An Elaborate Ruse

When is a call for civility not really a call for civility? When it's actually an elaborate ruse intended to manipulate millions of decent, hard-working Americans. This is according to someone (or something) known as The Right Scoop, who, in a recent article for Hot Air, filled in the details:

The civility narrative that grew legs after the shooting in Arizona is really just a ruse to keep Republicans from calling Democrats what America knows they are – Socialists.
…
What is really at work here is the Left trying to control the speech of a small group of impressionable people – Republicans.^[1] They could care less about how civil the nation is but if they can keep the Republicans from name calling, they end up looking better than they would if Republicans constantly reminded America of their socialist agenda.

Ok, first of all, the call for civility is not a ruse—nor is it a scam, a ploy, or any variety of shuck-and-jive. If there's anything unsavory going on, it's that the call for civility is somewhat undermined by the unfounded belief among those making the call that they don't need to listen, because they're civil enough already. That's about as bad as it gets.

But I'm more interested in the "Democrats don't want us to know they're socialists" stuff, because I've been hearing a lot of that lately. I won't waste time on the question of how, exactly, Obama and the rest of the Democrats are socialists. That's easy—they support things like federal spending to build up the infrastructure, mandatory health insurance, and a progressive tax rate. Clearly, they've taken a few pages from notorious socialists Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush.

Oh, right, those three aren't notorious socialists—they're notorious Republicans.^[2]

In other words, it doesn't quite compute. If the essence of socialism is that the government has the power to interfere with commerce and tell people what to do, then of course the Democrats are socialists, and so are the Republicans, just to a lesser degree (in theory, if not in practice).

There's nothing earth-shattering about that observation. I'm not the first to make it, and I doubt anyone this side of Sean Hannity would be obstinate enough to disagree. But somehow we've reached the point where, to conservatives, socialist is synonymous with "Democrat," and to liberals, socialist is synomymous with "there go the conservatives again, calling the Democrats a bunch of socialists." How did that happen? Why does the S-word make us think of Democrats, but not Republicans?^[3]

As usual, I don't have the answer, but I re-read the article quoted above and noticed something interesting. If the idea of an elaborate ruse intended to distract from the truth seems absurd, it's probably because the theoretical ruse in question requires Democrats to be (a) willing to shamelessly and intentionally exploit a tragedy for political gain, and (b) organized. I won't speculate on which of those is less likely, but I wouldn't bet heavily on either.

But look at what happens when I go through the same excerpts, and, without altering the original structure, change a few key phrases:

The Democrats-are-socialists narrative that grew legs after the election of Obama is really just a ruse to keep people from calling Republicans what America knows they are – also socialists.
…
What is really at work here is the Right trying to dictate the public's perception of a small group of impressionable people – Democrats. They could care less about how big the government is but if they can keep the "socialist" label squarely on the Democrats, they end up looking better than they would if Americans were constantly reminded of their own socialist agenda too.

It's still the kind of wild conspiracy theory I prefer to avoid, but doesn't my version seem a lot more plausible?

1. Because if there's one thing we know about Republicans, it's that they have weak convictions. I guess that's why they just go along with whatever the Democrats say, without even bothering to put up a fight.

2. That's notorious in the neutral sense (i.e. widely known), not in the negative sense (i.e. widely despised). Except for Nixon.

3. Well, when I put it like that, it probably just makes us think of Sean Connery.

A Closer Look at Some Asinine Crap I Found

I don't know how I didn't hear of John Hawkins before now, but this guy is a gold mine. On top of running the aptly-named Right Wing News, he writes a weekly column for Townhall.com. Almost all of these columns are in the form of "X Reasons [____] Should [____]" or "The X [____]est [____]s in the history of [____]," or something to that effect, and the latest is no exception: 7 Non-Political Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives.^[1]

Honestly, I'm a little overwhelmed. If I tried to scrutinize every line that's deserving of scrutiny, I would undoubtedly go insane. Since I'm not quite ready to let that happen, the best I can offer is this partial overview, beginning with Non-Political Difference #2:

2) It's socially acceptable for liberals to lie about conservatives: Whether you're talking about the New York Times, The Washington Post, or the Daily Kos, it's considered to be perfectly acceptable to lie about conservatives. That's because, as Charles Krauthammer once said, To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

If you think your opponents are evil, you tend to be okay with using tactics that you would describe as "evil" under other circumstances to fight them. If you're up people you compare to Nazis, it’s easy to tell yourself that lying to beat them isn’t so bad. If you're in a dispute with people who you believe are just too stupid to understand what's going on, you feel compelled to try to explain yourself a little better.

Ok, if I've got it right, the logic goes something like this. Lying, under normal circumstances, is evil, and thus unjustifiable. However, if one believes one's opponents are evil, then one may also believe it's acceptable to lie to defeat them. Liberals believe conservatives are evil. Therefore, liberals believe it's acceptable to lie about conservatives.

But wait a minute—if liberals lie about their political opponents, doesn't that make them evil? And if conservatives believe liberals lie, and are therefore evil, then why wouldn't conservatives believe it's acceptable to lie to defeat them? And at that point everybody's evil and everybody lies, and we might as well throw logic out the window.

Hawkins tries to side-step this paradox by endorsing Krauthammer's claim that conservatives think liberals are stupid, but not evil. But that doesn't make sense. Either they lie because they're evil, or they're wrong because they're stupid (assuming, for the sake of argument, we've eliminated the "none of the above" option). If Hawkins really thinks they're "too stupid to understand what's going on," then I don't see how they can be liars. And if Hawkins thinks they're liars, then he's lying about thinking they're stupid. Either way, he's lying about something. Unless he's just stupid.

3) Conservatives are results-oriented. Liberals are not: If you understand one thing about liberals, understand this: Liberalism is nothing more than "childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues." That's why they don't care very much about whether the programs they advocate work or not. Proposing programs isn't really about what will help the most people to liberals; it's about making them feel good about themselves. On the other hand, conservatives are results-oriented, which is why they tend to be so down on the government, which is inevitably slower, more expensive, and less effective than the private sector at pretty much everything.

In other words, if liberals and conservatives were an 80's movie about a pair of comically-mismatched cops, conservatives would be the one who gets results, dammit!

4) Conservatives care about the Constitution. Liberals don't: Conservatives believe that we need to try to interpret the Constitution in the way that the Founders intended it to be read and if we want to change it, then we need to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Liberals believe in a "living Constitution," which is functionally no different than believing in no Constitution at all. If you believe in a "living Constitution," you think it is okay to do whatever you want for political reasons and then come up with a legal justification afterwards, which you'll then call "constitutional law."

In other words, if liberals and conservatives were an 80's movie about a pair of comically-mismatched cops, conservatives would be the one who does things strictly by the book.

So…conservatives somehow see themselves as both Riggs and Murtaugh.

