The Week: During the Bush years, a diverse group of right-leaning writers and thinkers began sounding an alarm about what mass immigration meant for the rest of the country. Many of them emerged from California, exactly where migration’s transformational effects were first known. They remembered the 1960s and ’70s version of the state, when it seemed like an egalitarian and middle-class utopia, each family in a pleasant bungalow and a school system that was the envy of the world. This paradise was upended by mass immigration and galloping inequalities. And its inheritors were hungry for someone, anyone, to put into words what they were feeling.
Along came Victor David Hanson and his 2003 book Mexifornia: A State of Becoming, which posited that Mexicans fled the dysfunctional statism of Mexico but ended up recreating it in California. Another California writer, Steve Sailer, wrote blog items and articles that seemed to exercise a kind of subliminal influence across much of the right in that decade. One could detect his influence even in the places where his controversial writing on race was decidedly unwelcome. Another Californian writer, Mickey Kaus, became one of the few centrist to liberal-leaning opponents of lax immigration.
There were also national pundits like Michelle Malkin, who put a national security spin on the issue in her 2002 book Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, And Other Foreign Menaces To Our Shores. And there were policy wonks like Mark Krikorian, who is president for the Center for Immigration Studies and wrote The New Case Against Immigration Both Legal and Illegal in 2006.
Popular political titles like these found a large, hungry audience — and upended national politics. They drove conservative activists to shut down the congressional switchboards when President Bush tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform in his second term. They drove the founding of the militia group the Minutemen. And they drove the somewhat radical congressional candidacy of Randy Graf in Arizona.
The truth was, the great wave of migration America experienced from the early ’90s to the middle of last decade was a history-shaping event with long-term consequences. But because it was hardly debated by official Washington, the passions it generated tended to find sensationalistic or conspiratorial outlets.
And immigration went hand in hand with anxiety about American jobs and sovereignty. There was a minor nationalist panic during the Bush presidency, with conspiracies floating around that North American governments would create a common currency, the Amero, in imitation of the European Union. Pictures of the currency still float around the internet today. They came with the theory that America would stave off bankruptcy by uniting itself with Canada’s natural resources and Mexico’s underpaid labor. With that done, an enormous new transportation network would spread across the map like a squid, the NAFTA superhighway system. The rumors were fueled by quixotic lobbying dreams. But the opposition was real and fierce, and it eventually took down the very real Trans-Texas Corridor project with it.
In other words, there were signs of an emerging Trumpism on the right for years. These political tremors were ignored during the Bush years as the GOP immolated itself on foreign policy. And so no one wanted to believe an earthquake like this was coming.
COMMENTS AT STEVE SAILER:
* Pence. A true machine politician who opposes Trump on Iraq, immigration and trade. IOW he doesn’t give a rats ass about America. Absolutely untrustworthy.
If he is picked, it means the GOP leaned on Trump big time.
* Pence is most known to outsiders as the guy who signed some “religious freedom” law then backed down and caved quickly when Tim Cook and some other SJW CEOs condemned it for being anti-homosexual. I saw him on some TV show being grilled about it and it is fair to say he had no idea how to argue for his own side.
* “Pence is Trump’s way of picking Kasich without actually having to pick Kasich.”
This is a good way of putting it.
Judging from quickly reading his Wikipedia page, Pence is less competent than Kasich, but will have more appeal to movement conservative types. Also, and this is just going by Wikipedia, he seems aligned with Trump at least on immigration.
The thing is that though it would have been good for Trump to get someone who sided with him on all three of invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world, that is impossible with any politician, in either party, who has the stature and experience to be a plausible Veep selection.
In particular, just about all the prominent Republicans, the only real exceptions being the Paulites, are on board with invade the world, since it was the signature policy of the last Republican administration. Pence is a neo-con, but Trump will just have to live with that. As a Republican, getting someone aligned with him on immigration is completely doable. Its much harder on trade, and I suspect Pence is a globalist on trade, but its hard to tell from the Wiki bio.
