politicians at either end of the spectrum. After all, we have GWB campaigning on amnesty for illegals, and Bubba campaigning on reducing crime and 100,000 cops. LePen advocated substantial government interference in the French economy, just in different directions. I think the author is advising conservative groups to adopt these issues as their own, NOW, while they can consolidate support. And IMO, before they are hijacked by the left.

[SJackson]

See, I think conservatives could wipe the floor with liberals if they would take on the immigration issue in a moderate and reasonable way, instead of running from it.

You're right. Liberals could do the same thing if they co-opt the issue.

[skeeter]

I believe that "family reunification" (read:chain migration) should be abolished and illegal immigration cracked down, largely by severely penalizing business that knowingly hire illegals. At the same time, I am all for letting in entrepeneurial and skilled immigrants, who I believe are overburdened by the immigration bureaucracy.

I haven't seen too much from the anti-illegal immigrant crowd on this forum that differs from what you've written above, myself included. (I'd throw in inelligibility to collect benefits other than accident insurance until citizenship is achieved)

[Clemenza]

Many unfortunatly resort to blanket attacks on Latin Americans and how they are "destroying our culture" through tacos and Sabado Gigante. Its the racially charged rhetoric that makes me distance myself from most "immigration control" organizations.

[Sonny M]

The reason the WSJ has always been totally supporting of immigration is that immigration provides cheaper labor to major corporations. If there were no immigrants, people picking oranges wouldn't be paid minimum wage, they'd have to be paid alot more, just to get people to do it. Sweat shops that don't exist, would have to pay higher wages to americans. The WSJ will always support cheaper labor.

[Tuor]

The left is responsible for all this (except Le Pen) yet the writer implies it is the fault of the right. Such "haters".

Le Pen is a nationalist. The WSJ is full of globalists (neo-cons). Ergo, the WSJ hates Le Pen and wants to discredit/crush any nationalistic movement.

Tuor

[Phillip Augustus]

Succinctly put, but entirely accurate.

The neo-cons are as much a danger to Western Civilization as are the liberals.

[LarryLied]

I am a moderate on immigration.

A suggestion: Work to stop all immigration. That is the only way a moderate compromise will be reached. Start as a moderate and the open borders people will roll over you.

[Kobyashi1942]

The reason the WSJ has always been totally supporting of immigration is that immigration provides cheaper labor to major corporations. If there were no immigrants, people picking oranges wouldn't be paid minimum wage, they'd have to be paid alot more, just to get people to do it. Sweat shops that don't exist, would have to pay higher wages to americans. The WSJ will always support cheaper labor.

Obviously the WSJ doesn't really believe in the "power" of the free market, as most Free Traitors don't (but think they do). If there were no immigrants to pick the produce the producers would just have to raise wages until they attracted American citizens into the fields (instead of sitting around on and collecting welfare). Than in turn the producers would just pass on their increased costs to the consumers. Big deal, we pay more for food, gardners and ditch diggers. Don't we pay more each year for cars, homes and entertainment? So what is the big deal if we end up paying more for those other products?

Eventually consumer demand for the labor intensive food products would drop and the market forces would drive the price back down. We see the same game played out with gasoline prices every summer. If the WSJ really believe the bovine fecal matter they printed they would realize that you don't need a flood of disease ridden and illiterate immigrants to make a free market work.

[Sonny M]

I agree, you made my point far better then I did.