Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Bret Stephens

I don't always agree with Bret Stephens.  But he nails so many things in this post...well, it's good.  That's what I'm sayin', it's good.  Excerpt:

Can we, as the GOP base, demand an IQ exam as well as a test of basic knowledge from our congressional and presidential candidates? This is not a flippant suggestion: There were at least five Senate seats in this election cycle that might have been occupied by a Republican come January had not the invincible stupidity of the candidate stood in the way.
On the subject of idiocy, can someone explain where’s the political gold in demonizing Latin American immigrants? California’s Prop 187, passed in 1994, helped destroy the GOP in a once-reliable state. Yet Republicans have been trying to replicate that fiasco on a national scale ever since.
If the argument is that illegal immigrants are overtaxing the welfare state, then that’s an argument for paring back the welfare state, not deporting 12 million people. If the argument is that these immigrants “steal” jobs, then that’s an argument by someone who either doesn’t understand the free market or aspires for his children to become busboys and chambermaids.
And if the argument is that these immigrants don’t share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren’t American values.


Anonymous said...

If we're going to play the blame game, we need to know who we're blaming. And we need to make sure these seats were that winnable. Missouri might have been winnable, but McCaskill was allowed to pick the GOP candidate. Indiana looked good on paper. Mourdock had won a statewide election before and his loss was narrow. In Wisconsin, a moderate three-term governor lost to a lesbian. What's the magic formula?

Mungowitz said...

Anon: Did you not even read the article? The magic forumula is stop being racist, xenophobic, misogynists. Because even sensible Republicans lose winnable races when the Republican party exhibits these reprehensible, and not widely shared, traits.

Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP. And yet they vote 70-30% against. Prop 187 was morally wrong, and economically dumb. But yet that has been the core principle of the GOP ever since: Just enough white people, too many brown people.

So, the magic formula is to call a truce on social jihad, and trying to establish Christian Sh'ariah law. And the article clearly says that. Now, that may be wrong, but it is pretty clearly the answer given in the piece I linked.

Anonymous said...

"Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP." Based on what? And let's have some numbers, Mr. Political "Scientist."

Anonymous said...

I agree with Anon@10:43, Mike. "Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP" is definitely the most racist thing I've ever heard you say. Just because most Latino immigrants don't have extensive education doesn't mean they're idiots. ;)

JWO said...

I think that the republicans just need a few more black and Hispanic candidates. People do not care so much about the issues, heck they often do not even know what the issues are.

The black and Hispanic candidates will generally be more open to black and Hispanic issues but that will be secondary.

The republican voters know this and so the flirting with Herman Cain.

According to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, President Obama is beating his Republican opponent among black voters by a whopping 94 percent to 0 percent.

Surely you don't get 0% of voting block on the issues.

Thomas W said...

"Latinos are a natural constituency for the GOP" is no more racist than for black Republicans to be told they are "voting against their race" or that they "hate themselves" (which I've personally witnessed).

mike shupp said...

Well... I've heard a bit about this. living in California for 40 years and all. And this is what people tell me:

Hispanics don't speak English.

They sneak across the border illegally, unlike the ancestors of all decent Americans.

They have lots of kids, who want to attend American schools paid for by American taxpayers, many of who cannot afford to have children themselves.

They don't speak English.

They drink a lot and get in fights and deal drugs and don't cooperate all that well with police and Federal agents.

They don't want to work.

None of them are educated.

They don't speak English.

They hunt for work by congregating on street corners waiting for people to come by and hire them instead of sending out resumes and hitting web sites, as Americans have traditionally done.

They live like animals, 6 or 8 in tiny apartments or even in excavated pits, so they can send as much money as possible to their families back in Mexico.

Also, they don't speak English.

Where there are groups of Mexicans, as in Northern California, they amuse themselves with cock fights and "Mexican rodeos" which are cruel events which lame horses.

Thanks to NAFTA, Mexicans in delipidated unsafe trucks carry cargo acorss the USA without interference, while American trucking firms have to have their vehicles inspected regularly and kept up properly.

Did I mention, they don't speak English?

That's according to middling liberal folks.

Conservatives like to point to history: There;s never been any sort of civilization or proper religion in Latin or South America, which is why those people are all like that. (Also, there haven't been civilizations in Africa or anyplace in Asia before Europeans arrived to show people how to live properly.)


This is just right and reasonable, of course. What gives you the odd idea that local Republicans dislike hispanics?

Tom said...

From TFA: "please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it’s lawful and consensual and doesn’t impinge in some obvious way on you." [emphasis added] It's pretty reasonable and close to a libertarian position... with that one glaring exception. When the topic is What Laws Should We Make, bringing in a standard of What (Stupid) Laws We've Already Made is asinine.

Tom said...

@mike shupp, your notional stereotypes do not impose a burden on anyone else. I'll take up two points anyway...

Many, many first generation immigrant spoke little to no English. They get by and their children speak English just fine. (Also it wouldn't hurt YOU to learn some Spanish).

The sneaking in this case is because of iterations of increasingly harsh and stupid laws. When peaceful, honest people must disregard arbitrary, capricious rules, a wise people will reform those rules and also apologize to the people that were hurt by them.

mike shupp said...

Well, Tom .... speaking of stereotypes, you might reflect that I didn't say those were MY objections to immigrants.

Anonymous said...

Hispanics are not 'natural republicans.' Culturally they are big believers in the state and are fairly anti-market.

Here is a more accurate analysis

If you support markets then you should not support hispanic immigration for cultural reasons.