Unpatriotic Conservatives

National Review Online ^ | 4/7/03 (advance) | David Frum

[Chancellor Palpatine]

"I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."
— THOMAS FLEMING, "HARD RIGHT," MARCH 13, 2003

rom the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves "conservatives."

These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world — the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine — in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, "Can you assure American viewers . . . that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Newt? LOL!

[Wavyhill]

Go ahead and laugh out loud. I was there, and I remember it clearly. I actually had arguments with people who supported immigration and opposed Newt on the issue.

[Pagey]

Bump for Later

[ArneFufkin]

Given the verbiage with which you themed your party, Luis, we should conjure up someway to refill those bottles with fluid after we drink the contents. What to fill it with, what to fill it with hmmm? How to recork it, how to - oops - leave the bottles unattended on some side street during the Bastille Day South Beach bash ... LOL.

[PRND21]

You are one of this thread's tag-along Poster Boys.

[Sabertooth]

Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay were trying to push through severe restrictions on I.I., and on welfare for any immigrants, whether legal or not. Dole's campaign followed suit. What caused the GOP to back off the immigration issue was sheer vote calculation--the paleos had already left the party, not over immigration but over Israel and foreign trade. The paleos also took the side of the Demoncrats in the budget battle of 1995, since they wanted to bring the GOP down by any means necessary. Then, having stabbed the GOP in the back, won Clinton a 2nd term, and caused the GOP to conclude that paleos weren't worth the trouble of seeming "anti-immigrant," the Buchananites shouted "The Republicans have sold out on immigration." Wrong, Pat, you sold us out.

I'm no fan of Buchanan, but wasn't he still a Republican in good standing during Dole's '96 campaign? Also, although I voted for him anyway, if Dole had any substantial plan to deal with Illegals, he did a good job of keeping it secret.

As I recall things, the GOP retreat from a strong line against Illegals began during California's Proposition #187 campaign in '94, led primarily by William Bennet and Jack Kemp.

[Sabertooth]

I actually had arguments with people who supported immigration and opposed Newt on the issue.

Newt had a great run, until he got moved to the back of Air Force One and started cheating on his wife. He was gimped after that.

[ArneFufkin]

The primary problem with immigration today, especially from Mexico, is that the immigrants are being given social service, education, healthcare and housing benefits that you and I are paying for. It wouldn't matter if they were legal or illegal, the fact that they come to this nation and are a net burden to our native residents is the real issue. That's a political issue, and that requires a political solution. It's the Democrats, the non-profit Immigration advocate interests we fund, and the liberal judges that are the problem. That's what you have to change. That requires political involvement.

If there's no means of taxpayer support for freeloading illegals, they'll leave.

Guys who come here because they have skills and economic vigor that create productive benefit to the native born of the communities they join are always welcome. If they pay their own freight by creating value through their labor, that's never a net loss. America isn't a zero sum game. You've got to work within the GOP party to solve your problems. Buchanan abandoning the party made him an irrelevant loser.

[Wavyhill]

Buchanan supported Dole reluctantly in 1996, but it was clear that his heart wasn't in it. More to the point, many of his supporters bitched about how Dole had "bought" his victory--as if the people voting for Dole in the primaries were doing so because of the money he spent. Not too long after the 1996 elections, Buchanan started putting his affairs in order as far as the GOP was concerned, and switched to the Reform Party eventually. And Dole did, during the campaign, continue to oppose illegal immigration; actually, it was Kemp who fudged his stand on the issue in order to fit in as Dole's VP candidate. Yes, Kemp and Bennett had opposed 187--but up until well into Clinton's term the GOP did not follow them. In fact, most conservative commentators--neo and traditional as well as paleo--were talking about Empower America as if it were a bad joke, and Kemp's miserable imitation of a VP candidate did little to help him. The decisive break between the GOP and immigration reformers didn't come until 1998, when Dan Lundgren ran away from 187--and any chance of winning the California governorship.

[x]

I certainly agree that racism should be condemned. But using paleocons as an alibi for inaction on immigration is a red herring.

First of all, there will always be those who express such ideas. If there were no paleocons, there would still be David Duke or Jared Taylor to point to as a justification for inaction. If that scares ordinary people off, it's certainly unfortunate, but one expects writers and ideologists to have more mettle than that. If they felt strongly enough about immigration reform, they would push for it. Indeed, decreasing immigration levels and imposing greater control could be seen as a step to reducing bigotry by reducing immigration to manageable levels if Frum and his peers wanted less immigration. They don't, and it has nothing to do with paleos.

Secondly, it's contradictory to argue that these paleocons have no following or hope of success and then blame such obscure ideologues for the failure to change policy. If they are as insignificant as Frum claims -- and they are -- how can they be blamed for the refusal of others to take action on the issue? When most Americans and most American politicians have never heard of Fleming or Francis, where's the logic in making them responsible for policy.

Third, there's a thin line between what is acceptable and what isn't. National Review itself has had problems on this score, both in earlier articles on civil rights, desegregation and apartheid and in recent articles on Arabs and Europeans. And NR writers like Steve Sailer and John Derbyshire come close to the paleocons attacked by Frum in their racial ideas. Frum can certainly condemn the paleos when they deserve it, but it's not true that his own peers avoid similar reproaches.

I don't have any use for Fleming or Rockwell. I think Francis was and Gottfried is worth reading, though I disagree with much of what they say. What I object to is the odious Frum's attempt to use the current war to promote his own agenda. His self-serving and hypocritical denial of the long silence of his own group on immigration issues is dishonest and particularly worthy of condemnation.

