Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Take Your Cue, Get a Clue--The New Yorker Hates You!
"RETURN OF THE NATIVIST/Behind the Republicans’ anti-immigration frenzy." -- That's the loaded headline in the December 17 issue of The New Yorker.
Whenever elite magazines, such as The New Yorker, start throwing around phrases such as "nativism" and "frenzy," it's a safe bet that the trendy left is getting nervous about what the dolts and proles are up to, out in what they like to call "dumb-bleep-istan." That is, TNY will always find room in its lefty heart for Republicans that it figures are sure to lose, such as Sen. John McCain. Such useful folk are typically showered with praise for their "independence" from the GOP herd.
But if Republicans show some real spine--or a real instinct at sniffing out a winning issue--well, then, they are denounced and ridiculed. See the cartoon above, from the 12/17 issue. That's Cong. Tom Tancredo whirlwinding his GOP rivals; needless to say Tancredo is portrayed as some sort of McCarthyite-Troglodyte.
But interestingly, even TNY refers to NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's ill-fated drivers-licenses-for-illegals plan as "misbegotten"--but then writer Ryan Lizza assures his readers that it won't affect any elections. Well, gee, how does he know that? And of course, with the exception of a rare few, such as Sen. Chris Dodd--still channeling some of his working-class roots--how does Spitzer's original position differ from the basic position of the national Democratic Party?
I think that Democrats think that they will win next year anyway, based on Bush's unpopularity. And they might be right. But then they will face the challenge of actually enacting their party's agenda, and that means placating the base--which includes, of course, The New Yorker.
But of course, the more that ordinary Americans come to realize that the D Party has chosen to throw in with the likes of TNY--at the expense of its historic base among blue collars and ethnics and the working class--the less likely it is that the Democrats will win the next election.
There's no law that says that the Dems have to run bicoastal liberal globalists as their presidential nominee--it's just that they want to do so, to keep their Soros-Kos constituency happy. And then they face the challenge of electing the likes of John Kerry among Americans overall. And he's a tough sell, isn't he?
And it will be especially tough for the Dems if the GOP absorbs the Tancredo message and runs on a get-tough platform. Remember "law and order"? That worked for Richard Nixon in 1968, much to the annoyance of the liberal elites.
Sure, sure, the GOP should modify Tancredoism appropriately. But the Party should keep his essential message, the part about defending America's borders, and preserving American Sovereignty--that's a political winner.
Everyone remembers the story attributed to Pauline Kael, the late film critic for The New Yorker. After the 1972 election, in which Nixon, of course, was victorious, she is said to have said, "How could Nixon have won? I don't know anyone who voted for him." Well, of course she didn't. And there weren't many Nixon voters among the mag's subscribers. But somehow, Nixon despite the contempt of Kael & Co. managed to win--carry 49 of 50 states, in fact.
Hence the TNY serves as a handy guide to the next election--whoever the magazine is for, it's a safe bet that that candidate is the candidate of the urban bet against that candidate.
The American Sovereignty Caucus believes that globalism, which has a "conservative" side--including such open-border-ers as McCain, George W. Bush and Jack Kemp --as well as a liberal ide, is inevitably going to be pushed aside by a renewed American nationalism.
What will win is not nativism, but nationalism. American Sovereignty.
America making its own decisions, without taking orders from the rest of the world.
Deal with it.