Compassion, conservatism, and the GOP

Mona Charen, with whom I find myself agreeing on very little these days, writes about Michael Gerson, the former Bush speechwriter, and his book 'Heroic Conservatism.'


Gerson's sniping memoir

'There were some rhetorically soaring moments in this presidency. At the National Cathedral, three days after 9/11, the president spoke these words to a grieving country:

"On this national day of prayer and remembrance, we ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. We pray that He will comfort and console those who now walk in sorrow. We thank Him for each life we now must mourn, and the promise of a life to come. "

As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love. May He bless the souls of the departed. May He comfort our own. And may He always guide our country."

Beautiful. And perfectly suited to the occasion.

Alas, Gerson's agenda in "Heroic Conservatism" is not to reprise the greatest hits of the Bush presidency but to scold his fellow Republicans for their miserly, cruel and indifferent conservatism, which he contrasts with his own -- well, you've seen the title he gives his version.

This is such an old, old story. Conservatives have been accused of cold-heartedness at least for several generations and maybe longer. But it is a little startling to see this old chestnut revived by a Bush administration insider. ''

It's interesting that Mona praises Gerson for his eloquence, and for the beauty of the words he wrote for Bush at that National Cathedral ecumenical PC photo op (which I saw, and remember well). The second part which she quotes above, complimenting its beauty, is obviously not Gerson's, but a passage from Romans 8. '...neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love.''

Interestingly, Gerson is now also being accused of having plagiarized bits of his Heroic Conservatism book from David Frum's White house memoir.

Gerson, not surprisingly, is a fan of Mike Huckabee, another liberal Christian Republican, as we see here :

...Huckabee is a fine debater and a compelling speaker who punches far above his fundraising weight. He has strong conservative credentials. He is solidly pro-life -- in our conversation he was highly critical of Fred Thompson's view that abortion policy should be left to the states. Huckabee supports the troop surge in Iraq. He boasts of being America's first governor to possess a concealed-weapons permit.

But he adds an element that distinguishes him from the rest of a Republican field competing for the title of Mr. Conventionality. "I'm a conservative," Huckabee told me. "But if that means I have to close my eyes to poverty and hunger, I'm not going to do that." This, he said, would be to "refuse a larger allegiance, to my own soul, and also standing before God." "

Overall," he says, "the macro economy is doing very well. . . . But in the micro economy -- how specific groups are doing -- there is a growing disparity between the top and the bottom, and not just the bottom." He worries that even people with a college education are falling behind because of rising insurance costs and fuel prices. "People will only endure this for so many years before there is a revolt. But leaders in the Republican Party seem oblivious to it."

This kind of talk has earned the enmity of fiscal conservatives such as the Club for Growth, which Huckabee has dismissed as the "Club for Greed." "They view everything as accounting," he told me. "For a kid with asthma, who is sitting on the steps of a hospital -- let them [the Club for Growth] have an economic policy that doesn't care about that kid."

As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee occasionally raised taxes but mainly to do what governors are supposed to do: increase teacher pay and improve roads and parks. He is proud of extending health insurance to 70,000 Arkansas children and winning 48 percent of the African American vote -- achievements that would be impressive to most voters but that have been received with yawns from most conservative and Republican leaders.''

Here, Gerson advocates what he calls 'open-arms conservatism', meaning: bleeding-heartism with a Republican face; the social gospel ethic carried out with taxpayers' money.

A Republican Party that does not offer a robust agenda on health care, education reform, climate change and economic empowerment will fade into irrelevance.

But the moral stakes are even higher. What does a narrow, anti-government conservatism have to offer to urban neighborhoods where violence is common and intact families are rare? Very little. What hope does it provide to children in foreign lands dying of diseases that can be treated or prevented for the cost of American small change? No hope. What achievement would it contribute to the racial healing and unity of our country? No achievement at all.

As the Republican candidates attempt to prove themselves the exemplars of conservatism, they should consider what that philosophy can mean: the application of conservative and free-market ideas to the task of helping everyone. ''

Obviously this kind of 'conservatism' can't coexist with small-government conservatism, because it presupposes that the government is in the business of doing what churches and missionaries and volunteers from charitable groups used to do. Government, in the view of the bleeding hearts, is supposed to be daddy and mommy to everybody, compensate for the disparities that inevitably happen in a world in which ability, motivation, and incentive vary among individuals and groups. According to the 'compassionate conservative' view, government is supposed to do everything, up to and including healing the sick and raising the dead, much as Jesus and the original apostles did in the Bible.


John C. Hulsman describes here what is wrong with Gerson's 'heroic conservatism'

...Mr. Gerson calls traditional conservatives "anti-state conservatives," coyly implying that anyone who objects to sweeping, messianic programs--Mr. Gerson loves the idea of the U.S. government spending billions of dollars on AIDS in Africa--is flirting with anarchism. He scoffs at the "unheroic" conservative belief that domestic problems should be solved either by private means or by narrowly gauged government efforts at the local level--that is, at the level closest to the people. He warns: "If Republicans run in future elections with a simplistic anti-government message, ignoring the poor, the addicted, and children at risk, they will lose, and they will deserve to lose."

The "deserve to lose" part of his message is especially galling. The U.S. government has been pouring billions and billions of dollars into the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, with results so wayward that, for decades now, a cottage industry has grown up among policy intellectuals to document all the disappointing results and ill effects. The welfare reform of Bill Clinton's first term grew out of such a critique. Still, Mr. Gerson equates "caring" with government spending, as though, self-evidently, yet more "visionary" programs are the best way of dealing with poverty, addiction and children at risk.

To the traditional conservative, it is more heroic--that is, more honest and realistic--to acknowledge that such problems are too deeply ingrained to be solved by a far-away Washington bureaucracy. Traditional conservatives since Edmund Burke have put their faith in the organic forces of society--family, community, civic institutions. In America, such faith has made common cause with commercial dynamism and the opportunities it creates for upward mobility.
[...]
For all its Christian urgency, there is not much humility on view in "Heroic Conservatism." The book has a hectoring tone, blithely claiming the moral high ground and ignoring a great deal of chastening experience. Such self-satisfied thinking runs counter to the Burkean temperament, which is painfully aware of the limits, and potential flaws, of even well-intentioned men. For traditional conservatives, societies evolve in an almost geological way--formed by the immense weight of history and culture over vast stretches of time. Grand schemes, even grand religiously driven schemes, do not suddenly "direct" history or solve long-festering problems or, for that matter, remake the world.''

I occasionally hear Republicans arguing against big government do-goodism. But the arguments they are prone to use do not involve the fact that government, at least from the conservative perspective, is not supposed to be mommy and daddy to everyone, or that the American government in particular is not supposed to be some kind of rescuer and messiah of all the world's hard luck cases. Rather, these Republican critics will offer that 'big government liberalism is not good for the minorities who are the intended beneficiaries of the programs.' They will say ''these programs hold minorities back; they are the reason for all the dysfunction in the minority 'communities' and they are the reason for family breakdown and crime and underachievement.'' I fail to see the benefit of making these kinds of arguments; why not appeal to conservative principles or to the Founding Fathers' original vision for our government, rather than using the essentially liberal argument that 'big government does not help minorities who need our help; we should help them by some other means.' Where is the responsibility of the individual in that argument, or where is the responsibility of the supposed 'community leaders' who claim to advocate for their people? Where is the emphasis on family members doing a better job of raising up children or providing for ailing family members and older generations in need of help? And to blame all the disparities in income and achievement on liberal malfeasance is to imply that there really are no other factors other than government, whether big government meddling or lack of government meddling, that factor into the disparities we see.

It doesn't help to make liberal arguments against big government efforts at do-gooding.

Ross Douthat here argues that the Republican party should not return to the 'government-cutting' principles of the past:

Particularly since Gerson's central argument is basically correct: American conservatism needs to stand for something besides government-cutting if it hopes to regain the majority that George W. Bush won (and quickly lost). At its best, Heroic Conservatism is a necessary corrective to the right's mythologizing of its own past, which cultivates the pretense that small-government purity has always been the key to Republican success. By way of rebuttal, Gerson points out that conservatives tend to win elections only when they convince voters that they mean to reform the welfare state, rather than do away with it entirely. This was true of 1990s success stories like Rudy Giuliani in New York and Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin; it was true of the Contract With America, a far less ideological document than right-wing nostalgists make it out to be; and it was true of Ronald Reagan himself, who slowed the growth of government but hardly cut it to the bone. The insight isn't unique to Gerson; it dates back to the original, '70s-vintage neoconservatives. But it seems to be slipping away from the contemporary GOP, whose primary contenders—save perhaps for Mike Huckabee—are falling over one another to prove their small-government bona fides, and whose activists have persuaded themselves that tax cuts and pork-busting will be their tickets back to power.''

