May 12, 2013

Jennifer Rubin is never satisfied

Grover Norquist
Jennifer Rubin writes in her "Right Turn" column in the Washington Post:
Distinguished pol of the week 
By Jennifer Rubin
Published: May 12, 2013 
... But this week the standout was the team of pro-immigration conservatives who not only carried their case to the public, but also spoke out against one of their own that crossed the line from anti-immigration reform advocacy to disparagement of an entire ethnic group.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute and Doug Holtz Eakin of the American Action Forum have been the brain trust behind fiscal conservatives’ push for immigration reform. ... But this week they spoke out (with others) in uniform condemnation of a shoddy piece of anti-immigration scholarship by the Heritage Foundation and the anti-immigrant proclamations of one of its authors, Jason Richwine, who contends Hispanics have lower IQ’s as a matter of genetics. Heritage had not vetted this person when he was hired and realized its integrity was at stake. By the week’s end Richwine was gone. 
It was a painful week for Heritage, but they are better without the albatross of a racial determinist, just as jettisoning the John Birch Society decades ago purged the conservative movement of that era’s racial cranks. Whatever differences conservatives have on immigration, they should be united on espousing the intrinsic worth of every individual and the ability of any person, from any walk of life, to succeed. 
In this effort, ATR/Cato/AAF helped to recast the face of the conservative movement, reasserting modern conservatives’ optimistic belief in upward mobility and the American dream. In their minds, no ethnic group is smarter than another. Anyone through diligence, hard work and some smarts can get ahead and improve his life and the American scene. America is an additive society — benefiting from more people, more wealth and more opportunity; America is not a zero-sum game in which perpetually poor people compete for scarce jobs. Conservatism cannot become Malthusian. It must be forward looking and inclusive. 
For all that and for reminding conservatives what conservatism really it, we can say well-done, gentlemen.

For Jennifer Rubin's views on immigration policy in a different context, see the next posting.

28 comments:

rightsaidfred said...

So the political training of Jennifer Rubin is a success. She can properly spout the party line with no supervision.

Conservatism cannot become Malthusian.

I guess we'll have to leave that for reality.

America is an additive society — benefiting from more people, more wealth and more opportunity

So where is all this alleged prosperity after our recent immigration glut? Our debt grows, our GDP growth shrinks, etc. Rubin must delight in tossing out whoppers we are supposed to swallow with a happy smile on our faces. Must be nice to be on top of all the little people who actually have to suffer these policies.

In their minds, no ethnic group is smarter than another.

It is important to have the political losers of this country get their minds right. Psychological control is the highest achievement in these matters.

Anonymous said...

America is an additive society — benefiting from more people

More people drive up housing costs and lower wages. How does that benefit us?

Anonymous said...

Hello? Jennifer Rubin is NOT a conservative. She was hired by the WaPo to do exactly what she is doing...destroy real conservatism.

Jesus F'n Christ. Conservatives DESERVE to lose cause they're so damn STUPID. The WaPo exists to push the liberal agenda. They hire "conservatives" to push the liberal agenda, capiche?

Anonymous said...

Hello? Jennifer Rubin is NOT a conservative. She was hired by the WaPo to do exactly what she is doing...destroy real conservatism.

Judging from her nativist attitude on immigration to Israel, she is conservative.

Anonymous said...

Judging from her nativist attitude on immigration to Israel, she is conservative.

ahahahahahahahaha

of course

conservative

equals

supports israel

Dave Pinsen said...

Norquist is married to a Palestinian, isn't he? Odd bedfellows.

It's also odd for a low tax advocate to agitate for importing more poor people, who will vote to raise his taxes when they become citizens.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing the Jewish part of the pro-immigration lobby can get away with being so incredibly hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

I like how the open borders people assure us that the new immigrants will assimilate. But do they really want this? Their actions imply they don't really want assimilation because they are bringing in people who are more different than the natives and they are encouraging these newcomers to retain their identity through multicultural policies, e.g. people may vote in their native language.