Seriously, though, how are points #3 and #4 compatible?^[2] Being "results-oriented" means doing what it takes to get the job done. Respecting the rule of law means sticking with the system even when it produces seemingly-unjust results. As anyone who's ever seen a movie knows, these two characteristics are not generally found in the same person. Even giving Hawkins the benefit of the doubt, the only way this could make sense is if conservatives believe the Constitution is so flawless, it simultaneously represents the unimpeachable rule of law, and the ideal mechanism for achieving short-term results.

Oh, right. Nevermind.

6) Conservatives are happier people than liberals: Despite all the claims you hear that conservatives are angry, cruel, and mean, conservatives are much happier people than liberals. This is something that has been consistently proven in studies and, let's face it -- anyone who knows a lot of liberals and conservatives will tell you that it's not a surprise. Conservatives love the country they live in, they're more likely to be Christian, and they take responsibility for their own lives instead of griping that the world is terribly unfair. If you want to be a happy person, you're more likely to be a happy conservative than a happy liberal.

Again, there's way too much going on here. I don't even disagree, necessarily—the real question is whether correlation implies causation^[3]—but I love the part about conservatives taking "responsibility for their own lives instead of griping that the world is terribly unfair," because it came from the same person who wrote:

Amnesty is unfair to immigrants. Nobody has been treated worse in the whole amnesty debate than legal immigrants.

When you're a conservative, it's almost impossible to filter out liberal views. Your kids are exposed to liberalism at school, Hollywood forces liberal ideas down your throat when you watch TV, the local paper leans left -- you just can't get away from it.

No matter how grave the provocation or how clearly Israel is in the right, the world's judgment is always against Israel. Why?

Just a few decades ago journalism in this country was actually about reporting the facts. Yes, journalists may have leaned to the Left, but at least reporters made an effort to be fair. Today, journalists are more interested in "making a difference" than in any antiquated standards and they play by PRAVDA rules.

And on and on. It's tough to find anything he's written that can't be classified as griping, really.

Then again, maybe I'm being unfair—it is his job, after all. But whatever. What's he going to do, gripe about it?

1. I sent Hawkins's column to a friend, who responded with, "How do you find that asinine crap? Do you Google 'asinine crap'?" Haha! I obviously didn't find it that way, but, thanks to this article, maybe in the future somebody will.

2. Also, how are they "non-political" differences? Eh, forget it.

3. Imagine a bunch of people are deciding who to align with. Ideology A says, "Are you upset about anything (poverty, the environment, something you want to do but can't because it's illegal, etc.)? Then join up with us and we'll do something about it!" Ideology B says, "Are you alright with things just the way they are? Cool, so are we." Of course the happier people are going to go with Ideology B, but that doesn't mean they're happy because they made that choice.
    (Meanwhile, Ideology C says, "Do you think Ideology A has the right goals, but the wrong answers, and Ideology B is full of shit when they say they want to leave you alone?" I think I'll go with that one.)

Tucson

As long-time readers are no doubt aware, I have little to no interest in timeliness. The real reason is that I'm usually doing a dozen things at once and I'm not an especially fast writer to begin with, but I don't fight it, because, in terms of offering thoughtful, measured analysis, there are clear benefits to sitting back and waiting to see how things unfold.

This is my way of saying hey, remember that shooting in Tucson that everyone with a media platform (i.e. everyone) has already weighed in on? The one that sparked a somehow-still-ongoing national debate on the dangers of excessive political rhetoric, leading to a tangential debate on whether the first debate was unfairly one-sided—both of which are exactly the sort of topic I like to discuss on this site? Well, I have a few thoughts.

Thing is, while the shooting itself was shocking, none of what followed was even remotely surprising, because of course one side went too far in trying to assign blame, and of course the other side became defensive in response to what they saw as unfounded and hypocritical allegations. That's what always happens.

Here's an example, courtesy of Red State, of the general tone and substance of the conservative reaction:

Unfortunately, the left is using this tragedy to score political points. Rep. Giffords was on Gov. Palin's target list for defeat this past November. The left claims Gov. Palin has blood on her hands. So does the tea party movement.

Less than a year ago a gunman stormed into the Discovery Channel's headquarters, taking hostages and threatening to kill them all. The left immediately accused the man of being a tea party activist.

Unfortunately for the left, the man turned out to be an envirowacko leftist raised on Algore's global warming garbage.

Immediately, the left changed their tune and proclaimed that no longer could we as partisans accuse each other of causing things like this. There are just crazy people in the world and tragedies happen.

My, my how quickly they forget.

To enumerate the key elements, there's (a) the requisite condemnation of those who would politicize a tragedy, (b) the accusation of hypocrisy, supported by vague or anecdotal evidence taken from a prior tragedy, and (c) the clumsy attempt to politicize that tragedy by implying the other side was somehow more responsible. And thus the circle of hypocrisy loops back around and begins anew.

That article showed up less than three hours after the shooting, and was only the beginning. I scrolled through the RSS feeds of five popular conservative commentary sites—National Review, Hot Air, Red State, Michelle Malkin, and Big Government—looking at every article posted between the afternoon of Saturday, January 8, immediately after the initial reports came in, and midnight on Friday, January 14. During that six-and-a-half-day period, a total of 351 articles appeared on those five sites, and, by my count, 172 were about liberals unfairly blaming conservatives for Jared Lee Loughner's actions.^[1] That's almost half their entire output for the week—a mountain of commentary roughly equaling the total combined coverage of the non-blame-related aspects of the Tucson shooting and all other news—devoted to reinforcing the idea that members of the media and liberal politicians will take advantage of any opportunity to negatively portray conservatives, regardless of whether the portrayal is accurate.

My point? My point is that…um… Alright, I'm not entirely sure, except that it's neither of the following:

• Conservatives reacted calmly and appropriately to specious, unjustifiable criticism.
• Conservatives reacted hysterically and disproportionately to reasonable, well-founded criticism.

Those are the extremes. Reality, as it tends to do, fell somewhere in between. I'm not going to try to identify precisely where—I just think it's interesting that the Tucson shooting went from zero to ideological spat in a matter of hours. Sure, a credible argument can be made that liberals started it, but conservatives weren't exactly caught off guard. It's almost as if they've come to expect this kind of treatment, and have learned to anticipate it, turn it around, and use it to their advantage.^[2]

1. Give or take. I mostly just looked at the headlines, so I'm sure I included a few I shouldn't have, and vice versa, but about half seems about right. Also, I left out NewsBusters because reporting on the media is what they do, so you'd expect a high percentage, but I counted anyway: Over the first week, an incredible 83% of their articles (67 of 81) were about conservatives being unfairly linked to the shooting.