Douthat seems to be saying that yes, to adopt the 'heroic conservatism' of Gerson -- and Huckabee -- is to lose conservative principles, but to maintain those principles would doom the GOP to the 'political wilderness.' This is always the refrain of those who say that we have to be pragmatic and win, even if winning means adopting liberal ideas, and essentially doing the liberals' work for them. The idea is just to win, even if winning means becoming liberal.

Since Gerson and his buddy Huckabee like to quote the Bible, I will end with a quote which I think apposite in this context:

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'' - Matthew 16:26

If they're legal, what's the problem?

A while back when the subject of 'Favorite People on the Right' came up, among my choices, I mentioned Lou Dobbs, mostly because of the work he does on bringing immigration issues to the attention of many Americans. He also does great work reporting on the sovereignty issues, like the plans for a North American Union.

However occasionally he says things which indicate he still has a very liberal consciousness in certain ways. For example on this evening's show, he went into a rant about the latest Center for Immigration Studies report; he thinks the report conflates legal and illegal immigration, and he was very adamant that it's illegal immigration that is the problem. Of course that point of view, in my opinion, is one that is harmful to the cause of America, promoting the rather legalistic and simplistic view that the only problem with the millions of illegals here is that they don't have the correct paperwork. That viewpoint denies the importance of culture, demographics, and a number of other important considerations. But I'll just quote Lou's rant, and let you judge for yourselves. Dobbs introduces Bill Tucker, who reports on the CIS study:

DOBBS: Well, the presidential candidates in both political parties have now discovered that illegal immigration is a critical and important issue for Americans and anyone who doubts that illegal immigration is a tremendous and rapidly escalating crisis need only look at the most recent study of Census Bureau numbers. That study shows this nation is experiencing the highest level of immigration legal and illegal in three generations. And as Bill Tucker now reports more than half of the 10 million people arriving in the United States over the past seven years have arrived here illegally.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER (voice-over): No other nation is as welcoming to immigrants as the United States. Thirty-eight million people living in the country are immigrants. That's one out of every eight Americans. Not since the days of Ellis Island have immigrants represented so much of our population, but not all immigrants are here legally.

One-third of them are here unlawfully and since 2000, more than half of those entering the United States have been illegal aliens. The Center for Immigration Studies analyzed data collected by the Census Bureau in March of this year. The analysis is revealing and raises some tough questions. STEVEN CAMAROTA, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: When we looked at rates of poverty, health insurance coverage and welfare use, it reminds us that when people say all that matters is a willing worker and a willing employer. That's not all that matters. There are many other things.

TUCKER: Such as the impact on poverty rates, social services, health care and schools.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the things that has been going on in a lot of schools is a lot of overcrowding. And what we found was that in the last 20 years immigration accounts for all of the increase in school enrollment in the United States.

TUCKER: Twenty percent of illegal immigrants lack any health care insurance and all immigrants account for 71 percent of the uninsured since 1989. While immigrant households are more likely to have someone in the house with a job, the poverty rate is sharply higher in immigrant households than it is in native born households and one-third of immigrant households use it at least one welfare program. The primary reason for these problems comes down to a poor education. Since 2000, 35.5 percent of immigrants never finished high school. They are fit for only low wage, low skill jobs.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: And that represents a huge shift in historic trends. Thirty years ago immigrants coming to this country were more likely to have a college degree than native born Americans. Lou, today that is clearly not the case.

DOBBS: Now who did this study?

TUCKER: The Center for Immigration Study looked at data provided by the Census Bureau, March...

DOBBS: Well I have to say that what I resent here on the part of the Census Bureau and the center is this conflation again of immigrants and illegal immigrants. Frankly, as we bring in people lawfully into this country, as a matter of public policy, I don't think any of us should care one way or the other about their education level, any of that, or the number of programs, social programs that are being employed.

The issue here is illegal immigration. This government, this federal government, and each of its agencies refuses to deal with the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and we should never be a part of that conflation and that purposeful obfuscation on the part of those who are pro-amnesty, pro-open borders and pro-massive illegal immigration at any cost to the United States.

Those are dramatic numbers. But again, I just -- I'm deeply concerned that this Census Bureau, this federal government is not making a distinction between legal and lawful immigrants. Of course, more than two million people entering the country lawfully every year. Thank you very much. Bill Tucker.''

[Emphasis mine]

Now, what immediately raised my hackles is that Dobbs says that we shouldn't be concerned about the low educational levels of immigrants or about their usage of social programs, as long as they are legal immigrants. However he offers no argument to justify his views on that issue.

He says that it is the proponents of amnesty who are purposely lumping together legal and illegal immigration. In a sense, I suppose that is correct; the open borders proponents generally try to tar any restrictionist with the 'anti-immigrant' brush, implying that restrictionists in general are bigots who hate immigrants ''just because''; just because they are different, or just because most immigrants nowadays, as the study confirms, are from third-world countries.

But most restrictionists play into the hands of these people by protesting loudly 'I'm not opposed to immigrants or immigration; I'm only opposed to illegal immigration!' This of course suits the open borders crowd just fine; they've made the restrictionist become defensive, and act like a cornered animal, and most importantly, they've managed to extract from the restrictionist the statement that he or she supports 'any immigration just as long as it's LEGAL.'

So there you go; the open borders crowd has gotten a blank check from you; you've said that as long as immigrants are here legally, with the correct documents, you are happy to welcome them, and you can raise no objection to their being here, because they are LEGAL, and you've just said that legality is the only issue with immigration.

So I immediately doubt the seriousness of any restrictionist who says the 'as long as it's legal' line. Now, I haven't heard Lou Dobbs say this so plainly in the past, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention.

I have often wondered why CNN, which is the most politically correct, leftist, open-borders, one-world, news channel, would employ Lou Dobbs, if he really were such a staunch opponent of one of their cherished leftist/globalist causes.

If his rant today accurately represents his beliefs on immigration, that legality is all that is at issue, then he is simply another variety of liberal, and not the hard-line immigration restrictionist as embodied in his image.

His point that the quality of the immigrants we take in, as indicated in their educational level and their welfare usage, is not a valid concern, is also troubling.

Suppose our sneaky elites somehow manage to increase legal immigration levels substantially, as would have been the case with the failed amnesty bill. Suppose we start taking in 5 or 10 million legal immigrants each year. Will all our troubles evaporate? Obviously not. The quality of the immigrants we receive is all-important. If the immigrants come here legally, and are granted citizenship quickly as seems to be the trend as everybody frets over the poor immigrants being forced to 'wait too long' for citizenship, then they are here to stay, as are their progeny, forever. Once upon a time, when we actually had standards for our immigrants, that was not such a problem, but now, we allow people from countries where good record-keeping is not part of their culture, and we thus have no knowledge of their history: are they law-abiding? Do they have communicable or hereditary diseases? The quality of the immigrants that we now accept is not comparable to that of past generations of immigrants. Quality does matter, as much as quantity. To say that a legal document is all that's needed to fit into our society, and that anybody with the right paperwork is good enough to join our American family is naive at best, and deluded at worst.

Culture matters. Genetics matters. Educational level and skills matter. Compatibility with our country matters. Attitude matters.
In all of the above areas, the immigrants we receive at present, the legal ones as much as the illegals, don't measure up.

The people who are touting Lou Dobbs as a possible independent candidate for the Presidency are naive; his tough-talking persona does not mean that he is anything more than another media personality, whose restrictionist persona may be deceiving.

A word with my readers

The recent trend towards more comments on this blog is a welcome thing; I generally like seeing more people join in the discussion. However it seems that the uptick in comments has brought with it some problems, among them, the inevitable spam, which is an annoyance to deal with, and then there is a tendency to get off-topic in some threads.

The off-topic posts are only a minor problem, but if possible let's keep to the subject being discussed; if there is a burning issue you want to discuss or a link you feel compelled to share, the forum would be a great place for that, since all who are registered can post topics and links. And yeah, I know the forum is something of a ghost town at the moment, but it looks like there has been a little increase in activity, so it need not stay deserted over there; it's you, readers and commenters, who will make or break the forum.

Another more difficult problem to deal with is the free speech issue. I've come down pretty firmly in favor of allowing ideas and points of view that others might exclude on the basis of political correctness. I am an enemy of PC in all its forms -- but how do we maintain a high level of discourse, which is what I am attempting to do, if we don't have standards, and if the standards aren't enforced?