Technically the USA has been diverse for quite some time. We've had every flavor of European immigrant combined with all the denominations of Christianity. We've had Irish Catholics, English Anglicans, Irish Protestants, Greek Orthodox, Italian Catholics, Polish Catholics, German Catholics, German Protestants, etc.

However, over the years all these folks melded into one group, i.e. White.

Had all those Europeans never melded and instead retained their separateness in religion, language, culture, etc., would the Jennifer Rubins of this world still be afraid of living with a monolithic other? Would today's elite still find it necessary to import an even more diverse population that has little to no chance of assimilating?

I guess we will never know that answer. But it is clear that this time around assimilation is not going to happen as both the composition of the newcomers and the government's multicultural policies will see to it that no monolithic group emerges. The elites will have an diverse, controllable population, and Jennifer Rubin won't have to worry about pogroms.

Jack Hanson said...

Did she slobber over Norquist enough? The end to this whole mess can't come soon enough.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing the Jewish part of the pro-immigration lobby can get away with being so incredibly hypocritical.

It's amazing that they basically get away scot-free. For example, Rep. Emanuel Celler wrote the 1965 Immigration Act and introduced it into the House. Yet today no one knows this guy. Even conservatives like Ann Coulter still call that act the "Teddy Kennedy" act.

Today Sen Chuck Schumer is the brains behind immigration reform. Yet if it passes, conservatives will probably be calling it "Marco Rubio's" act and no one will ever bring up Schumer.

It's really brilliant. You craft the legislation and let some drunken Irishman or Conquistador become the public face and take all the negative heat. Meanwhile your goals have been accomplished.

Anonymous said...

It's really brilliant. You craft the legislation and let some drunken Irishman or Conquistador become the public face and take all the negative heat. Meanwhile your goals have been accomplished.

Or you could devise a war, and then let some dumb Texan become the public face and take all the negative heat.

C. Van Carter said...

I'm sending Rubin a mirror with "Why have Jews been persecuted throughout history?" printed on it.

Dave Pinsen said...

"I'm sending Rubin a mirror with "Why have Jews been persecuted throughout history?" printed on it."

Jennifer Rubin's behavior in the current immigration debate may be execrable, but it doesn't explain the entire history of Jewish persecution. When the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 were putting bullets in the back of the skulls of Polish Jews, it wasn't because of Jennifer Rubin.

Anonymous said...

"they should be"

"For all that and for reminding conservatives what conservatism really it, we can say well-done, gentlemen."

Who is they referring to? and we?

Anonymous said...

What Jennifer Rubin wrote is contrary to the full, massive weight of a mountain of scientific evidence gathered under the most stringent conditions and subject to the the most rigorous of checking and validation.
If this work is 'rubbish', that means that the whole of statistical science, variance, confidence limits and the rest, is rubbish.
The debate must really be framed in that way. Ie the irrational prejudices and emotions of one woman, Jennifer Rubin, against the scientic truth of statistical theory.

Matthew said...

"Today Sen Chuck Schumer is the brains behind immigration reform. Yet if it passes, conservatives will probably be calling it "Marco Rubio's" act and no one will ever bring up Schumer."

What's amazing to me is that the Gang of Hate includes a senator, Bob Menendez, under investigation for bribery and use of child prostitutes, yet no one seems to think that's a big deal. Schumer, et. al. explicitly made Menendez a part of their amnesty deliberations in spite of his corruption, yet that's no big deal. Instead let's focus on Heritage and it's sin via three degrees of separation...

You could also just look at Chuck Schumer and his connection to the 1986 amnesty reform. Schumer was in the House in 1986 and tried to remove the requirement that amnestied illegals pay back taxes to qualify for citizenship. Coincidentally, two years later, as a result of the 1988 tax reform, the requirement they pay back taxes disappeared. Schumer is a lying son of a bitch who has no intention of letting the enforcement provisions remain after he gets his amnesty.

Matthew said...