2. Dare I post this article disclaimer-free, trusting that I've said all I need to say to ensure a fair interpretation? And that whatever inferences are drawn will be consistent with my history of not making potentially-insulting generalizations without at least doing so carefully and with a clearly-articulated basis? Eh, maybe next time. Here's the disclaimer:
    I don't mean to imply that conservatives were in any way happy about what happened—I'm just saying, once it became a political issue, there were political points to be scored. (In that sense, it's the same—in principle, if not magnitude—as when unemployment goes up, or a Senator is caught in a sex scandal, or whatever. Nobody's happy about it (we hope), but still, there are inevitably political consequences, often favoring one side and disfavoring another, and it'd be absurd not to talk about that.) I'm also not saying liberals wouldn't've done the some thing, had the roles been reversed. Opinions may differ on who's more inclined to shamelessly exploit a tragedy, but I don't think anyone could convincingly argue that their side always takes the high road.
    That said, I do think one effect of the media's generally-liberal slant is that liberals are a little more reckless with their discourse (since they believe, probably subconsciously, they're more likely to get away with it), and conservatives are a little more defensive when they feel like they're under attack (since they believe, probably justifiably, they're more likely to be called out for saying something reckless).

The Three-Fifths Compromise

Last week, Ken Blackwell went off on two Washington Post writers for saying the Constitution condoned slavery, which is precisely what it did. While he was at it, he also lodged a few complaints about the way they discussed the three-fifths compromise:

Then, there's the Post's ritual repeating of the falsehood that the Founders viewed black people as "three fifths of a person." That is a wholly tendentious misreading of the Three-Fifths Clause.
…
It is especially galling to have liberals attack Republican Members on these matters.^[1]

And he's not the only one who feels strongly about this. Neal Boortz made it the topic of his weekly Atlanta Journal-Constitution column:^[2]

Let's bury this "three-fifths of a person" nonsense. The people who spout this idiocy are either lying or grossly ignorant.

I try to be more tactful about it, but I share their distaste for historical misconceptions. So, in the hope of clearing a few things up, I prepared a short True/False quiz:

• A. Southern states argued for counting slaves as whole persons, while Northern states would've preferred to not count them at all.
• B. The three-fifths compromise was not a direct assessment of the value of certain human beings relative to others.
• C. The three-fifths compromise did not draw a legal distinction between black people and white people.
• D. Statements A, B, and C, if true, are valid reasons to insult and ridicule those who consider the three-fifths compromise a shameful chapter in American history.
• E. America was founded by a bunch of racists.

And (as if it's not already clear that I'm more interested in making a point than putting together a proper quiz)…the answers:

A. True
An unexpected gesture of humanity from the South? Of course not. They wanted to count slaves because seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned by population, so higher populations meant more influence for them and less for the North. Not that they had any intention of letting the slaves themselves have a say in who occupied those extra seats.

B. True
As mentioned above, it was mostly about representation in Congress, though it first appeared during the Articles of Confederation days as part of an attempt to resolve a tax dispute. To infer from those two non-horrifying origin stories anything deeper about the Founders' perception of a human being's worth is, according to Blackwell, a "tendentious misreading."

C. True
The distinction was between slaves and non-slaves. There were, of course, black people who were free, and there were also slaves who weren't black. I'm sure the latter took great consolation in knowing the terrible oppression they had to endure would not be in vain, for they would one day be used by blowhards as proof that slavery was slightly less racist than people make it out to be.

What kind of blowhard would do that, you ask? Neal Boortz, for one:

[A]llow me to help you out here with a little history lesson about the Three-fifths Compromise reached at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. You’ll see that there is no evidence to support oft-repeated claims by so many liberals and race pimps that the Constitution is racist.
…
There was NO mention of race and NO suggestion that anyone counted as three-fifths of a human being. There were, by the way, black slave owners who were counted and white slaves who were not. But let's not cause too much stress for delicate minds.^[3]

D. False
Obviously, conservatives don't like hearing that the three-fifths compromise—or anything else about the Constitution—was racist, and I think I've got a handle on why that is. In part, it's because the implication is usually that it was racist because slaves were counted as only three-fifths of a person, when the reality was that every seat in Congress a state obtained by virtue of its slave population was another Representative who could be counted on to vote to perpetuate slavery. For those working to end the practice, the best-case scenario was to not count slaves at all.

Makes sense so far—they want to set the record straight, and there's nothing wrong with that—but at some point setting the record straight starts to overlap with defending the Founding Fathers and the Constitution against accusations of racism, and that's when emotion takes over.

Sure, there was never an evaluation of the relative human-ness of slaves and non-slaves that led to the 3/5 number, but is that supposed to prove that a slave's humanity was 100% recognized by society? Because I can say with absolute confidence, despite having been born five score and 18 years after the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, that it was not. And my first piece of evidence is that in the part of the Constitution dealing with the incredibly straightforward matter of counting how many people there are, slaves are subject to different math than everyone else. It doesn't matter how much historical expertise you have—the fact that a fraction had to be negotiated in the first place is a sign something was terribly wrong, and the fact that it remains in the text of the Constitution serves as a vivid reminder that freedom hasn't always been for everyone.

Conservatives talk about the Founders as if they were some single-minded entity, and they use language that seems to treat the Constitution itself as a sentient being (like Boortz's "there is no evidence…the Constitution is racist"), but that's absurd. There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Some, like Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, were staunchly opposed to slavery. Others, like Charles Pinckney and Pierce Butler, were relentless advocates. James Madison was somewhere in between, providing a consistent voice for gradual, rather than immediate, emancipation, which I suppose is why he never freed his own slaves. And Thomas Jefferson (not a delegate, but influential nonetheless) was just all over the place. All had a role in shaping the Constitution.

With that in mind, I have three questions:

1. When conservatives heap praise on the Founders, is it somehow implied that they're excluding Pinckney, Butler, and the other dozen or so delegates who would've refused to sign a constitution prohibiting slavery?
2. If not, are they prepared to argue that those men weren't so bad (because, I don't know, a handful of white people and Indians were slaves too, and therefore slavery wasn't racist, or some other such nonsense)?
3. Or are they ignoring the truth—that neither the Constitution nor its creators are as infallible as conservatives make them out to be—and simply framing history however they want?

The first and third are dishonest and hypocritical, while the second seems indefensible. And yet, logic dictates that the answer to at least one of those questions has to be "yes," doesn't it?

It's great that some of the Founders were among the era's leading abolitionists, but it's also shameful that others put up such stubborn resistance. Conservatives accuse liberals of treating the Constitution like it was written entirely by the latter, but then they turn around and treat it like it was written entirely by the former. And both views are asinine, because, the fact is, most of the Founders fell somewhere in between. Hence the three-fifths compromise, which was exactly that—a compromise.

E. Not even close to the kind of question that can be answered with a simple "True" or "False"
So how about we stop acting like we don't know that?

1. As quoted above, Blackwell decries "the Post's ritual repeating of the falsehood that the Founders viewed black people as "three fifths of a person,"" calling it a galling attack on House Republicans. That's a pretty small snippet of text for such sweeping generalizations. Here's the whole sentence:

One [passage omitted during the House reading], the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts.

That's a galling attack? Looks more like an accurate, objective description of the three-fifths compromise to me.