I would really be sorry to see the discourse deteriorate here on this blog as has happened in many places; it doesn't take much to bring that about. So I am going to go through one of my draconian phases and start editing or censoring and banning if need be. Free speech is good but there is no absolute free speech anywhere, at least if some level of civilized discourse is to be maintained.

I ask rather little, really: just civility, no personal attacks towards me or other commenters, no obscene or blasphemous comments, no crude language generally. We should be able to put our ideas across or make our points without such language. And advocating violence or force is not something I tolerate here. It just isn't.
After a warning or two, (and I've been pretty lenient with people who are on 'our side' while I generally cut leftists and liberals no slack) I will ban those who disregard my basic rules. That's just the way it works here.

Rather than become too lax and tolerant and let the discussion be adversely affected, I will act when I need to, to keep things civil and mature here. I know most of you will honor my rules. Thanks.

New York Times tells truth on immigration

Will wonders never cease? The New York Times, inexplicably, tells some truths on immigration. Whatever brought this about, I wonder?

Immigration at Record Level, Analysis Finds

Immigration over the past seven years was the highest for any seven-year period in American history, bringing 10.3 million new immigrants, more than half of them without legal status, according to an analysis of census data released today by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington.

One in eight people living in the United States is an immigrant, the survey found, for a total of 37.9 million people — the highest level since the 1920s.

The survey was conducted by Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the center, which advocates reduced immigration.

Mr. Camarota has been active in the national immigration debate. Independent demographers disputed some of the survey’s conclusions, but not Mr. Camarota’s methods of data analysis.

A large proportion of recent immigrants, both legal and illegal, are low-skilled workers and about one-third of those have not completed high school, giving them significantly less education than Americans born in the United States, according to the study, which is based on census data as recent as March of this year.

The survey focuses on public costs associated with the new generation of immigrant workers. It does not, however, analyze contributions they make by paying taxes and taking undesirable, low-income jobs — an omission criticized by some immigration scholars.''

Well, the article was just fine until that last paragraph, in which the NYT reverts to form and brings in the old 'some scholars say...' kind of thing, in an attempt to provide their own editorializing about the content of the article.

But let's leave aside the New York Times and their political correctness, and go right to the source that they are reporting on here: the report by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Immigrants in the United States, 2007

Among the report’s findings:

*
The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached a record of 37.9 million in 2007.

*
Immigrants account for one in eight U.S. residents, the highest level in 80 years. In 1970 it was one in 21; in 1980 it was one in 16; and in 1990 it was one in 13.

*
Overall, nearly one in three immigrants is an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants and one-third of South American immigrants are illegal.

*
Since 2000, 10.3 million immigrants have arrived — the highest seven-year period of immigration in U.S. history. More than half of post-2000 arrivals (5.6 million) are estimated to be illegal aliens.

*
The largest increases in immigrants were in California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

*
Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, compared to 8 percent of natives. Since 2000, immigration increased the number of workers without a high school diploma by 14 percent, and all other workers by 3 percent.

*
The share of immigrants and natives who are college graduates is about the same. Immigrants were once much more likely than natives to be college graduates.

*
The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 33 percent, compared to 19 percent for native households.

*
The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 17 percent, nearly 50 percent higher than the rate for natives and their children.

*
34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.

*
Immigrants make significant progress over time. But even those who have been here for 20 years are more likely to be in poverty, lack insurance, or use welfare than are natives.

*
The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.

*
Of immigrant households, 82 percent have at least one worker compared to 73 percent of native households.

*
There is a worker present in 78 percent of immigrant households using at least one welfare program.

*
Immigration accounts for virtually all of the national increase in public school enrollment over the last two decades. In 2007, there were 10.8 million school-age children from immigrant families in the United States.

*
Immigrants and natives have similar rates of entrepreneurship — 13 percent of natives and 11 percent of immigrants are self-employed.

*
Recent immigration has had no significant impact on the nation’s age structure. Without the 10.3 million post-2000 immigrants, the average age in America would be virtually unchanged at 36.5 years.

[...]
California clearly has the largest immigrant population; New York, the state with next largest number of immigrants, has fewer than half as many. Table 1 shows how concentrated the immigrant population is: Only a few states represent the majority of the foreign-born population. In 2007, the nearly 10 million immigrants in California account for 27 percent of the nation’s total immigrant population, followed by New York with 11 percent, Florida and Texas with 10 percent each, and New Jersey with 5 percent. These five states account for 61 percent of the nation’s total foreign-born population, but only 32 percent of the native-born population. The table also shows evidence that the immigrant population is becoming more dispersed.''

[all emphases mine]

Note that last sentence: some people who by some amazing stroke of luck live in relatively unaffected areas imagine that the immigrant tidal wave is limited to the border states, and is thus not a national problem. These short-sighted people think they will escape the effects if they have been relatively unaffected as yet, but the reality, shown by this study, is that the immigrants are fanning out across the nation. I hear quite a few people saying 'give them back the Southwest; just write it off', but the Latino immigrants, legal and illegal, don't just want the border states; they are in every corner of the nation, or soon will be.

The study is very detailed, with statistics regarding education, health insurance, welfare use, and demographics among the immigrants.

One interesting bit of information quoted above is that even with the presence of these immigrants, the average age in America stays virtually the same. Doesn't that put the lie to the often-repeated canard that 'America is aging, graying, and we need these young, vital immigrants to give our country a new infusion of fresh energy and youth.' I have heard some variation of that statement more times than I've had hot dinners. I hear it in regard to Europe, too; 'Europe is graying and aging and dying off; they need young new immigrant blood to revitalize them.' But at least we know it's not true in our case. Immigration isn't making us 'younger' as a nation, and it certainly isn't making us more intelligent or better educated (look at the educational attainment of the immigrants) but it is making our country more crowded and our resources considerably strained.

There seems to be a large percentage of Americans who have accepted the cliches about how we are a nation of immigrants. These people are usually so deracinated that they have no loyalty to kin or nation or tribe. But even if these soul-dead people can't bring themselves to care about our heritage, our history, our way of life, our unique culture, can they not see the societal costs represented by tens of millions of uneducated, unassimilable, economically burdensome strangers?

And shouldn't the example of Europe, with its similarly dependent and unassimilable immigrants provide a warning to us? Before too long we might well be witnessing similar scenes in our streets, with angry immigrant 'youth' rioting and burning.

I don't know if this relatively objective bit of reporting by the NY Times represents a change, or if it's just a fluke or a mistake. I do know that most of the old media do nothing but obfuscate and propagandize in favor of immigration and 'diversity', but if they begin to publish facts like these, a few of the more obtuse among us might catch on that there is a huge demographic change afoot in America, and that it ain't just business as usual, and it isn't 'just like the immigration we've always had.'

Anybody with their eyes open and their brain engaged figured this out some time ago, but there are some stubborn deniers out there who may get a clue if the old media start putting the clues in plain language for the slow-witted.

What's behind the riots?

The discussion of the rioting in France by 'youth' is continuing around the blogosphere, and here at What's Wrong With the World, as at other
blogs, the argument is being made by a few, rather insistently, that either the rioters are not 'Arab', being in many cases sub-Saharan Africans, of unknown religion, or that if they are Mohammedan, their religion has nothing to do with the violence. Why? Because they are not devout Moslems, but rather, dressed Western style, and following the ghetto culture common to Western urban underclasses.

I wonder why it is so important to some to assert that the riots have nothing to do with Islam? Are they eager to exonerate Islam from the charge that it promotes violence? Are they leftists seeking out 'Islamophobia', or neocons doing the same thing? Are they just nit-picky pedants who want to show how much more knowledgeable they are, in distinguishing sub-Saharan Africans from North Africans or whoever?
To me, the point that the rioters look to be sub-Saharan Africans for the most part is a pedantic one; the fact is, there are plenty of Moslems in Africa, and they are not confined to North Africa.

Secondly, suppose they are non-religious. Many of them do seem to be typical urban toughs who, as in seemingly all countries, emulate the worst aspects of MTV/hip-hop/Hollywood culture. Surely there are people who identify with that culture in all Western countries and in some non-Western countries -- yet it seems to be mostly those from the Islamic world, whether born there or in the West, who are prone to rioting and otherwise acting out violently. Why is that? Is the religion really just coincidental?

