On immigration policy, I'll venture my usual thing and then retire from the field, at least for a few days. Y'all get mighty caught up in a certain set of debates: skilled vs. unskilled, what to do about welfare and transfers, etc. All important, of course. But I can't help noticing how quickly y'all run away from another important factor, which is the preferences of the American people. Can I take it from your refusal to take the American people's repeatedly-demonstrated preferences into account that you're perfectly OK with enforcing on an unwilling populace your particular policy preferences? Does that hold only for immigration, or would you like to impose your particular preferences (as though that were possible, by the way) where all other public-policy issues are concerned? Would you mind letting me know what kind of political philosophy your screw-the-general-population's-preferences attitude represents? Because, offhand, it doesn't seem very democratic. By the way, why exactly do you think the general populace should be willing to let you impose your preferences on them, let alone pay you any mind at all, given that you seem to be telling them that they're idiots? Or are you one of those people who thinks that the current inhabitants of a country should have no say in that country's future makeup? Note: I'm not arguing that the prefs of the populace should be the only factor to take into account, just that it's a very important factor (both from a moral and a pragmatic p-o-v); that it needs to be respected; and that preventing it from taking part in the general debate seems to me like an act of intolerance, if not borderline totalitarian.

But fun, as always, comparing notes about the topic.

Jonathan -- Good distinction between the big-biz and small-biz p-o-v's, thanks. But -- I know nothing here and am eager to learn -- would you say that Bush has been good for small businesses? Has he shown much concern for small-biz at all?

Tim -- I shouldn't bite, but I will.

1) You seem to have got blog chitchat mixed up in your mind with some kind of world-historical gathering where silver-haired statesmen debate matters of High Principle. Chill. If it amuses you to carry on like blogdom's superego, or to prowl the stage like some hotheaded idealist at the Army/McCarthy hearings, help yourself, though I'll politely request that you do so on your own blog.

2) You seem fascinated by certain guilt-by-association questions. Good for you! I don't for a minute think these aren't important questions. Nonetheless, I'm not very interested in them -- I'll join in these debates when I hear the jackboots about to march 'round the corner. Since that doesn't seem to be happening right now, I prefer to get back to the subjects that do interest me. For the moment, here's how my reasoning goes: The Guardian and the Village Voice, for instance, both have numerous (and really rabid) former and current Marxists on staff, and I don't need to remind you of those 60 million dead (or was it 100 million? damn middle-aged memory), do I? But if I see a piece that strikes me as good or provocative in either paper, I may well link to it and I certainly won't get hung about about who the piece's author shares an office with. Even more: if someone like a Richard Goldstein, for example, who strikes me as a dangerous political nutcase, writes a good piece (and he's a smart guy who has written good pieces), I'm going to feel free to link to it. Hey, I think it's a good piece. Perhaps I'm deluding myself, but I like to think I'm performing a friendly service for a few visitors by guiding them to some pieces they may enjoy. To let a little ego show: I think linking to pieces people may enjoy wrestling with is a genial, sweet, and generous thing to do; it's also something I enjoy putting a fair amount of time and energy into doing; and I hope a few people get the occasional kick out of my efforts. I find it fascinating that this activity should throw you into a disagreeable tizzy. Well, no, actually I don't find it fascinating, I find it tedious, which is why I ask you to take up these arguments back on your own blog rather than here. Me, I want to get back to this blog's (to my mind) really ravishingly wonderful buzz and chitchat.

"." -- I hear 'ya and couldn't agree more. The "Theory" (or maybe it'd be better-put to say "post-Marxist") crowd is forever trying to lure sensible people into engaging with their individual points and arguments. (Some of which aren't half-bad, by the way.) I used to be more of a sucker for that move than I am now. These days, I know better: all they're doing is inviting you into a mirrored-glass labyrinth. The only thing a sensible person can do is decline -- and then show the poor be-labyrinthed person that there's a way out. Very sad how few of them take advantage, isn't it? My hunch is that they really like the labyrinth, but I could be wrong.

Yahmdallah -- I think the Wife and I are more cynical than you are. Our point is that whatever the announced principles are, what the Repubs are basically about is looking out for the business class, while what the Dems are basically about is looking out for the anti-business class. We could be wrong or jaded or something -- certainly wouldn't be the first time. But neither of us can see any reason to think that what either party's really about is looking out for the country's general well-being, except insofar as it helps them achieve power.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 21, 2004 11:39 AM

MB,

Bush's income-tax cut, though not big enough IMO, was certainly favorable for small businesses, to the extent that many such businesses are sole propietorships or Sub-S corps or LLCs where business income is treated as personal income for tax purposes. The LT-cap-gains- and dividend-tax cuts he supported are good for all business, which means workers too. He has done some bad things such as imposing tariffs, continuing antitrust crusades that I think should have been dropped, providing lousy leadership on telecom regulation, and supporting destructive legislative piling-on after the corporate-accounting scandals. He could have done much better in many areas, particularly in reducing burdensome regulation.