2. To Boortz's credit, he criticizes both the New York Times and Fox News for their respective comments about the three-fifths compromise, so at least he's not making a specious argument that conservatives understand the Constitution better than liberals. Instead, he's making a specious argument that conservatives are ignorant, while "the left holds our Constitution in contempt," which is…better, I guess.

3. Seriously, what am I supposed to take away from that? That 18th-century America was a diverse rainbow of abuse and subjugation? Also, if it's a distortion of history to call slavery, or the Constitution, or both, racist, then how about immoral? I assume we can call slavery immoral, but what about the pre-1865 Constitution, which—dare I say—condoned slavery? And if both slavery and the pre-1865 Constitution were immoral, then what does it matter that they weren't racist? Ugh. Now I've got a headache, so, if nothing else, Boortz was right about that.

An Argument I Cannot Condone

As if secretly trying to crush any lingering hope that we could maybe do something—anything—without descending into embarrassing partisan bickering, last week the Republicans decided to read the Constitution on the House floor. Philip Rucker and David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post described the ensuing controversy:

House Republicans, who orchestrated the symbolic exercise as an early gesture to the tea party movement, touted it as a way to bring the new Congress, and the people they represent, back to America's roots.

But they didn't want to go all the way back.

…

The version read aloud was missing at least seven passages that remain etched in faded ink on the Constitution kept at the National Archives. Most are eye-glazing: procedures for electing senators, the workings of the electoral college.

But two, in particular, reflect a painful reality: The nation's founding document condoned slavery.

One, the "three-fifths compromise," counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of divvying congressional districts. The second dealt with runaway slaves—if they escaped to a free state, the Constitution required that they not be freed but rather "delivered up" to their owners.

Both were negated by the 13th Amendment but necessary to ratifying the original document, according to historians.

Any problems with that account? Maybe they sound a bit critical of Republicans, but not in an inaccurate way, or in a way that strikes me as unfair.^[1] I don't see much worth complaining about. Prominent Republican and Townhall.com columnist Ken Blackwell, on the other hand, is incensed. In an article titled "The Constitution Did Not Condone Slavery," he writes:^[2]

The Rucker-Farenthold article was nowhere labeled analysis, but who expects anything but front-page editorials these days, anyway? They waded right in to a two-hundred twenty-two year old controversy when they flatly stated that the original Constitution "condoned" slavery.

Abraham Lincoln did not agree. He revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them. They hid it away, Lincoln said, as "an afflicted man hides a wen or tumor."

Abolitionist editor and orator Frederick Douglass also did not agree. He emphasized eloquently that not one word would have to be changed in the Constitution if only the states would follow George Washington's example and voluntarily give up slavery.

Lincoln and Douglass were right. James Madison explained why there was no mention of slavery in the Constitution. The framers were unwilling to admit in the federal charter there could be property in men.

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

I'm sure he has more at his disposal somewhere, but Blackwell's reaction represents the combined effort of approximately two neurons—the one that loves the Constitution, and the one that's convinced liberals don't. The neuron that knows what "condone" means, though, was apparently not consulted. Here are a few definitions:

• To give tacit approval to. By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
• To accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
• To approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.

So, to reiterate, the same person who wrote this…

[Lincoln] revered the Constitution and said that the fact that it nowhere mentioned the words slavery, slave, African, or Negro was a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery among them.

…also wrote this, three paragraphs later:

The idea that our Constitution "condoned" slavery and was therefore an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence is a stock liberal claim. It is false.

What else is there to say? That the Constitution contained "a silent but powerful admission that the Founders were ashamed of the existence of slavery" is exactly what "condoned" means, right? If not, what should've been used in its place? Ignored, excused, and allowed all seem worse than condoned. Condemned, denounced, and decried all seem inaccurate, as the Constitution did none of those things.

In other words (so to speak), "condoned" strikes me as a perfectly cromulent word for the Post writers to use to make their point. And, by the way, the point itself—that despite whatever misgivings the Founders may have had about slavery, it was not prohibited under the Constitution—is indisputable. If there's anything historically- or semantically-flawed about saying the Constitution condoned slavery, I haven't figured out what it is. So, what triggered Ken Blackwell's column-length rant about liberals seeing the Constitution as "an immoral document unworthy of being viewed with reverence"?^[3]

I wouldn't accuse Blackwell of not knowing what "condone" means (after all, in the same column he uses words like "phalanx" and "tendentious," and rather artfully at that). I'd say what's happening here is that he's so committed to the conservative mantra that they are the proud defenders of the Constitution—the last line of defense protecting American values and the rule of law from those who (in their minds) would do away with both in a second, given the chance—that he just didn't bother to think about what "condone" really means, or what the Post writers meant when they used it. He read an article written, presumably, by liberals, in which the Constitution was discussed in not-entirely-positive terms,^[4] and that's all the fuel he needed.

This is where I'd normally write some sort of conclusion—something concise and witty that also reinforces the point I'm trying to make—but there's no need. While I was working on this post I came across a conclusion to another article that serves those purposes beautifully. I hope Ken Blackwell doesn't mind if I borrow it:

Let's rejoice that we have come this far. Let's not use the reading of the Constitution as an occasion for scoring cheap—and false—political points. Let's proceed as Lincoln proceeded: With malice toward none.

1. Personally, I say leave the archaic sections out. Not because they're objectionable, but because I thought the point of the reading was that people—members of Congress and private citizens alike—might benefit from being reminded that the Constitution has a lot of important stuff in it and, by the way, is still legally binding. I don't see how it serves that purpose to read the parts that are no longer in effect.
    Still, would it have been too much to ask for somebody (John Lewis, perhaps) to kick things off with a short speech about the history of the controversial provisions? Alternatively, would it have been too much to ask for the Democrats to just stop complaining for an hour and a half?

2. Blackwell also has some thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. I, in turn, have some thoughts about Blackwell's thoughts about the Post's take on the Three-Fifths Compromise. All these thoughts eventually grew too large to reasonably cram into this footnote (and even began sprouting footnotes of their own), so they'll show up as a separate article within a few days.

3. Oh, almost forgot the requisite disclaimer: Just because I disagree with some parts of Blackwell's article, doesn't mean I see the Constitution as immoral or unworthy or reverence or…I'm already tired of writing this sentence. It's a powerful, ground-breaking document, but it also has its flaws, because so did the world that created it. Can we all agree on that?

4. Interestingly, Blackwell doesn't comment on this line in the Post article, which is the only part that jumps out to me as containing legitimate inaccuracies:

To some African Americans, skipping those passages was a stinging omission that overlooked the fact that under the original Constitution they would not have had a right to vote, let alone serve in Congress.

The original Constitution didn't restrict voting rights. It didn't say much about voting at all, really, other than the constitutional requirement that members of the House of Representatives be, in some non-specific way, chosen by the people. Determining who could vote and what they could vote on was, and still is (although Amendments XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI established a few more ground rules), left up to the states. In a lot of states—you can probably guess what general part of the country we're talking about—free black men have been voting since the 1700s, and I'm pretty sure they were allowed to run for federal office, too.