And just because they appear to follow an underclass urban 'youth' culture does not mean that their Islamic background is irrelevant to them or to their behavior. Islam is not just a matter of worship or ritual or religious observances. One need not be an outwardly devout practitioner of a faith to have been influenced by it if one grows up in a culture shaped by that religion. In America, most people are of Christian background; their ancestors practiced Christianity much more rigorously, no doubt, than today's generation does; we live in a secular, godless culture in the West. There are still people who live according to their faith, but the larger culture is godless and secular. Still, the residue of Christian influence in our culture is not fully obliterated. Many liberals who are as anti-Christian as they can be, even professing atheism or some other religion, have been shaped by Christian ethics and standards because our culture is at its core Christian, despite the secularizing trends. Leftists who, for example, become crusaders against animal cruelty, don't realize and probably wouldn't acknowledge the fact that Christianity is the ultimate source of their concern for animal welfare. Many of our charitable practices and our do-gooding projects are based in Christian morality, albeit they have been cut loose from their Christian roots.

So one need not be a practicing, believing Christian to be part of Christian culture, which still exists in an attenuated form in the West.

These 'youths', in some cases, are apparently French-born, though not of French blood. Their parents, or possibly grandparents or even great-grandparents were immigrants who, however, lived in enclaves with others from their home countries, practicing a culture and a way of life which is alien to the West, or old Christendom.

Just because the young people wear baggy gang-style clothing and listen to hip-hop does not mean that they are no longer Islamic; they have grown up in areas where their friends and relatives were members of the same Islamic-based culture, and they identify with their own people, not with the people of the country of their birth.

One can be Islamic in a cultural sense, and an ideological sense while not observing the minutiae of Islamic precepts. And these young people have also imbibed a leftist philosophy, a victimhood ethos, in which they feel entitled because they are outsiders, 'discriminated' against. Blend this with the basic us-vs.-them outlook of Islam, in which there is the Islamic world and the Infidel world, which is the realm of struggle, and you have a recipe for anger, disaffection, and in the right circumstances, violence.

After 9/11 when I really began in earnest to learn something about Islam and its aggressive ideology, I noticed that the jihadist viewpoint owes something to the leftists as well as to the Koran and the Hadiths. Franz Fanon, for example, was the first name which came to my mind. Fanon, who wrote the popular 70s book 'Wretched of the Earth', was widely read and very influential in the Arab world as well as in France, in earlier decades if not now.

In France, which educated and celebrated him, he's little read and rarely quoted. Even so, the spiritual climate he helped create remains, which is why his story shouldn't disappear. To forget him is to ignore one crucial foundation stone of the world we confront today. It was Fanon who brought into modern culture the idea that violence can heal the spiritually wounded.

Fanon, a psychiatrist, romanticized murder. He argued that violence was necessary to Third World peoples not just as a way to win their liberty but, even more, because it would cure the inferiority complex that had been created by the teachings of white men. Once liberated by violence, the formerly subject populations could help bring peace and socialism to everyone.

For the young in many parts of the world, he perfectly expressed the spirit of the times. He was the talk of revolutionary Paris in the 1950s, when the young Saloth Sar, not yet known as Pol Pot, lived there. Later, in America, the Weathermen and the Black Panthers loved to quote him. The book in which Fanon clearly articulated his theory, The Wretched of the Earth, went into six editions in Arabic. Today it's hardly necessary for revolutionaries to read him. His poison flows through the bloodstream of everyone who kills joyfully for an imaginary future.''

Fanon might be said to have been instrumental in the terrible violence of Algeria, which tore that country apart.
So of course there is a leftist element in the 'uprisings' in Europe (which are not confined to France). Flemming Rose, the publisher of the controversial 'Mohammed cartoons' which sparked worldwide rioting, writes about the role of the 'cult of victimology' in these violent outbreaks. And of course the 'cult of victimology' is at the heart of leftism.

So yes, there is a leftist element to the troubles in Europe and wherever Moslems and 'infidels' attempt to coexist, but if it is only leftist ideology, or only poverty and 'alienation' or 'racism' that causes these riots, why are they mostly confined to Moslem enclaves, and areas with large Moslem population? Surely Moslems are not the only poor people (if indeed they are necessarily poor, as their apologists usually claim) and not the only people under the influence of leftist delusions.

And it seems very much like hair-splitting to argue that because these rioters are not bearded and robed young men wearing traditional headdresses, they are not in any way motivated by Islam. Maybe these young men are half in the Western world, at least by their styles of dress and their behavior, but that does not mean they are Westernized in any real, deep sense. Surely, after so many examples of 'assimilated' Moslems in the West developing 'sudden jihad syndrome', or becoming involved in terror acts (the 7/7 bombers in the UK, for example) we don't believe that Islam is something so easily doffed and put aside.

An old proverb which gets a lot of use here on this blog is that 'blood is thicker than water', or occasionally, I say blood is thicker than culture. You can take the boy out of the Islamic world, but you can't take the Islamic world out of the boy -- a few defectors notwithstanding.

It's easy for young immigrants, or children of immigrants, to learn the language of the host country and to adopt the style of clothing and the music and the easy, careless personal morals popular among the urban youth everywhere in the West now. But it is not so easy to change one's habits of mind, the customs passed down from one generation to the next, or perhaps innate tendencies of one's ancestors. In some cases, it proves to be impossible. To believe that adopting outward forms like language, clothing, and music preferences transform the mind, spirit, and heart is absurd, but it is undeniably the kind of thing that liberals dearly love to believe.

Are the rioters then truly 'jihadists'? Are they acting under the specific instructions of some mad imam somewhere, who is pulling their strings? Probably not, but those things are not necessary to be able to say that Islam plays at least a part in the behavior we are seeing. And the fact that they come from a radically different and hostile culture certainly plays a huge part in their supposed alienation and anger and resentment. So at the very least, Islam plays an indirect part in what is happening. Islam is always a volatile ingredient to add to Western civilization.

But for those who somehow feel comforted, for whatever bizarre reason, by denying any role for Islam in these troubles, go right ahead and deny if it makes you feel better, safer, or more moral. But please don't insult the intelligence of the rest of us by insisting that we deny it too.

Tonight's debate

The CNN debate transcript, at least the first part of it, is here.


Just a few quotes, mostly on questions to do with immigration and sovereignty:

Ernie Nardi: This is Ernie Nardi from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the ex-Mayor Giuliani.

Under your administration, as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens.

I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: Ernie, that was a very good question. And the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city. (OFF-MIKE) single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime. That was in the executive order originally done by Ed Koch, continued by David Dinkins and then done by me.

The reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.

The other two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.

But, most important point is, we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service. They did not deport them. And what we did, the policies that we had, were necessary because the federal policies weren't working.

The federal policies weren't working, stopping people coming into the United States. If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMSTAT system that brought down crime in New York, and just stopping people from coming in, and then having a tamper-proof ID card.

Cooper: Time.

Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?

Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.

And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.

And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.

But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.

That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.

Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?

Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.

For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.

There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.

Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...

Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.

(Laughter)

Giuliani: No ...

Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...

Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?

Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.

If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."

Is that what you're suggesting?

Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...

(Crosstalk)

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...

Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.

Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...

Romney: I'm not perfect.

Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.

(Applause)

And ...

Romney: I ask the mayor again. Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired who provide a service, that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers -- I don't think that's American, number one.

Number two ...

Cooper: We got to move on.

Romney: Let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to driver's licenses for illegals.

I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which I disagree with other folks on that one.

(Applause)

Number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office.

It took the federal government a long time to get the approvals and we enforced the law. And Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state, and the policies of the mayor of pursuing a sanctuary nation or pursuing a sanctuary city...

Cooper: We've got a number ...

Romney: ... are, frankly, wrong.

Cooper: We've got a number of questions from our viewers on this topic, so we have a lot more to talk about on this. You will have another chance to respond.

(Applause)

Giuliani: And it's really hard -- it's really hard to have employer sanctions...

(Audience booing)

Cooper: All right. Let's play this next video from the same topic.

(Begin video clip)

Michael Weitz: Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.

Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?

Thank you.

Cooper: Senator Thompson?

(Applause)

Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...

(Applause)

We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.

Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.

And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.

We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.

(Applause)

Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.

First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.

(Laughter)

As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.

(Laughter)

He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.

(Applause)''

One question to Tom Tancredo was from a man who said he 'needed' guest workers for his business, and he wanted to know what Tancredo would do to help him.

...Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country, because in fact, immigration...

(Applause)

... massive immigration into the country, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, does a couple of things.

One of it is, makes it difficult for us to assimilate. The other thing is that it does take jobs.

I reject the idea -- I reject the idea, categorically, that there are jobs that, quote, "No American will take." I reject it.

(Applause)

Now, what they will do...

(Applause)

... what you can say -- what you absolutely can say to these people is that there are no -- there are some jobs Americans won't take for what I can get any illegal immigrant to do that job for. Yes, that's true.

But am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs.

(Applause)
[...]
Cooper: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch, please.

YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.

I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.

These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.

Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.

And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.

You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.

But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.