But he is still better than, for example, Clinton, because of what he didn't do: Bush is known to support tort reform, and may (if we're lucky) press for it nationally -- certainly he isn't in political debt to lawyers' groups as the Democratic candidates are; he has appointed people to the regulatory agencies who have shown less zeal than did their predecessors for destroying small businesspeople who violate arbitrary regulations; and he hasn't caved in to the Cassandras of climate change. And Bush doesn't seem hostile to business, as many prominent Democrats do no matter how often they are photographed shaking hands with big-company CEOs. Attitude is worth something.

Bush isn't great for business, but the realistic alternatives to him all seem to be worse.

Posted by: Jonathan on July 21, 2004 12:25 PM

GC:

Thanks for the substantive response. I was going to quibble with numbers, but it doesn't seem meaningful. I'll just piggyback on Jonathan's comment about reducing subsidies to prevent that kind of freeloading while agreeing with you completely about the benefits of well-educated immigrants. I wasn't saying to open the borders only to the unskilled and the downtrodden. Just that we shouldn't keep them out exclusively. Sorry if I misrepresented that position. I also agree that immigrants shouldn't receive hiring preferences.

MB:

My personal opinion? The "common people" shouldn't make policy. That's what representatives are for. Just look at the fiscal wreck that referenda have created in California and imagine it on a national scale. Dems and Reps love pork already, and they're not getting the funds directly! Imagine if people voted on their own pork. It'd be a free-for-all.

One of my first comments addressed that divide between elite and non-elite opinions, but just because a majority of people agree on a certain policy doesn't mean that it's the correct one. I'd rather debate an idea on its de/merits than on whose endorsement it carries. For example: I've been convinced that within the current system, illegal immigration is definitely costly (4.5% of annual CA expenditures, if GC's broken link is correct). In deciding how to handle immigration, that's a good thing to know. But what we're doing is debating ideas, not making policy.

If I'm elected President, I'll assume that my political point-of-view has some support.

[and I know this comment is horribly disjointed, but work is much busier today, sorry.]

Posted by: Mike on July 21, 2004 1:43 PM

Finally, w/r/t multiculturalism -- dismissing it out of hand is dismissing it out of hand. You can justify it if you like, but as someone comfortable on the other side of the fence, your perspective sounds as ludicrous to me as mine must to you.

No winner on that one, I'm betting. ("De-labryinthing", indeed. Hah.)

Posted by: Mike on July 21, 2004 1:45 PM

Michael, I've called you on your less savory moments before (beating up on college kids, citing racialist websites, etc.), and I'll be all too happy to do it again. Alas, I didn't know enough about Auster to mention his questionable past: Congratulations and, yes, praise are due to SC for informing us about the man.

I'm all in favor of bloggy frivolity, and I have a high threshhold of offense where intolerance is concerned. I can deal with Marxists, as long as they're sociable. I can even tolerate racism and homophobia to a degree (though not when they threaten to become official governmental policy). People who can't stomach deep-seated prejudice operate at a distinct disadvantage in the Southland.

But that said, let's not forget that some people simply don't have a legitimate claim to the sort of civilized chitchat you wish to promote. A bomb-throwing terrorist has placed him/herself outside the social and discursive pale; ditto a bedsheet-wearing race-baiter. When these people start showing up at your dinner party, it's time to check the guest list.

I've had more than a few embarassing gaffes on my own blog, including run-ins with political extremists. These were the products of carelessness and gullibility on my own part, and I've apologized for them. What's more, I'm grateful to readers who point my own errors out to me. They help keep me honest.

Posted by: Tim Hulsey on July 21, 2004 5:08 PM

Feel free to stay on the other side of the fence Mike, just don't complain when Occam's Lawnmower comes along to do a little trimming.

Posted by: . on July 21, 2004 10:58 PM

Michael,

Perhaps, but I try to avoid cynicism (the quote below has been a guiding light of mine since I read it) - not that I always succeed. Even though it's obvious that the political process is tainted, I think it goes back and forth in the level of taintedness. I think it often has to do with the mix of the characters (meaning moral character) of the president, the senate and house majority and minority leaders, and the justices. Right now we've got evil bastards in those positions in all the branches. I think we had a better balance during the Clinton era (in sheer defiance of the image the Republican attack machine wanted us to have). I think if Kerry gets in, it will be a better balance again. And, just so ya know I don't view it primarily as a matter of partisanship, I think that John McCain would have made a good president, too. Maybe someday he will.