Survey Says: Fox News Viewers Bad at Reading Comprehension

Hey, a study! A new study! Gather 'round everyone, there's a new study out!

It comes from the University of Maryland's Program on International Something-or-Other, where researchers have used biased methodology to reach a pre-conceived result made a number of fascinating discoveries. One finding, in particular, is ideally suited to the sort of vapid, substanceless news reporting people tolerate for some reason very interesting: Apparently, regular viewers of Fox News are more likely than those who get their news elsewhere to be "misinformed" misinformed. Of course, research like this frequently raises serious questions about the integrity and/or competence of everyone involved is rarely met with universal acceptance. This study would, if printed out, actually devalue the paper it's printed on is no exception.

Alright, enough with the strikethroughs—I think I've made it clear how little respect I have for this kind of counterproductive bullshit flawed research.

Why is it flawed? A bunch of reasons, but this article from Right Wing News nicely summarizes the one I want to talk about:

[S]ome of the questions asked by the World Public Opinion Dot Org are framed around "what the experts think." So there is another obvious point to be made about the flaw in their research: It is inclined to bestow the title of "well informed" upon people who place great weight on what "experts" think, and then just slavishly mimic them. I suppose there is a certain fairness to that, along with a worthy fidelity to the intent of the study—you need to track down some information in order to find out what the so-called experts are thinking, so you can copy it—but it occurs to me. When we seek to establish and maintain an "informed" democratic republic of participating voters, this seems somewhat far-flung and distant from what we should be trying to build.

What good is information if you aren't thinking independently about it means?

Along the same lines, here's Townhall.com's Brent Bozell:

Fox viewers were more likely to believe "Among economists who have estimated the effect of the health reform law on the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, more think it will increase the deficit."

That is misinformation? This question is not about facts at all. It's about the opinions of economists looking into a crystal ball, and PIPA's "economists" estimate that herding 35 million uninsured Americans into a new federal entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit. This assertion by liberals that ObamaCare would cut deficits isn't technically a "lie"—yet. It is merely a patently ridiculous claim that doesn't acknowledge the real world. But somehow, Fox News viewers are tagged as the "misinformed" dummies, because their opinions are grounded in logic.

Those devious pollsters! It seems people weren't asked if, for example, healthcare reform will increase the deficit, they were asked if economists believe healthcare reform will increase the deficit. Several other questions were similarly phrased.

That the researchers used biased methodology is so obvious it's not worth talking about up here in the main text,^[1] so I'm setting that aside for now. At the same time, let's not treat these Fox News-viewing respondents as paragons of enlightenment. Bozell, like most conservatives who've weighed in on the study, acts like they were tricked into giving "wrong" answers, because God forbid Fox News viewers be expected to know what the so-called experts think about anything.^[2]

Conservatives have gotten into the habit of dismissing "experts" as out-of-touch elitists who care more about promoting an ideology than objective truth-seeking. (Note: Does not apply to experts who endorse conservative views.) As usual, they're kind of right and kind of wrong, but Bozell is taking it a step further. Later in the same article, he asks:

Is it fair—whether the pollsters are liberals or conservatives—to expect the American people to identify correctly the estimates made by a panel of economists organized by news editors of The Wall Street Journal?

Is it fair to ask a difficult question? I'd like to think so, especially if your goal is to determine whether the answers to such questions have reached the public, which, nominally (if not actually), is what the study was about. Nobody's trying to deprive anyone of their fundamental right to disagree with the experts as obstinately and as unjustifiably as they see fit. Besides, I'm not sure it's even logically possible to disagree with the experts if you aren't, you know, informed about what the experts think.

So let's criticize the hell out of this study for all sorts of reasons, but not that one. I guess Bozell would be happier if this were just another opinion poll, but if you're not informed enough to answer at least a few questions about what the experts think, I'd rather not hear your opinions anyway.

1. Basically, if you went in with the attitude that everything liberals do is right and everything conservatives do is wrong, you would've given the "informed" answer to almost every question.
    The content of a lot of the questions was suspect too. This video probably isn't flawless, but it's a pretty good overview of some of the problems. (That's twice in just over a month I've praised something on one of the Breitbart sites, so…haha, [snarky comment about the frigid conditions in Hell, maybe a Michael Bloomberg reference and something about snow plows, etc., etc.])

2. Or, on the chance some thought they were being asked for their opinions, God forbid they be expected to read an entire sentence and evaluate the semantic contribution made by every single word.
    All that said, this isn't really about Fox News, because I have no doubt that, given an ideologically-neutral set of questions, those who get their news from other sources wouldn't fare much better. A follow-up article elaborating on that is in the works, but, for now, I'll just point out that the researchers threw in a token question for conservatives (about whether there was proof the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had been raising foreign money for Republican candidates), and, shockingly enough, on that one MSNBC and NPR viewers/listeners were the most "misinformed." That completely undermines the reported findings, doesn't it? How they could just shrug it off and proceed with their "Fox News viewers are misinformed!" publicity grab is beyond me, but I guess that's why I'll never climb to the top of academia.

Rush Limbaugh Knows Liberals (So You Don't Have To)

Say you're a budding conservative (having somehow resisted the influence of public schools, unions, the media, and New England), and you're also open-minded. You'll want to challenge your beliefs to make sure you're on the right track. You'll want to talk to some people who are decidedly not conservative. Get to know them, find out where they're coming from, learn about the circumstances that led them to reject conservatism. Because that's what open-minded people do.

Or, you could just let Rush Limbaugh be open-minded for you.

I know the kind of person he is because of what he believes. I know liberals. I know socialists. I know Marxists. I know exactly how they do things.

—————

They were and are intended to be destructive. I knew this was his intention, because I know liberals, and I know his kind of radical.

—————

See, for me, this is very simple, because I know liberals. I know how they go about achieving their aims. I know what the purpose of their aims are, and I know that climate science, global warming, whatever, is just a cover for liberalism in action.

—————

I got a note: "Do you really believe this about [John] Edwards?" I believe this and more…See, I know liberals. None of this is a shock to me.

—————

See, I know liberals—I know these cockroaches—and I'm telling you, this just has them boiling today.

You get the point. This could go on for a surprisingly long time, but I'll jump to the best one. And there's a lot going on here, so I'll break it up.

I know liberals. I know the premise of liberalism. It's a tough thing to accept it, but once you do, everything after that is easy. Liberalism is a lie. I know many of you know liberals and you think they're nice people, maybe just wrong. You don't want to think of them as liars. You prefer to think of them as just "misguided" or "wrong."

That's certainly how I prefer to think of them. It's also how I think of conservatives. And a fair number of libertarians. Who isn't misguided or wrong, really? We all are—none more so than those who say they aren't.

But I guess I'm misguided. So how am I supposed to think of them?