[Wavyhill]

Well, I doubt that was the beginning of his cheating, but, yeah, you're basically right. He would have been one of America's great men if he had kept his personal life clean.

[x]

What caused the GOP to back off the immigration issue was sheer vote calculation--the paleos had already left the party, not over immigration but over Israel and foreign trade. The paleos also took the side of the Demoncrats in the budget battle of 1995, since they wanted to bring the GOP down by any means necessary.

How many people are we talking about? A few thousand at most? It may have been vote calculation that influenced the GOP to back off on immigration, but it can't have been the loss of paleoconservatives or those who might have left over Israel and foreign trade. Those groups were just too small. Nor is it clear that they had much effect on the budget in 1995.

If you are talking about Rockwellites and Flemingites, their numbers are negligible. You might as well talk about Randians or the Natural Law Party. To say that they "won Clinton a second term" is absurd.

Large numbers of people who cared about immigration reform never left the Republican party. The feew who did would have been won back by a party committed to reforming abuses in immigration. They certainly wouldn't have remained away because of foreign policy questions if the party were willing to take other steps in their direction. I suspect campaign contributions and think tanks were more important in turning the GOP away from immigration reform.

[Sabertooth]

using paleocons as an alibi for inaction on immigration is a red herring...

it's contradictory to argue that these paleocons have no following or hope of success and then blame such obscure ideologues for the failure to change policy...

Isn't this a lovely room?

[Sabertooth]

I doubt that was the beginning of his cheating

True, and I didn't mean to imply that.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What constitutes "abuses in immigration" to you?

[PRND21]

Isn't this a lovely room?

No. It's a waste of space.

[Sabertooth]

It's a waste of space.

My irony meter is pegged. We have a containment breach.

[Wavyhill]

I agree that the paleocons don't number that many--but they do have influence outside their own clique. For one thing, up until 9/11 palecons made up a good proportion of local radio talk show hosts (as opposed to national hosts like Rush Limbaugh), so their caterwauling caused many would-be GOP voters to stay home. I have had first-hand experience with this. Here in Nevada in the 1998 election, Harry Reid was running for reelection against John Ensign, and the contest was too close to call. Our local paleo radio show host got on a tirade against the "cowardly" Republicans just a few weeks before the election, and a deluge of callers phoned in to agree with him. Ensign lost by about 200 votes. The fact is that there are all too many Republicans, paleo or otherwise, who are all too willing to seize on any argument that "we're all doomed, so it's no use even trying."

[rmlew]

Frum's instinct has always been to pour gasoline on fires and he's been rewarded for it by his allies.

I won't get into a "he did it first" arguement. It has been going on since 1986.

That is at most a half truth. John O'Sullivan promoted immigration reform when he was an editor at NR a decade ago. When he left, the issue was buried for years. I don't know the circumstances of his departure, but there were rumors that his position on immigration played a role in it.

No idea. I do think that Rich Lowry is stil a little weak on many issues. He hasn't grown a tough veneer.

Those who succeeded O'Sullivan never promoted immigration reform until 9/11 provoked new concern over national security. Some writers like John J. Miller strongly opposed reform. I don't know what the "official position" on immigration at National Review is, but it's nice to have such an "official position" somewhere deep in the background to use as an alibi for not taking real stands on an issue.

NR did many articles on immigration in the 1990-2001. I don't remember when Lowry took over, but i think it was in 1999
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-krikorian090701.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/convention/guest_comment/guest_comment080100a.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-keeley073001.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-sailer082001.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment101600d.shtml
<you get the idea)

[hchutch]

Yeah, but Frum addressed that, "In the 1950s and early 1960s, many conservatives, including the editors of this magazine, questioned and opposed the civil rights movement, sometimes for high-minded constitutional reasons, sometimes not."

Furthermore, read his DIARY from the yesterday:
"John Derbyshire suggests that we owe the paleos a debt of gratitude for keeping the immigration-reform issue alive. I think it’s closer to the truth that they have nearly killed it. Think how amazing it is that not even the revelations that the INS sent posthumous visas to 9/11 killers could make immigration a political issue. That tells you something about how radioactive the paleos have rendered the issue."

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary031903.asp

Don't just take Frum's word for it. Look at two of the e-mails Frum received:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary032003.asp

One was a Buchanan supporter in 1992. The other is now a FORMER paleo. Quite frankly, the red herring comment is a clear effort to duck the very unpleasant truth that I have seen, and which others have seen.

Unless, that is, you are willing to believe that Frum, Jonah Goldberg, and a lot of other people have gotten together in some sort of nefarious conspiracy to make sure that nothing is done to address immigration.

FINALLY, the writers and ideologists are NOT the only ones who vote. They do not even form a MAJORITY of the voters. That block consists of the ORDINARY PEOPLE who are "scared off" in your words. A more accurate word would be "offended," if you want my unvarnished. Unless you can win ordinary people over, you will be defeated in the electoral arena. And people you scare off or offend will not vote for you or your agenda by any stretch of the imagination. That is one fact that will not go away no matter how much you want to take shots at David Frum.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Frum and Goldberg have presented a case that is consistent with what I have seen. I'm willing to bet that others here would also agree on that matter, and these aren't followers of Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. There is a REAL problem here, and denying one exists will not help solve it. All that will happen if it is not addressed is to marginalize ANY type of immigration reform, and I will freely admit SOME changes are needed from the current policies.

But nobody will touch this issue unless we deal with the serious image problem that exists.