The picture of that vaporous fat cat neofeudalist Grover Norquist pretty much counters any open borders nonsense she writes in her piece. Well played, Miss Rubin. Well played.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


Norquist is married to a Palestinian, isn't he? Odd bedfellows. "

While conservatives admire Norquist for small government and low tax enthusiasm are nonetheless frustrated with his borderline Islamist views.

Hey Norquist looks a lot like Mohd Morsi of Egypt. Come to think of it, I have never seen them together....hmmm...

Svigor said...

It was a painful week for Heritage, but they are better without the albatross of a racial determinist, just as jettisoning the John Birch Society decades ago purged the conservative movement of that era’s racial cranks.

I was discussing the "curse of knowledge" with a friend the other day. I observed how, over time, as one acquires skills it becomes harder and harder to communicate to people without those skills, because we forget what it was like to be ignorant. I mentioned that this spilled over to politics for me. Americans are now so naive to me that I see little hope of them making any good decisions until they wise up - when they see stuff like that quote coming from a mile away.

If that ever happens, though, it's going to make for very interesting times. Sociopaths tend to play for the short term and consequently lose big over the long term. Epic gnashing of teeth and rending of sackcloth ensue.

Cail Corishev said...

Judging from [Rubin's] nativist attitude on immigration to Israel, she is conservative.

All this story tells me is that she's pro-Israel and anti-America. That doesn't make her liberal or conservative; it just makes her a traitor.

I suppose she could be an anti-abortion, gun-toting, tax-cutting conservative, though I doubt it.

Cail Corishev said...

The debate must really be framed in that way. Ie the irrational prejudices and emotions of one woman, Jennifer Rubin, against the scientific truth of statistical theory.

I get what you're saying, but all most people know about the "scientific truth of statistical theory" is Mark Twain's quote. Probably best to just call the other side "reality."

Bill said...

Heritage had not vetted this person when he was hired and realized its integrity was at stake.

This can't be true. What would Richwine have talked about during his job interviews with Heritage other than his dissertation? Does anyone know of any evidence one way or the other on this---that is, whether Heritage somehow did not know what Richwine's dissertation said?

This also gets back to the point Charles Murray was making when he contrasted DeMint and DeMuth. A point I think Steve did not really pick up on.

Heritage knew the content of its own recent immigration report. It would have been approved all the way up their internal hierarchy, up to the top. Heritage almost certainly knew all about the dissertation (and if they didn't, they should have).

Firing Richwine was a staggering betrayal. He was treated the way Congresscritters treat low level staffers: as a valueless cog to be cast aside whenever convenient. Low level Congressional staffers actually are valueless cogs, though. Guys with Harvard PhDs and analytical skills who are willing to fight in the trenches for the oh-so-not-trendy Heritage Foundation are not.

This looks like a serious mistake, maybe caused by DeMint not understanding think tanks. Who is ever going to recommend to a PhD student that they consider a job at Heritage, now? If they can't hire smart people with approved credentials, then they aren't going to be able to make credible arguments in DC.

I am quite curious about the decision-making process leading up to Richwine's firing. What were they thinking? What was the downside they feared of doing the right thing and defending their loyal employee? They get their money from rank and file "conservatives." Did they think those people would stop giving? Did they think that they could somehow preserve their credibility on immigration by firing Richwine? Neither of these seem very plausible to me. So, why did they do it?

NOTA said...

Ah, Grover Norquist. Has he ever been anything but a force for evil in the world? IIRC, "starve the beast" (aka, pretend to be in favor of small government while running up vast deficits) is his brainchild.

I am confident that Karl Rove is behind this push, too. How could he *not* be, really? And Malcolm Gladwell and Tom Friedman will surely be supportive as well. If the Titanic were setting out for its last voyage today, all four of these guys would be standing on the deck, chanting "Full speed ahead! Full speed ahead!"

rob said...

Remember how in the run-up to the Iraq War, the French told us not to invade? The neo-cons propaganda machine went on a crusade(hah!) about how France had always hated us been anti-American? But the French didn't hate us. Telling someone that they're doing foolish things against their best interests is something a friend does.

