May 12, 2013

Jonathan Chait speaks power to truth

New York magazine's Jonathan Chait, a former co-author with Stephen Glass at The New Republic, speaks power to truth:
How Jason Richwine Passed Immigration Reform 
By Jonathan Chait

The fallout from the Heritage Foundation’s immigration reform study has developed into a watershed moment for the prospects of passing a bill. The release of the study prompted a fierce backlash from proponents of reform, which compounded when Dylan Matthews reported that Jason Richwine, a co-author of the study, wrote a dissertation arguing, “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”

You'll notice that Chait doesn't argue against this.
Heritage has found itself in a public relations crisis, and announced Richwine was leaving the conservative think-tank. Right-wing blogger and anti-anti-racism activist Michelle Malkin called the treatment of Richwine a “crucifixion,” which seems perfectly appropriate. ... 
Both the financial structure of the conservative think-tank world and the unique branding advantages of his last name should have pushed him into the safer field of denouncing the excessive tax burden on the well-to-do, the largest and safest sub-specialty within the conservative and libertarian think-tank and pseudo-think-tank world. 
The practical fallout of the episode will play out in two ways. First, it has demonstrated that the balance of power within the party has shifted. The pro-business, libertarian wing of the GOP has held the whip hand for many years now. But its control always relied on setting the party’s agenda subtly, directing its political capital into anti-tax, anti-regulatory policies, and paying as little attention to social issues as possible. 
Republican elites were hesitant to rile up social conservatives directly and explicitly. When the base revolted against immigration reform in 2007, the GOP elites had no responses but to cover their face and try to absorb the beating. In this instance, though, elites have actually struck back and inflicted real harm on the social conservatives. There will be a fight, but both sides now understand that it will have two sides, not merely endless placating of nativists. 
Second, Richwine’s quote is exactly the sort of political nightmare Republicans hope to put behind them by passing some kind of reform. The party’s dilemma is that immigration represents a nagging, unresolved issue in American politics.  
Every time it is discussed, conservative Republicans remind Latinos why they hate Republicans. The shrewder Republicans grasp that passing immigration reform is not a sufficient condition for winning a respectable share of the Latino vote, but it is a necessary condition.  
If the Gang of Eight bill fails, Richwine’s comments will continue to linger and recirculate in the Latino-American media until immigration reform finally passes. Republicans will never be able to convince Latinos they killed the bill for any reason other than racial animus. The need to put this behind them is growing desperate.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The shrewder Republicans grasp that passing immigration reform is not a sufficient condition for winning a respectable share of the Latino vote, but it is a necessary condition."

What Chait doesn't mention is that the other necessary condition for winning the Latino vote is to move left of the Democrats on welfare. Oh, he didn't say "winning the Latino vote", he said "winning a respectable share of the Latino vote". So what's that, an increase of 10% but not a majority? Which amounts to 10% of 15%, or 1.5%?

So remind me again exactly why the GOP needs to get down on their knees and fellate the illegal infiltrator lobby?

Anonymous said...

The shrewder Republicans grasp that passing immigration reform is not a sufficient condition for winning a respectable share of the Latino vote, but it is a necessary condition.

Can any iSteve readers of Hispanic descent tell us why Americans of Hispanic descent are pro-amnesty?

Anonymous said...

"Can any iSteve readers of Hispanic descent tell us why Americans of Hispanic descent are pro-amnesty?"

I'm not of Hispanic descent, but the reason is glaringly obvious.

The most important movement of the 21st Century is TRIBALISM. We are promoting it all over the world. Africa for Africans. China for the Chinese. Por la Raza, todo, Fuera de la Raza, nada. Eretz Israel for the Jews.

This is the principle that makes the world go 'round. Unless you are white.

Hispanics are pro-amnesty because they're Hispanics. Hope that helps.

Anonymous said...

Hispanics are pro-amnesty because they're Hispanics. Hope that helps.

But doesn't importing more people into our country make us more crowded and polluted, make our real estate more expensive, and undermine our wages?

Anonymous said...

Richwine and IQ are red herrings. Proponents of immigration control need to just brush off Richwine when he is raised, and throw back into people's face the cost figure that the Heritage report arrived at. "What about the tremendous cost of these foreigners??"

Steve, you even arguably got sucked in by noting Chait didn't address Richwine's dissertation IQ argument. (I realize you are not necessarily appealing to the public here but may be writing to your specialized readership.)


We don't need arguments from IQ to win this.

Daniel said...

>>But doesn't importing more people into our country make us more crowded and polluted, make our real estate more expensive, and undermine our wages?

Yes to all, but the people supporting endless mass immigration do not care one whit about the environment or the wages of the working man, and apparently those American institutions/organization (eg. Sierra Club, AFL-CIO...)professing concern about the environment and the lot of the working man don't care either, or they would vigorously protest immigration.

