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.
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?
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.