"To be cynical is not the same as avoiding illusion, for cynicism is just another kind of illusion. All formulas for meeting life - even many philosophies - are illusion. Cynicism is a trashy illusion."
- Robertson Davies, from The Manticore

Posted by: Yahmdallah on July 22, 2004 4:28 PM

About multiculturalism, you write: "Unfortunately, in a more formal sense it's also become a hardened and dogmatic political program that sketchy people are trying to put over on the rest of us."

I am still confused. What is your fair-handed analysis (not just for a few good laughs on a blog) of multi-culturalism? I have no doubt that there are "multi-culturalists" who go to and over the edge and say dumb things. Hey! We have that in every area of our culture: there are enthusiasts for capiatlism who go over the edge and say absurdities such as we should get rid of all laws which limit the use of property.

But you can't let a few extremists of a movement define that movement.

So, Michael, what's a really precise definition of the gripe? I might well agree if I could understand it.

Posted by: David Sucher on July 28, 2004 2:17 AM

David -- Well, a scattershot response ...

I'm not quite sure where to start. Try typing "diversity" into the books-search function at Amazon. Here's a book-description example:

"The first part of the book helps the educator understand the reasons for resistance and ways to prevent it. The second part explains how educators motivate dominant groups to support social justice."

Other titles on the first link I clicked on: "Readings for Diversity and Social Justice"; "Multicultural Competence in Student Affairs."

It's quite an immense industry with quite a definite social program.

Here's one description of official multiculturalism from Spiked Online:

"Multiculturalism is not about ethnic diversity, linguistic pluralism, faith schools or culinary variety. It is certainly not, as is often assumed, an enlightened approach to running a multi-ethnic society. Multiculturalism is an official response to the identity crisis within Western society, brought about by the collapse of common values, national institutions and traditional political solidarities. It attempts to provide a positive cultural sheen to this crisis, re-presenting the lack of common identity as a new cultural pluralism, and the fragmentation of communities as an enriching kind of diversity.

The official promotion of multicultural codes and policies weaves the notions of multiculturalism into everyday life and politics. By refusing to allow claims that any one culture is superior to any other, by carefully allocating resources to community projects engaged in entirely different, and often contradictory, activities, and by encouraging members of society to take pride in their different beliefs and identities, multiculturalism pretends that the hole at the heart of Western culture is in fact something positive and enriching.

An elite that is unwilling to make judgements about why any one cultural practice is better than another, to set universal standards about what role individuals should be expected to play across society, and to promote a distinct set of values that a society should agree upon, finds a useful tool in multiculturalism. This is why it has been so well-suited to Western societies in the past few decades, increasingly disorientated by the erosion of cultural and political certainties. Clearly, the official promotion of multicultural policy has not provided any solution to this disorientation - indeed, by actively encouraging expressions of difference and divisions between communities, it may well have fuelled the process of fragmentation. But despite the problematic character of multiculturalism, this is not what caused these problems - and it is not as if coming out 'against' multiculturalism now promises any solution in itself."

An example of multiculturalism in action can be found in a profile in the current New Yorker of a multimillionaire who's giving away all his dough. He started out as a brilliant grad student who earned two lib-arts PhD's, got references from stars like Stanley Fish, but who couldn't land an academic job. Reason repeatedly given: you're a very good candidate, but we need more diversity. (Punch line, by the way: he's Jewish.)

Kenan Malik did a TV show in Britain targeting multiculturalism, "not just in its more absurd and censorious guises, but as an ideology that emphasises difference rather than commonality. The writer charges that multiculturalism has intensified divisions, and led to something like apartheid in northern English towns."

From an article about "The Diversity Industry":

"In the last 10 years alone, diversity training has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry with its own consultants, books, magazines, certificate programs, and even an online university. Trainers, for their part, are paid anywhere from a nominal fee by community-based organizations to $5,000 a day by corporations."

Peter Wood's book "Diversity" (here) is a good survey and history. Here's a review of it; here's another.

Here's a decent blog posting about multiculturalism by a self-described progressive. It's got a bunch of good links to other souces.

Lawrence Auster's series about multiculturalism is worth a look, here.

David Goodhart's discussion of the problems of "liberal universality" here is worth a look too.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on July 28, 2004 2:57 PM

Well thank you, Michael. I will do some surfing.

Posted by: David Sucher on July 28, 2004 8:26 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?