This is Part II of the three part series on the racism of immigration reform.
“…A tireless proponent of Austrian economics, Rothbard studied with Von Mises himself after receiving his Ph.D. from Columbia University. His books relentlessly stress the benefits of a gold standard. Calling himself both an “anarcho-capitalist” and an exponent of the “old right,” Rothbard also co-founded Cato Institute but later split with it.
For Rothbard, freedom was best when it wore pants: he blamed the “origins of the Welfare State” on “the legion of Yankee women, in particular those of middle– or upper-class background, and especially spinsters whose busybody inclinations were not fettered by the responsibilities of home and hearth.” He regretted the Constitutional amendment that had “imposed” women’s suffrage on the nation.1
In 1963, for example, at the height of the Civil Right movement, Rothbard warned about “the negro crisis as a revolution.” “Demonstrating Negroes,” he said, “have taken to a favorite chant: ‘What do we want? Freedom! When do we want it? Now!’” One might expect a libertarian to like such a chant, but Rothbard found the idea of freedom for negroes alarming: they did not understand it properly. Freedom was a “hopelessly ambiguous word as used by the Negro movement,” and “the very fuzziness of the goal permits the Negroes to accelerate and increase their own demands without limit… it is the very sweep and vagueness of the demands that make the movement insatiable.”
An insatiable desire for freedom usually stands in libertarian accounts as the most praise-worthy of human attributes, but Rothbard found the African American freedom struggle alarming. Rothbard worried not just about “insatiable” negroes, but also about King and his non-violent protests against “private citizens as store-keepers or owners of golf courses; their rights are already invaded, in a “non-violent” manner, by the established Negro ‘Center’.” Rothbard explored ways to stop “the negro revolution:” his words are worth quoting in full….”
“…Paul says that corporations are basically being put in charge of the country to run it on our behalf. He’s not the first person to express these ideas. He is speaking from an old tradition; a worldview based on a perversion of Thomas Jefferson’s model of the independent rural farmer-citizen. Though Paul himself may not be best example of it (he’s closer to a traditional Libertarian), the zealots pushing the Party ever farther into the extremes are effectively Confederate Libertarians.
The plantation class that dominated Southern life prior to the war embraced a peculiar worldview. It was similar to Jefferson’s philosophy and modern libertarianism in that it was opposed to any government involvement in economic affairs. But unlike modern libertarianism it was intensely authoritarian on religious and personal matters.
A slave-owning society has no room for genuine personal freedom. This is reflected in their version of Christianity which was heavy on the “thou shalt nots” and light on the “blessed are the hungry” and continues to dominate Southern religious culture into our time. They didn’t need a central bank, or vast railroad networks, or factories. They just needed a government weak enough that it couldn’t rein them in and strong enough to be a robust policing force.
They felt that Northern Capitalism was a threat to their way of life. They were right. They were certain that Lincoln’s plan was to turn the slaves loose and unleash his godless Capitalism on them….”
“…Will we decide – deliberately – to join a modern capitalist nation with all the complex responsibilities and spectacular benefits it brings, or will we continue to cling to the dead vision of The Confederate Dream?
Now we have fielded a Republican Congress which is determined to burn down the Hamiltonian Republic that has emerged since the war and return to a “simpler” time. Along the way they would damage (or even destroy) the benefits we’ve gained from our reluctant capitalism. If you want to know what a Neo-Confederate political model looks like in a modern country, try to find a good public school for your kids in Mexico.
We may not think that’s what we voted for. No one can say out loud that they are fighting for the Confederate way of life, and some who embrace it may not even recognize it. You can get some hints at what’s going on if you probe Ron Paul’s fans for their thoughts on Lincoln. The weird AM radio and Tea Party rhetoric of fighting “socialism” sounds absurd, but only if you take it literally. We want to relive a fleeting moment of Jeffersonian simplicity.
The rebellion against the Neo-Confederate Revolution must start inside the Republican Party. If we fail to manage the complexity of our age, there are horrors that await. Jefferson’s world is gone, but we can still have a banana republic if we so insist….”
None of these people will bother to listen to Linda Chavez, who knows where all the bodies are buried, and has a greater understanding of the evil that exists within the anti-immigration movement than just about anyone else.
“...Jobs will certainly be the No. 1 issue for Hispanic voters next November, as it will be for all Americans. But how candidates speak about immigration influences Hispanics’ perception of whether they’re welcome in the GOP. And most of the candidates have still not managed to learn how to talk about this emotional issue in a way that demonstrates their commitment to a secure border but doesn’t end up alienating potential Hispanic voters.