They're liars!

Liars!

Many of the rank-and-file liberals are dupes. They're well-intentioned and have no idea what they're actually supporting. They fall into this, "I feel good about myself. I see a homeless person and I say, 'Oh, why don't we do something?' I'm a good person." You haven't done anything! You just thought something and made you feel like you're a good person.

Ok, first, I'm pretty sure the concept of a lying dupe is an oxymoron. Second, even the liberaliest liberal doesn't believe a positive thought alone counts as "doing something." And third, what has Limbaugh ever done to make the world a better place?^[1]

Conservatism solves problems. Liberalism blows 'em up and amplifies 'em in the name of fixing them.

Ha ha, those liberals and their obsession with well-intentioned-but-fundamentally-flawed government intervention. When will they learn? Oh, by the way, I don't know why I just thought of this, but here's what Rush says about legalizing pot:

I listen to all these people say, "I don't know. Legalizing pot? Ehhhhh, I don't know. I don't know the American people are ready." If the American people are ready for the destruction of capitalism, if the American people are ready for the destruction of the opportunity for the American dream, if the American people are ready to vote for an end to their chance to be prosperous…where is the logical conclusion that they would oppose the legalization of marijuana?

Anyway, where were we? Oh yeah, liberals—and only liberals—destroy everything they mess with.

So once you accept that every liberal politician in Washington or your state capital or on your city town council is a liberal and therefore is a liar, then the rest is easy. You simply don't believe anything they say and you will be right.

Holy crap, really? Don't believe anything they say? That sounds like a miserable existence. What if you don't want to go through life that way?

"But, Rush, I don't want to go through life that way." Well, okay. If you don't want to, I'll handle it for you.

There you go. Rush has it all taken care of.

1. According to Wikipedia, he's given millions of dollars to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (and helped raise millions more), and he's raised another few million for the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which is a lot more than I've done. You win this round, Limbaugh.

Country Music Round-Up: Aughts in Review

It's time for another country music round-up. Of course, it doesn't make mathematical sense for an end-of-the-decade article written in December 2010 to go all the way back to 2000, but I don't care—this one goes to eleven:

Alan Jackson: "Where I Come From" (2000)

Where I come from, it's cornbread and chicken
Where I come from, a lotta front porch sittin'
Where I come from, tryin' to make a livin'
Workin' hard to get to heaven
Where I come from

Fair enough. Alan Jackson clearly does not come from a place with, say, a vibrant local arts scene. And, as reiterated by practically every country song since Little Jimmy Dickens' "Country Boy" (1949),^[1] there ain't nothin' wrong with that. But what happens when Jackson finds himself out of his element? Things get uncomfortable, that's what.

I was chasin' sun on 101
Somewhere around Ventura
I lost a universal joint and I had to use my finger
This tall lady stopped and asked
If I had plans for dinner
Said no thanks ma'am, back home
We like the girls that sing soprano

This is a transsexual woman we're talking about, I assume, and for all we know, she's spent her whole life in the decidedly non-country sprawl of Southern California. But, on the other hand, maybe her background is just like Jackson's. I mean, she's willing to pick up hitchhikers—it doesn't get much more country than that. Maybe she also has a strong work ethic, an appreciation for homemade cornbread, an inexplicable love of dirt, and everything else a country upbringing entails.

Maybe she'd love to get out of the big city and go back home, but, for some reason, just doesn't feel like she'd be accepted. Ever think about that, Alan Jackson?

Brooks & Dunn: "God Must Be Busy" (2007)

I know He’s heard my prayers
‘Cause He hears everything
He just ain’t answered back or He’d bring you back to me
God must be busy

The basic message here is hard to argue with—there are a lot of awful things going on in the world, and odds are your problems are pretty insignificant by comparison, so you should probably calm down. It's a fine song, until this part:

There’s a single mom, just got laid off
Went and lost her job to foreign hands
In some far away land

An American lost her job to a foreigner!? And God allowed this to happen!? It's like we're not His favorite country anymore!

Brad Paisley: "American Saturday Night" (2009)

There's a big toga party tonight down at Delta Chi
They've got Canadian bacon on there pizza pie
They've got a cooler for cold Coronas and Amstel lights
It's like were all livin' in a big ol' cup
Just fire up the blender, mix it all up

It's a French kiss, Italian ice
Margaritas in the moonlight
Just another American Saturday night

I like it—a celebration of America's long tradition of incorporating elements of other cultures into our own. Or a celebration of our long tradition of naming stuff after other nationalities to make it seem exotic. A little of both, I suppose. Anyway:

You know everywhere there's something they're known for
Although usually it washes up on our shores

Which is great, as long as it's tasty, alcoholic, and/or legally documented!

Dixie Chicks: "Not Ready to Make Nice" (2006)

I’m through with doubt
There’s nothing left for me to figure out
I’ve paid a price
And I’ll keep paying

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down

I know what you're thinking: This song doesn't belong here—it was written in response to the criticism the Dixie Chicks drew when Natalie Maines went and declared her opposition to the Iraq War and her disappointment with her fellow Texan in the White House.

The backlash was severe. Boycotts were organized. Country stations stopped playing Dixie Chicks songs. Maines even received a death threat. The whole mess was as sad as it was ironic, really, because what could be more conservative than speaking your mind and refusing to back down when people get offended?^[2]

Johnny Cash: "Hurt" (2003)

I hurt myself today
To see if I still feel
I focus on the pain
The only thing that's real

…

And you could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt

If I could start again
A million miles away
I would keep myself
I would find a way

I have nothing to add, except that this is my all-time favorite audio recording of any kind (and the video's good enough to link to twice).

1. In fact, the two songs—recorded some 50 years apart—bear striking similarities, and that really speaks to the essence of conservatism, doesn't it? Compare the lyrics: Dickens and Jackson appear to hold identical views on the value of remaining true to one's modest background, the joys of a simple country life, and the importance of being wary of city folks who—it's probably safe to assume—just don't get it.
    But, in other ways, the songs illustrate how much things can change over the course of a half-century. Namely, cornbread is no longer spelled with a hyphen.

2. Answer: Blindly supporting a Republican president through two shaky administrations, then letting loose with relentless criticism as soon as a Democrat takes office.^[3]

3. Ha ha, just kidding.^[4]

4. No, actually, that sounds about right (pun not intended, but neither was it removed upon discovery, so make of that what you will).

Opponents of the DREAM Act: Evil or Stupid?

As I've discussed before, I'm a big fan of the DREAM Act, which would provide a path to legal status for certain unauthorized aliens who were brought into the country as minors and intend to go to college or join the military.

I'm also a big fan of the principle of reciprocity:

[I]n the context of opinions and debate, the principle of reciprocity states that we should respect the reasonableness and the goodwill of those with whom we disagree, and to treat them with civility, even if we judge their opinions to be unreasonable and/or their views to be unjust or immoral.
…
If you assume the worst of someone only because of an opinion different than yours, then you’re being an intellectually dishonest asshole.

