A Latvian friend of mine is puzzled by the enormous demonstrations erupting hither and yon in opposition to the Sensenbrenner Bill. His take is that it's rational to restrict entry, especially since the jobs these workers take would otherwise go to poorer Americans. So why does the "left" appear to hate poor people so much? Well, it's not really very complicated. It's the numbers.

In the wake of Ruy Teixeira's The Emerging Democratic Majority a coherent strategy has gained consensus. People in the Democratic Party have done a calculation that tells them the only way they can achieve an electoral majority in the future is if they swell the ranks of voters with large numbers of "people of color." The motivation is really quite cynical as well as short-sighted. Many hispanics vote conservative after they've been here long enough to become convinced of the American Ideology, so the only way this "browning of America" could actually work is if the influx is faster than our capacity to assimilate the new recruits into the melting pot. (And multiculturalism helps, because it insulates the immigrants from all that destructive Lockean talk of individual sovereignty.) It's also slightly racist, since it assumes that "people of color" can usually be talked into voting against their own long term interests if you keep them barefoot in their isolated enclaves. (Past generations might have called these "ghettos" but the politically correct term is "communities of color.")

In short, they've made a decision to undermine and and, if possible, destroy the ideology that holds the nation together, simply because it's inconvenient for them and they can't think of policies that fit within the constraints that Lockeanism imposes. The name of the game is "end around" and they're hoping they don't get shoved out of bounds. Somewhere along the line they made a commitment to a form of relabelled and reconditioned Marxism and have so lost touch that they don't even know the origins of their own belief system.

And since two ideas are always better than one, let me also observe that Hillary is no Clinton. She's about as politically tone-deaf as anyone I've ever seen, and that quip about good samaritanism and criminalizing Jesus just isn't going to cut it. People of faith don't like to be lectured by the likes of Hillary. Not only don't they believe she's got any moral legitimacy (especially of a religous nature) but she was waggling her paternalism like she was proud of it!

Posted by: Demosophist at 06:13 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.