November 20, 2009 Where Does Sarah Palin Stand On An Immigration Moratorium?
We were in rural Arkansas, staying
with my wife’s grandparents, when the news broke that
Sarah Palin was the GOP 2008 Vice Presidential pick.
Lydia’s grandfather had been showing his
gun
collection
to her stepson, Alexander, and there were, as I recall, sixteen
Neither grandparent had ever heard
of Palin, but her effect on them was electric.
They instantly identified with every aspect of
her—the blue collar husband, the church membership, the
intense family life, the son entering the Army as an
enlisted man (most American soldiers do not go to
West Point, duh), the (undeniably principled)
decision not to abort the Downs syndrome child, the
outdoorpersonship.
They even became enthusiastic about the GOP
campaign, which they had previously regarded with deep
depression.
McCain-Palin
swept
Arkansas by 20 points. But what seems to have been
missed in all the uproar about Palin’s just-out
autobiography Going Rogue
This is not, as VDARE.COM
grumpily pointed out
at the time, because of anything Palin has said on
immigration, or on anything much else for that matter.
She is a
cultural
rather than a political phenomenon. But she is none the
less powerful for that.
Of course, it works both ways. The
extraordinary visceral hatred of Palin obvious in the
treatment of her candidacy and her book is equally
cultural in origin—with the arguable exception of the
abortion issue, which is a litmus test issue on the left
much more so than on the right.
The plain fact is that Palin, who
says she is half-Irish Catholic and half WASP, is
literally a creature from the black lagoon as far as
much of
America’s elite is concerned.
For example, she
remains scandalously unashamed that it took her five
years and a couple of regional schools to get her
college degree—she had to
work her way
through, she points out in exasperated tones—whereas
Ivy League acceptance has become a sacred
identity ritual for what
Charles
Murray
has called the
cognitive elite
(and for its much-pressured
children).
But the truth is that
only about 40% of college degrees are
earned in four years. And nearly a third (29%) of all
degrees are earned by part-time students. So in this
respect, as in so much else, it is Sarah Palin who
represents the American experience.
The Palin furor, which Megan McArdle
has wittily dubbed
"Palinoia",
is simply more evidence that the U.S. is becoming a
heterogeneous empire. Just as
Kevin MacDonald has
identified
the phenomenon of
"implicit communities", into which people group
themselves without really knowing why, so the historic
American nation has identified instinctively with Palin.
And its frankly alien ruling class—epitomized by the
Obama Administration, which was decisively rejected by
American whites—has not.
I have now read all 413 pages of
Going Rogue—which, given its tight security, I can guarantee most of
its critics have not—and can report that it’s
impressively written and organized, a great credit to Palin’s ghost,
Lynn Vincent, and, it must be said, to Palin, who
presumably had the good judgment to select her. (Typical
of what passes for debate in the U.S. elite, Vincent has
been
guilted-by-association
as
anti-gay
and has responded by
outing her own sister, noting that she chose
her as a member of her wedding party).
It also shows
considerable political discipline, never criticizing
McCain directly, carefully highlighting
her support for Israel, suppressing all
mention of the controversy over whether she
supported Pat Buchanan in the 1996 Alaska primary. (She did.
Buchanan,
with typical chivalry, has allowed her to deny him).
Going Rogue is also completely convincing, to
me, in explaining Palin’s surprise resignation from
Alaska’s governorship. She was simply overwhelmed by
spurious (as in
dismissed) ethics complaints, the costs of which she
nevertheless had to absorb personally. The Palins are
not wealthy and it was just too much. Apparently many
commentators simply do not realize that this sort of
thing is typical of the modern managerial state and its
legal bureaucracy. Of course, it means that only the
wealthy and sociopathic can risk public office, and it’s
a reason why I called, in my
most unpopular article ever, for vastly increased
emoluments for elected officials. It should be noted,
however, that Palin doesn’t seem aware that, as Craig
Roberts has
pointed out,
Exxon was very similarly coerced over the
Exxon Valdez
oil spill.
Two of
Going Rogue’s
observations struck me as particularly acute.
