Sunday, February 22, 2009

The National Review: RIP

To the soon-to-be-former Editor of the National Review,

After struggling simultaneously to retain my composure and finish reading Richard Nadler's bad imitation of a typical Wall street Journal editorial on the subject of immigration (At What Cost?), I found I was not able to do both and, since we were expecting company, decided that my composure should win out.

However, I decided that since I have read this all before, just not between the pages of NR, I skipped to the end to see what conclusion Nadler draws from his own shaky premises. OK, then I reflected again on how dumbstruck I was at reading this trash (in the National Review!) and how I should respond.

Should I simply go on about how this is yet another manifestation of the bad judgement that has prevailed in the post-Buckley era of NR? How my trust in NR's stewardship began to slip after reading Ann Coulter's experience with being rejected by John O'Sullivan (can you imagine rejecting Ann Coulter?)? Then slip again after suffering through Rich Lowry's stilted telepromted-performance as guest host on Hannity and Colmes?

Nadler seems to be trying to appeal to the conservative sense of business and economics. This reveals Nadler's ignorance of what conservatives actually believe. Also, he equates conservatism with the Republican Party, revealing yet more ignorance of what conservatives actually believe. At the same time I am at this moment praying that he is actually a Democrat because then I can at least say to my liberal friends who will delight in pointing out the existence of the Nadler...thing in the NR: "Well, what did you expect from a Democrat?"

His opening statement, that "Conservatives should stop trying to remove 12 million illegal aliens from American soil," may just as well have read: "I really haven't the foggiest idea of how my published in the National Review. I sent it to The Nation," which, of course, is where the thing belongs.

So here we have someone, who really hasn't a clue as to what conservatives should or shouldn't be doing, urging principled conservatives to pander to a few special interests in order to win back power for the Republicans so that we can continue to "stop trying to remove 12 million" illegal aliens from a majority position in Congress? This is essentially what he is asking us to do. Does this make sense to anyone?

So we must belong to a party that favors open borders according to Mr. Nadler, in order to advance what is left of the conservative agenda. I'm sorry but I think the liberals and the shameless opportunists in the corporate world already have that party.

At what cost? At the cost of our self-respect. For some self-respect is a commodity, cheaply bought and sold. For others (called conservatives) it is a priceless attribute, a character trait we proudly hold (or, as a politician once noted, cling to) as something that distinguishes us from the savage and the beast and the liberal.

Yes, give up your insistence on the rule of law; your foolish notions that illegal immigrants are lawbreakers first and foremost and that politicians local, state and federal are abetting this law breaking. Forget the borders! Who needs them? We need cheap labor! Cheap, ORGANIZED labor!! Just ask GM, Ford and Chrysler how much we need more organized labor.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"If conservative Republicans continue to advocate the mass removal of resident illegals, our candidates will lose Hispanic vote share -" Hummm. Lets See, if we insist on proof of citizenship before registering to vote, our candidate's could loose the illegal alien vote. If we continue to borrow our way out the economic mess were in our candidate's could loose the votes of our grandchildren. Well, you get the picture.

Bill Netherland (Father)
Severna Park