Instead of intoning, “I would build a fence on America’s southern border — on every mile, on every yard, on every foot, on every inch of the southern border,” as Michelle Bachmann did last week, they ought to try listening to Ronald Reagan on the issue.
In 1980, when Reagan was running for the GOP nomination against Texan George H.W. Bush, he had this to say: “Rather than talking about putting up a fence … why don’t we make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit? And then, while they are working and earning, they can pay taxes here.”
The illegal immigration issue is easy to solve — and at far less cost than building a nearly 2,000-mile fence along our southern border. Create a legal way for workers willing to do jobs that Americans shun — even during periods of high unemployment — and you will eliminate about 90 percent of illegal immigration. And those new, legal workers will pay taxes, buy American services and products, rent and buy homes that now sit vacant and bolster the economies of communities that are now suffering.
Now if one of the GOP Reagan-wannabes up on the stage during the next debate would sound a little more like the Gipper, he or she might stand a chance of winning 40 percent or more of the Hispanic vote — and the presidency — in 2012. It worked for Reagan…”
Evidently Linda Chavez has not received the memo that Ronald Reagan is no longer acceptable to the GOP. He’d never be nominated for a dog-catcher today, let alone POTUS.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the alliance between John Tanton’s minions, Ron Paul, the CofCC, libertarians, white supremacists, League of the South, the KKK, and other nasties have formed a match made in Hades. They don’t really have the numbers, but they have the money and the vocal power to bully and destroy. This is what they are doing to the GOP, brought about by FAIR’s field representatives going, methodically one by one to Republican women’s clubs through the country. They are the ones behind the vile bigotry that is rearing its ugly head.
And you wonder why I have canceled my membership in the National Federation of Republican Women.
Why is what Rick Perry doing something right and honorable so bad?
“…Rick Perry’s tuition troubles have a lot to do with the difference between politics in Texas and politics everywhere else.
His support for in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants — and the fact that he’s sticking with it — started a political tornado. It was enough to make Herman Cain say he would vote for Mitt Romney for president but not for Mr. Perry.
In Texas, there was almost no controversy when the law passed in 2001 with nearly unanimous support from lawmakers of both parties, and it hasn’t been much of an issue since — or wasn’t, until that twister touched ground. Earlier this year, an effort to undo it died in the halls of the Capitol.
And there’s a way to sell it. John Sharp, the new chancellor of the Texas A&M University System and an on-again, off-again buddy of the governor’s, fielded a question about it at a Texas Tribune event last week. He made it sound easy, blaming the federal government for leaving the gate open and then turning the result into an issue of education and economic development that the state was forced to address. It looked, in that version, as if the governor had no choice. The audience — a Texas audience — appeared to swallow it whole. Maybe Mr. Sharp should join Mr. Perry’s debate …”
“...But what some Republicans asked is why they were being given not just access to college but also the less-expensive in-state tuition rate that American citizens outside of Texas don’t enjoy.
“Because they’re not out of state,” Perry explained in an interview before a Saturday town hall in Atkinson, just over the Massachusetts line. “They’re treated just like anyone else that moves to that state. And the fact is in-state tuition at the University of Texas is $22,000 so in essence what you’re saying is that, ‘well, we’re going to deny you access to education cause we’re going to move the cost so high that you can’t afford it.’”
Some GOP strategists believe Perry’s view would be an asset with Hispanic voters in the general election should he win the nomination, but the blowback the Texas governor is facing now is so severe that it’s pushing him to overcompensate.
Taking his third immigration question just at the LaMontagne event Saturday, Perry suggested he may be open to sending American troops to Mexico to work with authorities there in battling the drug war. Pressed after the event if Perry would do so even without Mexico’s permission, spokesman Robert Black said the governor “would look at all options to work with the Mexican government.”
Perry’s chief rival, Mitt Romney, sees the issue as its best opportunity to outflank the Texan on the right and the former Massachusetts governor made his presence felt here all weekend.
As Perry walked through a rainy Chilifest in downtown Manchester Saturday, he was followed by four Romney supporters holding home-made signs.
One of them, a Manchester resident who would only give her name as Stephanie, confirmed that the campaign asked her to come to the event. She wore a Romney t-shirt as she carried a sign that read: “No Gov’t Benefits For Illegals.”…”
PART II: TOMORROW