Brooks, Rubin, and Frum have taken over as the voices of respectable conservatism. Neocons marching through the Republican party probably didn't do it because they loved existing Republicans. They turn the opposition party into a loyal opposition. The worst case scenario: they break the party. I'm sure Brooks et. al. will blame Jason Richwine when the R's are a permanent minority. They're pre-gaming already. Richwine should really change his name to Emmanuel Goldstein: he will be the boogerman for 'respectable' conservatives.

Surely Brooks understands that immigration can change the political situation of an area quite a bit. She must think that when people change the propositions of an area that the new ones are legitimate. The British did not set up the Palestinian Mandate with the proposition that it was a Jewish homeland. Jews immigrated there, and then decided it was a Jewish state. What if the respectable bipartisan consensus fails spectacularly, and a new consensus forms after some disruption and unpleasantness? There might even be some 'illegal' or 'undocumented' population transfers, but if the new American government holds the proposition that the Jews did it to us, so they should be returned to their homeland, that would be totally ok?
I'm no more anti-Semitic for saying that Rubin and Brooks' should stop doing things that will incite anti-Semitism and lead to a backlash, possibly even an over-reactive blacklash than I would be antiblack for warning Southern blacks that even the occasional misbehavior by a few black people might provoke a response from white Southerners.

After all, most Jews will tell you that European Jews didn't do anything to provoke the Holocaust, and even if a few Jewish people did, not all Jews did it, and millions of innocent people were murdered. Most white Americans didn't do anything to justify being driven to marginalization in our homeland.

German Jews didn't subvert the legal system to bring in millions of hostile aliens to drive Germans into political marginalization, and then gloat about old Germans dying out so hispanics could dance on their graves. Sure, not all the people breaking America are Jewish, and not all Jews are breaking it. Not all white people owned slaves, but we have all have white privilege.

I'm not saying Jews are so horrible that they deserve another Holocaust. I'm saying that people like Brooks, Zuck, and Rubin are pushing policies that might not turn out well for white people. If majority non-white America doesn't turn out well for white people, they will think Jews did it to them. That won't turn out well for Jews.

I guess I'm actually philosemitic.

Anonymous said...

Gentiles, stop playing the victim. Understand many of your own are ruining the country too. And are not too stupid to understand whats going on.

Dr Van Nostrand said...


I'm not saying Jews are so horrible that they deserve another Holocaust. I'm saying that people like Brooks, Zuck, and Rubin are pushing policies that might not turn out well for white people. If majority non-white America doesn't turn out well for white people, they will think Jews did it to them. That won't turn out well for Jews.

I guess I'm actually philosemitic."


I agree. Sincerely

Im as philo Semitic and Zionist as a South Asian can get. However there are too many Jews(left and right) in America either or malice or pure idiocy are insistent on pursuing policies that are detrimental to national cohesion and culture.

I think it is more due to idiocy as these fools invite with open arms both Muslim and Hispanic immigrants.

We need not discuss Muslim attitudes towards Jews.
Hispanics?! Comrades! Did you not notice which countries the Nazis fleed to after the end of the Reich?
Come to think it is the same countries that Arabs are very comfortable in.
These countries are the cultural offspring of the world which gave you the Reconquista and Inquisition.Neither of which you remember fondly but THEY sure as hell do.

It is always better first to appeal to someones self interest(mass immigration is NOT good for the Jews).

Svigor said...

Gentiles, stop playing the victim. Understand many of your own are ruining the country too. And are not too stupid to understand whats going on.

1. All of my criticism of Jews is predicated on the idea that paying attention to what Jews do is a great way to racially awaken Whites.

2. I hunt big game.

3. When a horde of commentators emerges to object to your quote and defend the White "gentiles," come back and we'll talk.

I can probably come up with more numbered points if you like.

Svigor said...

It is always better first to appeal to someones self interest(mass immigration is NOT good for the Jews).

On the other hand, when a person shows every indication of paying far more attention to his own self-interest than the vast majority of the population, it behooves to think twice about whether or not you actually have a better understanding of his best interests than he does.