(Applause)''

Reading through the transcript it does appear that Romney and Huckabee had a sharp exchange over the immigration issue, specifically over tuition breaks for illegals. When reminded of his favoring children of illegals in that respect, Huckabee resorted to claiming the moral high ground by saying we are a 'better country' than to punish children for their parents' acts. And then Huckabee went into his Abraham Lincoln-esque story about coming up from poverty.

In all, the debate doesn't seem to have revealed anything I didn't already know, and it confirmed my already-existing perceptions of the candidates. I think this series of debates (which are not real debates, anyway) have done little but produce a certain campaign fatigue in many of us; I'm hearing people say they are sick of the election and the candidates.
Any thoughts?

The French troubles

I've been attempting to follow the situation in France, with the riots by immigrants, and now the murder of a young Frenchwoman. Here, the BBC reports on the situation, telling us that Sarkozy is holding riot crisis talks, and meeting with the parents of the boys whose accidental deaths provided the pretext for these riots. He is promising an inquiry into the deaths, which of course their ethnic 'community' claims is necessary because there was police misconduct or brutality.

When Sarkozy was elected, I expressed some skepticism about his conservative bonafides; the mainstream Republicans still adore Sarkozy, thinking him to be our kind of guy, a tough man of action. Yet from what I have been reading, his appointees have been rather liberal and politically correct; I think he is as conservative as George W. Bush, meaning: not very. But nonetheless he is in charge now, and we'll see if he can deal with this crisis adequately, or if it will be more of the same, resulting in prolonged low-grade warfare on the part of the 'disaffected youths' (read: Moslems).

Tiberge at Gallia Watch has been doing sterling work on covering the situation, as has a Canadian blog, Covenant Zone
From GalliaWatch, Tiberge quotes a French blogger, Bernard Antony, who writes some very strong commentary on the situation.
Tiberge gives an English translation of Antony's post which is in French. Referring to the murder of a young woman during the course of these riots, he says

'The racist scum of this civil war shows no emotion over the murder of Anne-Lorraine.

Anne-Lorraine, a young Frenchwoman, a young Christian woman, was murdered while heroically resisting the monster who was attempting to rape her. This murder did not trigger a single riot. And yet, at the very least, the early release of criminals ought to result in demonstrations in front of the Ministry of Justice.
[...]
To become indignant, as some did before, over the use of the term "scum" by Nicolas Sarkozy, would once again be unfitting. For they are indeed barbarous and racist scum engaging in a war of aggression and destruction against everything connected to the common Good, to social order and to security.

But now we are all waiting to see what the government of Mr. Sarkozy is going to do to prevent any offense being done to the triumphant scum.

We can easily imagine how such rioters would be treated in China, Russia, Algeria, Israel or the United States.
[...]
This war of conquest by ever more self-confident hordes is the result of the collapse of the State; of the widespread ideological justification of anarchy and violence; of the complacency, even the active complicity of a whole camarilla in the media; of the bad immigration policy of course; of all the ingredients for self-denigration and guilt spread throughout our society by humiliating ideologies.

If repressive measures against savagery are obviously needed immediately, what France fundamentally needs is an intellectual and moral reconstruction.''
[emphasis mine]

Tiberge comments on Antony's statement about how the rioters would be dealt with in the U.S., noting that we have been very easy on criminals in recent years. And I would add, too, that our easiness on criminals varies with the race and ethnicity of the perpetrators. What comes to mind for me is the Mardi Gras riots in Seattle several years ago, in which rioters beat to death a young man

The someone who got murdered was a white man, 20-year-old Kris Kime, who tried to rescue a white woman from being trampled by a black mob. Mr. Kime, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, "was smashed over the head with a bottle, and kicked and stomped by a group of men." The police stood aside and did nothing.

The reason the police did nothing? That's exactly what they were ordered to do.''

They were reportedly ordered to 'stand down' rather than provoke further violence by arresting or manhandling the rioters.

It appears that the same idea is being put into practice in these French disturbances: don't get them even madder by arresting them or using a weapon against them. Don't create martyrs among them; don't provoke them.

So as a result, innocent citizens are sacrificed in the name of political correctness.
This is what happens when liberal ideas prevail; our police and military are hindered from doing the job they are paid to do by politics, by ideologies. And people die as a result. Ultimately, the casualties will include the civilization itself, if this course is not altered. Civilization has to withstand barbarity with force sometimes; without a righteous use of force in the protection of the law-abiding citizenry, then the lawless use of force wins the day and prevails, and civilization is no more when that happens. Then 'mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.'

'Alternate histories'

Lately we've heard the term 'balkanization' tossed around a lot, and it seems our America is in the process of being Balkanized. Well, over at Matthew White's website (which has been up since the 90s) he has a series of interesting maps and historical speculations, under the heading 'Surreal Histories.'

Among the maps there are his map of a 'Balkanized North America.' He poses the question
'What would America have looked like if every separatist movement in U.S. and Canadian history had succeeded?'' See the map here to find out, according to his speculations.

It is interesting to contemplate how things would have turned out had these movements been successful.

Another interesting link on the page is 'Perotista Revolution!' -- asking 'What if the anti-government forces of the 1990s had risen...?''

First, I am not sure that the Perot supporters he seems to conflate with the ''extreme right'' are who he believes them to have been. I was actually a Perot supporter at that time, and I was still quite a leftist in many ways. I met with many Perot supporters and they were quite a cross-section of people, most of them quite ordinary Americans, not a bunch of survivalists or militia members as he seems to believe. There were a few of those, but there were more ticked-off 'average Americans' from both parties and some who had always been independents. I worked with several people who voted for Perot and the majority of them were Democrats who were disgusted with Clinton as the candidate.

So I am not convinced that the Perotistas, as he calls them, were necessarily radical revolutionaries.

However his speculations are interesting; by all means read them.

I found it interesting to see the percentage of Perot voters broken down by state. I had not been aware of the strength of Perot's support in places like Maine, but then despite my New England ancestry it's the part of the country I have the least experience of. But in Maine, Perot snagged 30 percent of the vote, and 28 percent in Alaska. I find it interesting that the South did not go for Perot in a big way; he got 22 percent of the vote in his own state of Texas but apparently didn't make much of a showing in the rest of the South.

All this is interesting to me mainly for the parallels I see between the mood of the electorate (as I read it) in this election cycle and the mood of the country in 1992 and 1996. I was active in political matters then (I'm embarrassed to admit, in the Democrat Party) and I know how people were feeling. There was a great deal of disaffection, and constant talk of the need for 'change.' Many people were not happy with the choice of George H.W. Bush on the GOP side and Bill Clinton on the Democrat side. The big theme of the debates in 1992 was 'change', and all the candidates, including Bill Clinton, promised change, and change away from 'business as usual' in D.C.
People were restless and fed up.

Somehow the major parties succeeded in persuading the gullible or the easily-led that they, the major parties, were going to set a new tone in D.C., and that the old D.C. insiders would no longer reign. It didn't happen; they lied.

Now, after years of failed policies, the two parties are more unresponsive to ordinary Americans, majority Americans, than ever. So we have the potential for another third-party candidacy, if the two major parties continue to be as oblivious as they are. And I don't see any reason to expect any change.

My perceptions, based on what I see and hear, may be incorrect but I sense even more disillusionment and disgust now than I did in the 90s. People are looking for leadership, and some people, for whatever reason, think they see the leader we need in Rudy or Mitt or Fred, but I think that few people are very enthusiastic about voting for any of them. I think people are grasping at straws, or are in denial, or they are scared stiff of not voting for the party they've always voted for. And the media tell them that only Rudy, Mitt, or Hillary or Obama are 'electable.' So they obediently pick one of the approved candidates, fearing that if the other 'evil' party is elected, the sky will surely fall.

I think one of the problems we have in trying to effect needed change is the attitude that what is, must be. The two parties have 'always' existed, and no third party candidate has ever been elected, so no such candidate can ever be elected. Obviously this is fallacious. There is, as the old saying tells us, the first time for everything. And the Republican Party was at one time a third party. Things change; change is the one certainty in this world, and it's wise to try to steer the change in the right direction when we see that we are as lost as we are in this country right now.

So Matthew White's alternate histories serve as an exercise, to cause us to attend to the possibility that things could easily have taken a different turn along the way, and that the aggregate actions of a relatively small number of individuals made the difference between two outcomes.

Bloggers' Presidential preferences

The Rightosphere Temperature Check for November: Special GOP Primary Edition

Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 8 questions about the 2008 candidates.
[...]
The bloggers were asked to select answers to the following questions (because some bloggers skipped particular questions, gave answers that weren't listed, or gave answers that were difficult to categorize, there are not 61 responses to each question.)