* Trump backed Ginsburg down. I’m delighted. Her remarks about him were unprofessional and unethical. (And yes, I’d think that whether or not I agreed with her.)
I’m so sick of her and her ilk mouthing off without being called to account for anything they say, regardless of how outrageous, ill-advised or just plain untruthful it is.
* In some ways, it’s pretty amazing that people like Ginsburg would risk their reputations by speaking out against Trump. It’s not just that Ginsburg in particular was far out of line because she was doing so as a sitting SC Justice. It’s that in general doing so makes it almost a certainty that Trump will fight back by finding the most damaging thing anyone can say about his attacker, and then letting it rip.
Of course Trump said all the correct things about how wrong it was for someone in her position to say the things she said. But the real zinger was this: “Her mind is shot — resign.”
I’m sure there are many rumors as to whether Ginsburg has been losing her sharpness due to age or her medical conditions, but mostly they have been spoken in whispers in back rooms.
But how more public, contemptuous, and damaging can it be than to have Donald Trump write that “her mind is shot”?
One is also reminded of how Elizabeth Warren has been ridiculed over and again by Trump as “Pocahontas”.
I wonder how many prominent people out there who would very much like to signal their virtue by attacking Trump, but don’t want to endure a put-down that will probably stick for the rest of their lives?
* A thought about BLM and Hillary. I doubt the BLM leaders care if their agitation and riots make her lose. In fact, they benefit if she does. If Hillary wins, it’ll only be business as usual for blacks. But if they agitate against her, she’ll crush them. Lady Macbeth won’t tolerate anyone plotting against her or undermining her once she has her hands on the reins of power. She’s too paranoid and has too many scores to settle. Besides, she knows she may be too old to run again, and if she doesn’t, she won’t need their support.
But if Trump wins, outraged and weeping liberals will be dumping their cash ala Soros into every black cause in existence and doing everything they can to undermine Trump. BLM leaders will be grabbing the high-paying jobs in all these organizations, and a Trump win is a financial windfall for them. Besides, if you’re an agitator, you suffer a severe psychological letdown if there is nothing to agitate against. BLM needs Trump badly.
* If Trump wins does iSteve go mainstream? Wow, The Week was respectful to Sailer and even linked to his blog. No mention of the dreaded VDARE, though. Matt Drudge tweeted a link to an iSteve blog post a few days ago, too.
The “respectable” (snort snort) press may finally have to acknowledge the existence of our Steve. Brexit, a Trump win, Sailer in the national conversation, Paul Ryan being primaried out of office… please don’t wake me up yet – this is a great dream.
* Pence is a disappointing choice but Trump did not have many good options. Other names mentioned would have been far worse. At least he chose a white male cuckservative and not some PC flavour of the month to pander to the Left
Gingrich – too much baggage in his own personal and political history; the Left would have no ends of angles of attack against him, plus he really twisted the knife in Trump’s back on the La Raza judge
Christie – horrible: Obama’s bearhug buddy, gun grabbing islamo cuddling NorthEast liberal Republican
Ernst- unknown Lady Republicans have been political disappointments
Sessions – true conservative, best possible choice; Dems would scream raciss from here to eternity
Cruz – too much bad blood, too many ill-considered harsh words from Cruz; if he had behaved better he would have been a perfect choice
Rubio -might as well pick Grahamnesty
Kasich – obnoxious abrasive know it all personality, criticized Trump too harshly in past for Trump not to look ridiculous in choosing him. An alternate universe, less cantankerous Trump-friendly Kasich that could swing the state to Republicans would have been a good choice
unknown military men – unserious option, the candidate himself is already a non-politician, these days military bigwigs have to be more PC than Anderson Cooper if they seek advancement.
other unknown or marginal Lady Republicans, Latinos, amd African Americans : see above times 100