So, while I disagree with the (mostly conservative) opposition to the DREAM Act, I'd like to believe opponents are motivated by a sincere evaluation of the bill's merits, which isn't entirely implausible. The DREAM Act's benefits are clear, but—in a departure from the impeccable legislation we've come to expect from the legislative branch—it also has its share of problems.^[1] Any member of Congress who votes against it, then, should have little trouble explaining why the bill is flawed, and why he or she feels the negatives outweigh the positives. Let's start with Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX):

I am sympathetic to the young, illegal immigrant children who were brought here by their parents. Because their parents disregarded America's immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. However, this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. Once the DREAM Act's amnesty recipients become citizens and turn 21, if they haven't already they can sponsor their illegal immigrant parents, spouse, or children for legalization, who can then sponsor others, resulting in chain migration that will further hurt American workers and American taxpayers.

I hear this one a lot, and it's nonsense. To say that DREAM Act beneficiaries will be able to "sponsor their illegal immigrant parents" is an inherent contradiction. They will, of course, be able to sponsor their legal immigrant parents, via the legal process of which conservatives are so fond (with its 15- to 18-year waiting lists for most Mexican applicants). But if the parents are already here illegally, nothing can be done for them until they leave. On top of that, if they leave after having been here illegally for a year or more, there's a ten-year prohibition on even applying for a visa. By the time those hurdles have been cleared, I'd say it's a little unfair—that is, even more unfair than usual—to call the parents "illegal."

Lamar Smith's apparent belief that family-sponsored visas are a low-hassle way for unauthorized aliens to obtain legal status is, I think it's safe to say, incompatible with reality. That raises the question, is he trying to be misleading on purpose, or does he simply not know the basics of U.S. immigration policy? I don't have an answer to that, but, in Smith's defense, a lot can be forgotten in 14 years, which is how long it's been since he wrote the damn law.^[2]

Moving on, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA):

The DREAM Act specifically focuses on promising young foreigners a bright future if their parents choose to break the law. This will unquestionably encourage desperate parents to bring their children, perhaps millions of them, across our borders illegally.

Also a popular criticism, and not quite as non-sensical, but definitely misleading. Presumably, Rohrabacher's point is that in the future aliens will cross the border in the hope that similar legislation will be passed while they're here (because it's going so smoothly this time around!). In other words, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he's being more vague than dumb, because the DREAM Act unambiguously excludes anyone who wasn't already in the country at least five years before its enactment. Desparate as those future parents may be to get their kids across the border, they're going to have a tough time doing it in 2005 or earlier (and if they can pull that off, we should probably just let them stay).

Again, Rohrabacher surely knows about the five-year provision, but I bet a lot of casual observers—especially those inclined to take his side on this—do not, and I'm just cynical enough to wonder if maybe his vagueness is intentional—calculated to make the Act sound much scarier than it really is. Regardless, it's a counter-productive omission. Instead of making me think about the dangerous-precedent argument (which, presented appropriately, could be somewhat compelling—not that there isn't a counter-argument), it makes me wonder why Rohrabacher doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.

Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA):

According to the Migration Policy Institute, an estimated 2 million immigrants will be eligible for amnesty under this bill. That number is not too difficult to imagine given that H.R. 5281 would allow these individuals, once they are naturalized and become 21 years of age, to exploit our broken system by sponsoring their immediate relatives with no numerical cap. We call that chain migration. In fact, they could each bring in something like 179 other individuals.

Really? A newly-legalized alien could bring in 179 relatives? That's such an oddly-specific number. Do you have 179 parents, spouses, children, and siblings, Phil Gingrey? Because I have four.

Surprisingly, that's not the most ridiculous part of Gingrey's speech (well, it might turn out to be, if I ever figure out where that number came from). Even worse is that he sees sponsorship of immediate relatives as "exploit[ing] our broken system." Because that's what's wrong with the system—all those nefarious foreigners applying for visas with 15- to 18-year back-ups and patiently waiting for the paperwork to go through.

Representative Timothy Johnson (R-IL):

It is an affront and a sobering reality to the American taxpayers and their children and grandchildren who are going to pay this bill to the tune of billions of dollars over the future. It is also a reality to the 10 percent of Americans who are unemployed who realize that the effect on the infrastructure of America in this bill is going to be absolutely negative with respect to Social Security benefits, jobs, loans, health care, education and otherwise.

I don't have the energy to try to sort out the competing financial guesswork coming from both sides; I just want to point out that Republican Representative Timothy Johnson is one of many conservatives arguing that if we allow roughly one million unauthorized aliens to legally work (which leads to paying taxes), and legally get a college education (which theoretically leads to paying even more taxes, and sometimes to creating new jobs), it would cause billions of dollars of damage to the economy. If that's true, then our economy is fundamentally backward (which it very well may be, for all I know), and we might as well just give up.

Still, maybe I'm being unfair. (See? Always trying to avoid assuming the worst!) Maybe this is just a bunch of meaningless grandstanding for the C-SPAN cameras, which is about as meaningless as grandstanding gets. At least these elected officials aren't actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public, right?

Here's Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), actively spreading misinformation for the clear purpose of riling up the public:

If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent (the ones who brought them here illegally), the education requirement can be waived altogether. The bill actually allows illegal aliens to get legal status indefinitely without any college or military service.

When he says "hardship," he's abbreviating a bit. The actual standard is "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," a phrase—Senator Sessions may be surprised to learn—that was not chosen simply because some legislative aide likes the way it sounds. Under current law, one of very few ways an unauthorized alien can obtain legal status is by showing that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a spouse, parent, or child—provided that person is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident (among other requirements). As the language implies, this exceptionally high standard is met only in extremely unusual circumstances. Sessions is upset about a provision that's essentially the same—in that it carries the same high standard—but would also allow DREAM Act-eligible aliens to attempt to show that deportation would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to themselves. Hardly a sweeping reform.

The shot Sessions takes at the parents "who brought them here illegally" is another one for the Evil-or-Stupid file. Granted, the proposed law is poorly written, so he may just be confused, but the existing hardship waiver is poorly written in almost exactly the same way.^[3] Assuming the two are meant to be similarly interpreted, the status of the parents is irrelevant to the DREAM Act debate. If they aren't U.S. citizens or legal residents, they can't be the basis for a hardship waiver under either law. If they've somehow obtained legal status, they can already be the basis for a hardship waiver, regardless of whether the DREAM Act passes.

That's just a small part of the latest version of Sessions' "Ten Things You Need to Know About the DREAM Act." The memos—packed with false and misleading claims—have been picked up by countless conservative news sites (Michelle Malkin, in particular, has been all over them), and appear to have provided the souce material for the speeches made by Sessions' colleagues in the House. Naturally, those already inclined to oppose the Act haven't bothered to question the memos' content (or, even worse, if they have they've been quiet about it).