1) Which candidate would you most like to see as the nominee?
2) Which candidate do you think is most likely to capture the GOP nomination?
[Rudy Giuliani wins this category with 76 percent. So much for the idea that these are 'right-wing' bloggers.]
3) Which of the candidates do you believe is the most conservative?
[On this question,66 percent of the 'right-wingers' chose Fred Thompson. Again, enough said.]
4) Who do you believe would be the MOST electable candidate in 2008?
5) Who do you believe would be the LEAST electable candidate in 2008?
6) Which candidate do you trust the most to be tough on illegal immigration?
7) Which candidate do you trust the most to be fiscally conservative?
8) Which candidate do you trust the most on foreign policy issues?

On this last question, Rudy Giuliani had the most votes, with McCain slightly behind him.
Go read the rest of the baffling results at the link above.

How, I wonder, was it decided to narrow the choices down to these five choices? On what basis? On what the MSM says? I thought all us 'right-wing' bloggers were supposed to be fiercely independent of the old media, and I thought we were supposed to be the alternative to the milk-and-water conservatism of cable news, as personified in Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, or the talk radio 'personalities' who are in the pocket of the administration? Seems to me like the 'right-wing' blogosphere is just an extension of the MSM, meant to corral the people who are fed up with Fox News or MSNBC and looking for some alternative.

But really, why were Tancredo, Hunter, and above all, Ron Paul omitted from the choices here? Ron Paul has more real support among real people, I think, than John McCain for example. Tom Tancredo too has a much more fervent group of supporters than has McCain or likely Huckabee. Huckabee is coasting on the media hype of recent weeks and the blind support of the evangelical voters who think he is 'the' Christian candidate.

If I start thinking that the 'right-wing' blogosphere typifies conservatives in this country, then I begin to think we really are up the creek. Without some real conservative ideas and policies, this country is in serious trouble. We simply can't take four more years of the liberal idiocies from both parties. Time is running short. We need a real leader with real conservative ideas and principles. These five guys ain't it.

'How do we react to the next crisis?'

Over at the Forum, Glenn W. asks some very good questions, and in hopes of getting some responses from blog readers, I asked Glenn's permission to post this here. There are some very good issues raised and I hope by posting it here to share with you all, it might generate some thoughtful responses:

I have been told that the seeds of the American revolution were sown in the many taverns scattered throughout the thirteen colonies. Men would meet in these taverns and discuss politics and over time began to formulate ideas as to how we could break away from England. I have been encouraged by what I have seen on the internet because I believe that the blogosphere has become the tavern of the 21st century. For the first time in my lifetime men (and woman) can actually meet and discuss important issues of the day without it being filtered by large news organizations. The potential impact is huge.

I can see many issues being discussed as to how to protect our freedoms and our posterity from the very real dangers we are facing in this day and age. Meeting in the "VA tavern" to discuss these issues is the start of finding a solution. So, here we are and the modern version of parliament (aka the imperial congress) just tried to pass the modern version of the Stamp Act (the illegal immigrant amnesty bill). Since those jokers aren't as bright as there press releases would like us to believe, they will keep trying to pass that abomination. This caused alarms to go off for a lot of people who usually don't follow politics and possibly galvanized a real resistance to the insanity.

This is the time to decide on a strategy as to how we should react when the next abomination occurs. Or, maybe there does not need to be only one strategy. I identify with people such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry who would now be branded as "bomb throwers." I am sure there were many patriots who were more measured in their approach but as strong in their resolve as Adams and Henry. I do believe that attacks from many directions could be very effective. What should those approaches be? What do I need to do to hold up my end of the bargain? I believe that the political situation will get worse before it gets better. I have never been active in political campaigning but I am willing to hand out tracts and make calls for candidates I believe in but is that enough? If the situation deteriorates to the point where I won't take any more, what should my actions be? Would I be willing to push matters to the point that the founders did with the Boston tea party? What should our Boston tea party be?

This is a bit of a tangent but I will throw it in as well. Going forward we will need a set of common principles that we can agree on. I have seen some of the attempts to come up with a conservative manifesto where there are broad principles that we can all agree to. I am afraid that we have become too fractured and may not be able to come to a consensus. What if we once again used the founders as our inspiration and agreed to restoring a government where we could all live in freedom while having moderately different world views, something like:

1) Once again set boundaries on the federal government so they fulfill their obligations of defending the U.S. from invasion and regulating interstate commerce.
2) Restore the states to being the watchdog over the federal government.
3) Restore the liberties inherent in our constitutional republic where certain rights cannot be violated by any government body. This guards against a tyranny of the majority which the founders feared.

Under this concept of states rights (I may not be using this term precisely but I hope you get my point) I can live in a state where rugged individualism is honored and you can choose to live in a state with a more paternalistic approach to government. You stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.

I am sure that most of you are way ahead of me on this one and I am interested in what your thoughts are. Can we come up with an approach that we can all live with, and fight for, that avoids some of the stumbling blocks we seem to keep running into?

The time is coming soon where the crisis will be here. How are we going to react to and exploit the next crisis? Will we be willing to sneak out in the middle of the night to dump a ship load of tea into Boston harbor? I hope so.

The Bible, illegal immigration, and government

We've discussed the subject of Christianity and the weakening of the West here on this blog a number of times. And we have all heard the claims by various liberal Christian groups (and even some who belong to conservative denominations -- Mike Huckabee comes to mind -- who insist that any sort of effort to control borders and limit immigration is 'un-Christian' and hard-hearted. But seldom do we read any articles which give the traditional Biblical views on nations and borders. But Joseph Farah at World Net Daily in this piece does just that. For those of you who know your Scriptures, this will all be familiar, but we can all use a refresher course:

...But what does God have to say about it?

That should be of paramount concern to any believer before taking a position. Yet, I seldom hear it discussed. Some might even suggest the Bible is silent on the issue.

So let's take a look at this issue from a biblical perspective.

Nations were first established by God as a judgment in Genesis 11. Remember the Tower of Babel story? It seems there was a man named Nimrod who attempted to set up the first world government and the first false religion.

After the Flood, God had decreed that man should scatter across the whole earth and be fruitful and multiply. But this large contingent of men, about 100 years after the Flood, decided, under the leadership of Nimrod, whose very name means "let us revolt or rebel," they would settle in Shinar and build a tower to make a name for themselves.

God foiled this plan by scattering them around the world and creating new languages among the new nations that were thus established.

Make no mistake about it: Nation-states are an invention of the Creator – a deliberately chosen device to serve His purposes.''

Farah describes how our political leaders began breaking down the borders of our country (of all Western countries, actually) and weakening our sovereignty, with the hidden aim of merging our countries into some kind of regional superstates. The EU was first, and now the NAU, which of course the usual suspects deny is a reality. NAFTA, the trade agreement which was pushed through Congress in the early days of the Clinton administration, was a first step towards that merger, apparently.

This agreement, which was supposed to stem the tide of illegal immigration by stimulating the economy of Mexico, had the exact opposite effect. It wrecked it beyond all recognition, stimulating, instead, a massive exodus of Mexican workers to the U.S. trying to provide for their families.

Again, this was no accident. It was not just a mistake. It was, I believe, an effort to "harmonize" the two countries – to begin integrating them, erasing the differences between them, mixing the populations to such an extent that discussions of merging the three major North American nations along the lines of the European Union would no longer seem inappropriate. ''

Farah notes that this, too, is part of the old story in the Bible about Babel, and about man's efforts to undo what God has done in scattering us into nations, rather than concentrating our power in one monolithic government and system.

Those Christians, like Mike Huckabee and George W. Bush for that matter, who think the Bible commands that we erase borders in the name of 'compassion' and tolerance are very much outside the traditional interpretation of Christianity in that view. If in fact the Bible tells us to eliminate borders and nations, how is it that our generation is the first to notice that doctrine? As Christians we should be on our guard when somebody comes up with some new 'truth' from the Bible. Biblical truth is not something that changes for each generation.
For these compassionate conservatives, including Mike Huckabee, the idea is that we must mobilize big government to minister to people in ways that used to be the province of churches and missionaries. This is all not only not Biblical, the idea that we tax citizens to do our good works, but it is profoundly un-conservative.

Whether or not the liberal Christians' open borders, one-world notions are correct Biblically -- and I say they don't have the weight of tradition on their side -- the idea that our elected officials should impose these alleged Biblical commands on the citizenry should be resisted. Where are all the liberal secularists who howl about separation of church and state? They are strangely silent on this kind of church and state entanglement.