She perceptively describes Ronald
Reagan’s governing technique:
"pick your core
agenda issues and focus on those" and have
"a steel spine".
And she writes waspishly of
"’campaign professionals’…my first encounter with the unique way of
thinking that characterizes this elite and highly
specialized guild. In Alaska, we don’t really don’t have
these kind of people—they are a feature of national
politics.
Naturally enough, as the experts, they are used to being
in charge…"
Comment has centered on Palin’s
criticism of McCain campaign manager Scott Schmidt, who
unimaginatively but typically strove to keep her caged
up. What I find especially telling is that Schmidt’s
first meeting with Palin centered on (of all things!)
the Iraq War: he actually gave her
"books on the
subject, plus stacks of videos to review as we travelled
from city to city so that I could review the war’s
history at 35,000 feet".
Palin not
unreasonably thought the campaign should be talking
about the economy, then already in recession.
The intellectual exhaustion of the
Bush Era GOP consultants is plain. The patriotic
response to the war may have facilitated the implicit
Sailer Strategy of 2002 and 2004, but by 2008 it was
done.
However, I believe both parties
suffer from these
"campaign professional" parasites. They are an
important hidden factor in American politics, driving
politicians to do irrational things, like chiggers
driving caribous to jump off cliffs. Right now, I think
this "guild"
is an important reason that the immigration issue has
not surfaced, both for NIH reasons and because of the
fear of being black-balled by their Beltway colleagues,
regardless of whether it would work for their
candidates.
So where does Sara Palin stand on
immigration? The
issue is completely unmentioned in
Going Rogue.
But, somewhat to VDARE.COM’s surprise, we have to
thank Rush Limbaugh for surfacing it in his November 17,
2009 interview:
Rush Interviews
Governor Sarah Palin
When Limbaugh asked Palin about
combating unemployment, he got a worthy but boringly
boilerplate answer that could have come from
Steve Forbes:
RUSH LIMBAUGH: We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in
sight. The administration and others are
suggesting next year could be just as bad with
unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do
differently than is being done now?
GOV. PALIN:…What we need to do is shift gears and really head in
another direction because what we're doing right now
with the Fed, it's not working. We need to cut taxes on
the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating
jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America,
and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on
and growing more. But those commonsense solutions
there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job
creators, that's not even being discussed. In
fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like
Obama wants to go.
Of course, the unemployment antidote that is
really not
"being discussed"
is an immigration moratorium.
The
15.7
million
unemployed
in America have to compete against
1.8 million
legal
immigrants still pouring in each year. But I don’t
altogether blame Palin for not mentioning the idea
because I’m sure she’s never heard of it.
(And she won’t hear of it if it’s up to her
alleged
discoverer,
neocon
immigration enthusiast
Bill Kristol,
although it may be a hopeful sign that his name nowhere
appears in Going Rogue
In contrast, however, Palin is surprisingly up to speed
on the
Minority Mortgage Meltdown.
Still, amazingly, Limbaugh went on
to ask Palin a direct question about immigration:
LIMBAUGH: Thirty seconds: Immigration.
Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?
Our Alaska correspondent
Ryan
Kennedy
wrote a
sophisticated version
of the instinctive-support theme for
us when Palin was nominated last August, not
without resistance from other VDARE.COM writers. He
wrote me about this exchange:
"Rush asked her about immigration in general and her
instinct was to talk about enforcement and imply others
didn't want to enforce the law. She coulda
launched into amnesty babble. So she showed a
little bit of tooth. But way too little
for the audience she was speaking to.
He added in response to my query:
"No I haven't given up on her. But my opinion of
her is far, far lower than when I wrote that fan column
a year ago. [An informed Alaska source, also an
immigration patriot] is still a die-hard fan and I
respect his opinion. But I kinda see her as still on the
fence." We have it on the authority of Newsweek magazine that Sarah Palin is a "problem". I leave the last word to my fellow immigration patriot Ryan Kennedy: "Imagine the reaction if she had served up a big plate of red meat for our kind." Peter Brimelow (email him) is editor of VDARE.COM and author of the much-denounced Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster, (Random House - 1995) and The Worm in the Apple (HarperCollins - 2003) |