I'm sure it's clear that I think it's wrong to oppose the DREAM Act, but I hope I've also made it clear that I don't think it's insane to oppose it. Why, then, are conservatives so unwilling to fight it on its merits? In the name of reciprocity, I want to believe they think they are fighting it on its merits—they just have two or three (dozen) facts wrong.^[4] But everything I've seen and heard points, rather overwhelmingly, toward another explanation:

Conservative ideologues love to get worked up about immigration because it's an issue that (a) people know little about, (b) tends to arouse strong emotions, and (c) can be relatively plausibly blamed for any number of unrelated problems.^[5] They know they'll be called out when they go too far, but only by the likes of Media Matters and the American Immigration Council—nobody their followers would actually listen to—so they can pretty much say whatever they want. They make the DREAM Act sound as sinister as possible and in the process portray themselves as patriotic freedom-fighters, protecting America from the terrible menace of foreign-born high-achievers.

Their obvious lack of respect for potential DREAM Act beneficiaries is nothing short of appalling, and their obvious indifference toward honest debate and accurately informing the people they represent is almost as bad—and this just happens to be an issue I know a few things about. Reciprocity be damned—when I hear the same blowhards talking about something less familiar, why should I trust anything they say?

1. An incomplete list:
— Fraud (also an acceptable argument against…anything, really).
— Dangerous precedent.
— Economic impact (projections are all over the map).
— Insufficient time for debate/amendments.
    I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of those (or that, even if valid, they outweigh the positives of the bill), just that they aren't total nonsense.

2. From the biography on Lamar Smith's website:

He introduced and successfully advanced the passage of a 1996 immigration reform bill. This legislation was the most far-reaching reform of America’s immigration laws since the 1960s.

Prominently displayed on the main page of the same website, as of this article's writing, is the video of Smith's misinformation-fueled speech on the House floor. His audacity would be impressive if it wasn't so infuriating.

3. Immigration and Nationality Act, §240A(b):

(1) The Attorney General may cancel removal in the case of an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien—
…
(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Sort of looks like the citizen/LPR requirement only applies to children, and not spouses or parents, doesn't it? It could go either way, I suppose, but the settled interpretation is that, to qualify as the basis for a hardship waiver, a spouse or parent must have legal status too. Any chance Sessions has been politely set straight by the ambiguous clause's author, Representative Lamar Smith? Yeah, I doubt it.

4. Another possibility, as always, is that I have it wrong. After all, immigration is complicated, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert, so I'll concede that I may have made a mistake or two. And while I generally endorse the Media Matters and AIC articles I referred to above, I remain wary of anything coming from such a one-sided source (whatever that side may be).
    But for the anti-DREAM Act arguments quoted here—and many, many others I left out—to make sense, there are a lot of things I'd have to be wrong about.

5. Obviously, that goes both ways. Replace "conservative ideologues" with "liberal ideologues" and "immigration" with "tax cuts for the rich," for example.

Great Moments in Breaking From the Herd

Big Government, along with the rest of Andrew Breitbart's online mini-empire, has an unmistakable conservative slant. That is, you pretty much know ahead of time what kind of commentary you're going to get. For example—to choose a topic entirely at random—the controversial Arizona immigration law:

Unlike the reason based protests by tea partiers, the Arizona protesters are acting solely on emotions stirred by a constant barrage of leftist demagoguery. No civil rights have been violated, no racial profiling has taken place, and the motivation for this law was not racism. The motivation is completely founded in reason which is backed by facts and by a definitive understanding of the word 'illegal'.

—————

SB 1070 goes to great length to avoid racial profiling, the specter of which has engendered nearly all of the well-orchestrated hysteria against the law.

—————

This issue is no longer one which we can sit idly by and hope for a solution. We have solutions. First, we need to secure our borders. Second, we need to remove all financial incentives for illegal immigrants. And third, we need to demonstrate the clear and responsible pathway to legal immigration.

—————

This is not an immigration law. It's also not racist. It's not racial profiling. And it's not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here). Instead, it's an employment law and property law.

—————

I don't begrudge illegal immigrants doing what they have to do to take care of their families but I have a family, too, and immigration laws are supposed to protect us from unrestricted access to the infrastructure that comes out of my family's pocket.

Fun fact: That last one—which, by the way, makes some pretty good points—also answers the question of "hey, I wonder what Joe the Plumber is up to these days?"^[1]

Anyway, you get the idea. Not all of it is wrong, necessarily, but it's staunchly pro-border-sealing and pro-government-mandated-paper-carrying. It's also rather insistent that of S.B. 1070 could be enforced without racial profiling, which, I'm sorry, is asinine.^[2]

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read Ronald L. Trowbridge's article about a similar proposed law in Texas:

There is something downright sick in this prejudicial treatment. Conservatives and libertarians usually champion the supremacy of the individual over the collective. We judge individuals as individuals, not as members of a group. But too many conservatives are now demanding that we prejudicially judge people as members of a group. They have become the collectivists that they supposedly reject.

It doesn't even matter (at least, I like to think it doesn't) that I agree with his viewpoint—I'd appreciate it either way. In an era when it's so easy to isolate yourself from opposing opinions, and thus so easy to fail to notice your core ideology being gradually replaced by an arbitrary list of beliefs, we need more stuff like this. Trowbridge isn't saying conservatism itself is wrong, he's saying the views held by most conservatives on immigration cannot be accurately described as conservative.

The best part is at the end:

John Stuart Mill wisely observed that "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." Open, honest debate—even on the contentious issue of immigration—is healthy because it takes us closer to truth and resolution. Let refutations—not just anger—begin in earnest.

How was this call for "open, honest debate" and understanding of where the other side is coming from recieved? Have you ever read anything on the Internet before?

What a load doc. I carry a drivers liscense and a SS card. What part of illegal can't you get through you thick head!!! Any citizen schould be more happy to show IDwhen asked. Moron

—————

Yeah. We all know a lot of you libertarians are retarded when it comes to supporting open borders and mass immigration. Nobody cares.

—————

Cry me a river, Trowbridge! It's such an inconvenience to carry your driver's license with you for identification! Oh, ...wait. We do that every day already. You whining wusses with your bleeding hearts make me want to puke.

—————

That is the single most absurd statement I have ever read regarding illegal immigration.

Those comments, by the way, are all among the dozen or so highest-rated on Big Government's thumbs up/thumbs down voting system. I wanted to see what kind of rating a comment in support of the article might have, but I couldn't find one.

1. I give it less than six months before Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher and John "Don't Touch My Junk" Tyner are co-hosting their own show on Fox News.

2. From the amended version of Arizona S.B. 1070:

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

See, they took out "solely." Now the police can't consider race at all…except to the extent permitted by the Constitution, which, it turns out, is kind of a lot.

The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.

Seems to me it'd be a lot easier to argue that racial profiling is acceptable in cases like this than to argue it won't be a problem, and I mean "easier" in the sense of "not quite so transparently naïve and/or disingenuous."