Buchanan: 'The End of America'

Pat Buchanan has a new book coming out, as reported by Drudge:

NEW BUCHANAN BOOK DECLARES 'END OF AMERICA'
Sun Nov 25 2007 20:40:15 ET

**Exclusive**

"America is coming apart, decomposing, and...the likelihood of her survival as one nation...is improbable -- and impossible if America continues on her current course," declares Pat Buchanan. "For we are on a path to national suicide."

The best-selling author and former presidential candidate is on the eve of launching his new epic book: DAY OR RECKONING: HOW HUBRIS, IDEOLOGY AND GREED ARE TEARING AMERICA APART.

This time, Buchanan goes all the way:

"America is in an existential crisis from which the nation may not survive."

The U.S. Army is breaking and is too small to meet America’s global commitments.

The dollar has sunk to historic lows and is being abandoned by foreign governments.

U.S. manufacturing is being hollowed out.

The greatest invasion in history, from the Third World, is swamping the ethno-cultural core of the country, leading to Balkanization and the loss of the Southwest to Mexico.


The culture is collapsing and the nation is being deconstructed along the lines of race and class.

A fiscal crisis looms as the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medicare remain unaddressed.

All these crises are hitting America at once -- a perfect storm of crises.''

Read the rest at Drudge Report, as linked above.
I don't see how any sentient person can fail to realize that we are in an unprecedented situation here in America, the like of which we have never experienced. However, the human tendency is to try to deny troubling realities and to pretend that all is well.
In some situations, that is a laudable tendency, to try to maintain a positive outlook, but in many situations it does not serve us well at all. In order to take appropriate action, we have to first acknowledge that the situation demands a response. The longer we delay responding, assuring ourselves and others that things are just fine, the more difficult it will be to rectify the situation, and usually the more costly.

The first reaction I had when I read the synopsis is: what, then, does Pat propose can be done? Apparently he does offer recommendations, such as:

• A new foreign-defense policy that closes most of the 1000 bases overseas, reviews all alliances, and brings home U.S. troops

• A purge of neoconservative ideology and the “Cakewalk” crowd” from national power.

• To avert a second Cold War, the United States should “get out of Russia’s space and get out of Russia’s face,” and shut down all U.S. bases on the soil of the former Soviet Union

• To reach a cold peace in the culture war, Buchanan urges a return to federalism and the overthrow of our judicial dictatorship by Congressionally mandated restrictions on the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• To end the trade deficits and save the dollar, Buchanan urges a Hamiltonian solution: a 20% Border Equity Tax on imports, with the $500 billion raised to be used to end taxation on American producers

• To prevent America becoming “a tangle of squabbling nationalities” Buchanan urges: No amnesty for the 12-20 million illegal aliens; a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville; Congressional declarations that children born to illegal aliens are not citizens and English is the language of the United States; and a “timeout” on all immigration.''

I can't disagree on most of those points, especially the last part about a timeout on immigration.

But is it possible that Pat is sensationaliizing the situation in an effort to sell books? I ask this only because I know people will make that accusation, and the fact is, Buchanan has been predicting doom and gloom for a while now, and people will say, 'well, the sky hasn't fallen yet, has it?'

The fact is, I see him on MSNBC as a regular commentator on Tucker Carlson's show. And Buchanan seems to see the Republican party as the preferred vehicle for conservatives to take part in our system. Sometimes I wonder what his actual political position is now vis-a-vis the GOP? To my mind, the crisis we are in will require, to use the cliche, thinking outside the box, recognizing that our two existing political parties are a huge part of the problem, and as such cannot be expected to provide a solution.

What say all of you to Buchanan's diagnosis and prescriptions? Any thoughts?

The Dutch contribution to early America

As I mentioned in my last blog entry, I came across an old article in a book, reprinted from a turn-of-the-20th century Harper's Magazine, called The Dutch Influence in New England.

I found the article eye-opening, in that quite honestly I had not been aware of the considerable influence exerted by the Dutch on our early New England colonies. Of course I was aware that the Pilgrims who founded the Plymouth Colony had sojourned in Holland before coming here on the Mayflower. But the Dutch influence seems to have been substantial in many areas of life.

I will only excerpt the article; it's too lengthy for a blog entry, and those who are interested might seek out the book, titled New England, originally published in 1990 by Octopus Books, Ltd. in London.

The writer of the article (who is not credited by name) begins by describing the English Separatists who took refuge in the Netherlands, in the city of Leyden. They were mostly tradesmen and craftsmen, having little in common with the more prosperous English residents of Leyden at that time:

''The Separatists were therefore thrown all the more closely with their Dutch fellow Calvinists of like social rank. Not only were their leaders facile in speaking and reading the Dutch vernacular, but probably one-half of the Plymouth settlers were born in Leyden, and picked up Dutch just as the offspring of aliens among us imbibe American English.''

In a letter from Plymouth years later, Governor Bradford wrote to the Dutch at New Amsterdam:

" 'Now, forasmuch as this [alliance between England and Holland against Spain, their common foe] is sufficient to unite us together in love and good neighbourhood in all our dealings; yet are many of us tied by the good and courteous entreaty which we have found in your country, having lived there many years with freedom and good content, as many of our friends do to this day; for which we are bound to be thankful, and our children after us, and shall never forget the same, but heartily desire your good and prosperity as our own forever.'

Still again, Bradford wrote from Plymouth, October 1, 1627. 'Acknowledging ourselves tied in a strict obligation unto your country and state for the good entertainment and free liberty which we had, and our brethren and countrymen yet there have and do enjoy, under your most honorable Lords and States.'
[...]
Nowhere on the map of the United States does one find the names of Scrooby, Bawtry, or Austerfield, but at Plymouth the oldest thoroughfare is appropriately named Leyden Street.

Here...were many proofs that the first settlers of New England had come directly, not from Great Britain, but from Holland. Some of the tangible evidences were Dutch seeds, books, provisions -- food for body and mind -- Dutch ovens, cradles, furniture, tools, and hardware of all sorts, especially of the Delft sort (such as saved the Mayflower from going to pieces during a storm at sea as Bradford tells) military gear and equipment, clothing, books printed on Dutch presses, spinning-wheels, and kitchen implements.

These were things seen and temporal, capable of preservation in a museum. In addition there were realities not tangible, but as traceable as water-marks in paper. Distinctively Dutch influences in the primal basic life of New England are clear to the unprejudiced student."

The writer focuses on Dutch influence in the daily life, in the social and political sphere as well as in the practical arts.

Wherever the Dutch farmers in America who refused to live under the semi-feudal patroons made their settlements they discarded the artificial and un-Netherlandish system of patroons and manors, and followed the ancestral and familial methods of commonage in land, representation in government, and democratic ideas and instincts in freedom inherited for ages."

The article refers to a book by Ubbo Emmius, "History of Friesland', about that ''ultra-democratic'' Dutch province.

Page after page of this book, with its account of the elections after prayer, and of written ballots, of magistrates and select-men. reads like descriptions of early New England town meetings."

The Massachusetts Pilgrims and Puritans, as well as Connecticut settlers whose leaders had lived in Holland, laid out their lands Frisian-style and "...they also built their houses with stockades, gates, 'a trench six foote long and two foote broad', with common forest, pasture, and arable land, with common fence, common herd or swine, daily assembled and led out at sound of horn, tended by day and led back by night."

The article describes in some detail how the Dutch excelled, surpassing most European peoples, in inventiveness in horticulture and agriculture. They were the first to introduce the 'Oriental fruits and flowers, grains and plants that are now commonplace'. They invented the ''forcing-bed, hot-house, winnowing fan, the plough in modern form.'' They introduced most garden vegetables into New England and the Atlantic colonies. They taught rotation of crops. They also, as most of us know, excelled in land reclamation, building superior dikes and drainage. They used the best farming tools, and their methods slowly spread among the English settlers. The Dutch also adapted more quickly to the cold climate of the Northeastern colonies; their sleighs enabled them to travel more easily during the long winters.

The Dutch, like the Puritans, were Calvinists, and Calvinism always breeds cleanliness and democracy, as surely as it never breeds poverty or arbitrary government."

In personal habits, the Dutch were known for their cleanliness, and their generous use of soap and starch, both of which they made very cheaply. They invented the use of starch for clothing.

Many of the domestic accoutrements and customs came from the Dutch:

In the evolution of post and frame, enclosed and canopied bed, bolster, and the modern pillow covered with removable case, and the bolster cased and not merely tucked under the sheet, the invention of the thimble, in the perfection and multiplication of spinning-wheels for the domestic treatment of yarn, and of home machinery for the preparation of flax into linen, and of the blending of the two into linsey-woolsey, the Dutch were the inventors, and the English, on either side of the Atlantic, the borrowers."

The English language in America was also influenced by the Dutch:

Whenever we utter the words anchor, caboose, ballast, school (of fish), sloop, stoker, stove, doily, brandy, duffel, cambric, easel, landscape, boss, stoop, 'forlorn hope', body-guard, scow, Santa Claus, blickey (tin), and a host of words in art, music, seamanship, handicraft, war, exploration, and the lines of human achievement most followed in the 17th century, we are but mispronouncing, more or less fluently, Dutch words. These words are the labels of things borrowed, from the little country which, after England, had most to do with the making of the American republic.

From the first fight and flight of the Indians before the prowess of Miles Standish to this day, the military spirit has never waned among the brave New Englanders. Yet, apart from the ancestral fighting spirit of these English colonists, it must not be forgotten that the school in which they were trained was the Dutch army, and the republican War of Independence in the Low Countries.
In the development of legal science, we have heard some of the brilliant lawyers of Massachusetts confess the great indebtedness of the law that rules us to Grotius and the great Dutch jurists whose names are more famous than familiar. The ancestral drops of 'Nederlandisch bloet' in Oliver Wendell Holmes, Washington Allston, and a host of the bluest-blooded New Englanders, whose names, as the records in the Netherlands show, were Dutch before they were English, hint at a force in letters and art still unspent.
[...]
Indeed, 'ye laudable customs of ye Low Countries' was followed...by confederacy of states, by revolutionary war, by declaration of independence, written constitution, and red, white, and blue flag.
[...]
In the evolution of that noble type of man and very agreeable person, the modern New Englander, there have been many potent influences. Not the least of the factors moulding him has been the influence of Dutch precedent, contact, and example.
[...]
Nevertheless, of the energies which have made and are making the typical composite American, those contributed by the Dutch were among the first and the most lasting. Arising at Holland's heroic age, they acted upon a people in their formative period. If Faith, Morality, Freedom, Law, and Education as symbolized in the granite statutes of the national monument in Plymouth, be the leading characteristics of New England civilization, then there is equal debt to their exemplars on both sides of the North Sea."

Identity crises: the American and the Dutch

Just after I blogged about the idea that Americans have no race, I read this rather sad article about the Netherlands, and about the identity crisis of the Dutch:

THE HAGUE, Netherlands - One was a Somali refugee, the other an Argentine investment banker. Both are now high-profile Dutch women challenging this country to rethink its national identity.

Princess Maxima, the Argentine-born wife of Crown Prince Willem Alexander, triggered a round of national soul-searching with a speech last month about what exactly it means to be Dutch in an age of mass migration.

"The Netherlands is too complex to sum up in one cliche," she said. "A typical Dutch person doesn't exist."

Her comments have tapped into an unsettled feeling among many Dutch who fear traditional values have been eroded in a country roiled by a rise in Muslim extremism. It's a view espoused by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has turned her back on her Islamic roots.''
[emphasis mine]

So the Dutch are having their identity stolen, too, and being told there is no such thing as a typical Dutch person. Anybody and everybody who shows up to claim a piece of the country, no matter where they originate, can now claim Dutch identity, just as our American identity is being taken from us. This is not only sad, it's insane. So I have been thinking about the Dutch culture, and as some of my ancestors were Dutch colonists who settled New Amsterdam, a piece of my heritage is there in the Netherlands.

On Thanksgiving morning I posted a link to a piece about the first Thanksgiving. Then, coincidentally, I happened to come across an article from a turn-of-the-20th-century Harper's Magazine, reprinted in a book I have, which claims that the Thanksgiving holiday is of Dutch origin. In fact the article lists a great many instances in which our early Massachusetts Puritan ancestors were influenced by Dutch customs and practices, so it's an interesting theory.

These days we are accustomed to being told by revisionist historians that anything good or worthwhile in America originated with some other culture, usually one of the favored 'diverse' cultures in our midst. For instance, we've probably all heard the idea that our form of government came to us courtesy of the Iroquois Confederation. But according to the Harper's article, the Dutch made substantial contributions to early American customs and institutions.

I plan to post some of the excerpts from the article soon, but since transcribing from the book will take some time, I'll begin with another online article, on the same subject, also from the early 20th century. It's called The Mother of America , an article by Edward Bok
which appeared in the Ladies Home Journal in October, 1903:

As a matter of fact, the reading world of America has yet to learn the real extent of the Dutch influences which underlie American institutions and have shaped American life...

Douglas Campbell was perhaps among the first of these writers to point out that the men who founded New York were not Englishmen, but largely Hollanders: that the Puritans who settled Plymouth had lived twelve years in Holland: that the Puritans who settled elsewhere in Massachusetts had all their lives been exposed to a Dutch influence: that New Jersey, as well as New York, was settled by the Dutch West India Company: that Connecticut was given life by Thomas Hooker, who came from a long residence in Holland: that Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, was a Dutch scholar: and that William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, came of a Dutch mother.

Take, for instance, what may be truly designated as the four vital institutions upon which America not only rests but which have caused it to be regarded as the most distinctive nation in the world. I mean our public-school system of free education; our freedom of religious worship; our freedom of the press, and our freedom of suffrage represented by the secret ballot. Not one of these came from England, since not one of them existed there when they were established in America: in fact only one of them existed in England earlier than fifty years after they existed in America, and the other three did not exist in England until nearly one hundred years after their establishment in America. Each and all of these four institutions came to America directly from Holland. Take the two documents upon which the whole fabric of the establishment and maintenance of America rests -- the Declaration of Independence and the Federal Constitution of the United States -- and one, the Declaration, is based almost entirely upon the Declaration of Independence of the United Republic of the Netherlands; while all through the Constitution its salient points are based upon, and some literally copied from the Dutch Constitution. So strong is this Netherlands influence upon our American form of government that the Senate of the United States - General, a similar body, and its predecessor by nearly a century of years, while even in the American flag we find the colors and the five-pointed star chosen from the Dutch.

The common modern practice of the State allowing a prisoner the free services of a lawyer for his defense, and the office of a district attorney for each county, are so familiar to us that we regard them as American inventions. Both institutions have been credited to England, whereas, as a matter of fact, it is impossible to find in England even today any official corresponding to our district attorney. Both of these institutions existed in Holland three centuries before they were brought to America. The equal distribution of property among the children of a person dying interstate -- that is, without a will -- was brought to America direct from Holland by the Puritans. It never existed in England. The record of all deeds and mortgages in a public office, a custom which affects every man and woman who owns or buys property, came to America direct from Holland. It never came from England, since it does not exist there even at the present day. The township system ... came from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland ... in fact, our whole modern American management of free prisons ... was brought from Holland to America by William Penn. Group these astonishing facts together, if you will, and see their tremendous import: The Federal Constitution; the Declaration of Independence; the whole organization of the Senate; our State Constitutions; our freedom of religion; our free schools; our free press; our written ballot; our town, county and State systems of government; the system of recording deeds and mortgages; the giving of every criminal a just chance for his life; a public prosecutor of crime in every county; our free prison workhouse system -- to say nothing of kindred important and vital elements in our national life. When each and all of these can be traced directly to one nation, or to the influence of that nation, and that nation is not England, is it any wonder, asks one enlightened historian, that some modern scholars, who, looking beneath the mere surface resemblance of language, seek an explanation of the manifest difference between the people of England and the people of the United States assumed by them to be of the same blood, and influenced by the same (?) institutions? ''

It's an interesting idea that our system was influenced and shaped so much by Dutch customs. And it makes it doubly sad to me that the Dutch people have in a sense fallen victim to their own altruism and tolerance. Back in the 1600s, many of the Puritans who ultimately came and settled Massachusetts had lived in Holland, having found a haven there from the persecution they suffered at home. Similarly with many of my French Huguenot ancestors, who fled to Holland in the wake of the persecutions they underwent in France. Holland was thus a gracious country which welcomed many of my ancestors when they had true need of a refuge. But now, with the Camp of the Saints invasion of the Netherlands and Europe in general, we see the tragic results of tolerance in excess. From the news article about Dutch identity:

Han van der Horst, author of a popular book on Dutch culture and history, staunchly defends the nation's live-and-let-live traditions. He points to an old Dutch saying that translates as "everybody is entitled to his own views," but hastens to add: "It doesn't mean you respect those views or share" them.'

Tolerating the intolerant, and enabling the aggressive and the purely opportunistic is never wise. The West in general has to learn that lesson, not just the Netherlands, but all of us. You'd think we would learn from the example we see in each other's problems, but so far there is little sign of this happening.

Can a rediscovery of our roots help to strengthen the sense of national identity? It would be heartening if that could happen. A turning of the tide has to start somewhere.