Anonymous said...

The Heritage report doesn't rely on an IQ argument. Stick to that.

Anonymous said...

3:58, not all of them are. It really depends how much they culturally identify as Hispanic. Where I grew up there were a lot of people of Hispanic ancestry who barely spoke any Spanish, had all of their family in the U.S. for generations, and were for all intents and purposes white people who tanned a bit better. Sorta like all the white people who have some native ancestry and for whom it never gets beyond being a genetic curiosity. I suspect Hispanic iSteve readers mostly fall into this group.

If, on the other hand, being Latino is an integral part of who you are, I can see wanting to import more people who are like you. God knows if a lot of iSteve readers had their way the U.S. would happily import Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, and Brits. Why you get TexMex people like Eva Longoria, whose family has been American for generations, who identify more with another nationality than with the country they've been in for over a century is a mystery to me.

Anonymous said...

If, on the other hand, being Latino is an integral part of who you are, I can see wanting to import more people who are like you.

Even if it lowers your wages, drives up your cost of living, and pollutes your environment?

Anonymous said...

Folks against immigration in the USA need to take another tact. I would suggest they take a page out of the UKIP playbook which has been so effective that now even Labor admits simply being against immigration does not make one a racist. The debate has moved decidedly to the Right to the point where even EU migration is on the chopping block.

This is a radical departure where anyone against immigration was by default against enriching diversity. Instead of saying IQ cite data about educational attainment and skills. I'd also start engaging Blacks more about this issue and come at it from a purely economic POV.

There is quite a diverse cross section opposed to open borders and being swamped by Hispanics from Mexico. It really shouldn't be this difficult to kill this bill in its tracks.

GOP goes the weasel said...

"Every time it is discussed, conservative Republicans remind Latinos why they hate Republicans. The shrewder Republicans grasp that passing immigration reform is not a sufficient condition for winning a respectable share of the Latino vote, but it is a necessary condition."

Every time is is discussed, liberal Jewish Media remind Latinos of why they must hate Republicans.

Hispanics didn't hate gringos in the past over immigration issues. Hispanics began to hate gringos when the immigration issue was turned into a La Raza issue of special privilege for browns.
In the past, Hispanics knew of illegal immigration but also understood that illegals had broken the law and had no special right to demand anything.

But that issue was turned into a kind of ideology/identity of what Hispanicism is all about. Now, Hispanicism is not about Hispanics being good law-abiding Americans but Hispanics breaking laws as they please and expecting to be showered with gifts by the gringo community. Hispanic minds were turned this way by the media and by funding of rich elites.

Same thing with homos. There was a time when homos just wanted to be free to be homo. They didn't hate straight society for not embracing with 'gay marriage'--and it never crossed the minds of most homos that homos should marry. But then, homo identity went from freedom to privilege.
Suddenly, marriage had to be changed to favor the deviancy of homos--while no such favors for polygamists and incestuals. Thus, 'gay marriage', which used to a non-issue, became something for which to HATE and DENOUNCE people who won't sign onto it. And straight liberals got infected with this bug too, and so they HATE, HATE, and HATE people who see no value in 'gay marriage'.
So, 'gay marriage' went from a non-issue to SOMETHING THAT REMINDS HOMOS AND LIBS WHY THEY HATE, HATE, AND HATE CONSERVATIVES.

Did Hispanics hate gringos in the past over the issue of illegal immigration? No, but the liberal media and Spanish-language media(owned by Jews) have spread the notion that browns don't have to obey the laws of America and play by the same rules. No, browns have every right to demand amnesty, welfare for illegals, and affirmative action over gringos. And if gringos oppose it, Hispanics must HATE, HATE, AND HATE them gringos as 'racists'.

Liberals keep hate-ifying the issues. It turns into a case of "People who don't support our proposals are haters, and we must hate, hate, and hate them because they have nothing but hate on their minds."
So, Hispanics can no longer understand that gringos might oppose amnesty for any reason other than they are evil, hateful, and especially hate Hispanics.

If you say no to amnesty, the Hispanic thinks, 'It's because you hate me, and so, I hate you.'

But this nasty attitude flows from Jews. Jews now have special privileges and do as they please, and no one calls them on it. Just look at what Wall Street got away with?
And Jews put Obama in the Oval Office, but conservatives pledge loyalty to Jews and say they wanna protect poor poor Jews from evil Muslim Obama. I mean you can't make this stuff up.

Jews, blacks, homos, and hispanics can now break any laws, and white folks better bend over backwards cuz if they don't, it means they are hateful and thus reminding others to hate them.


If we're gonna be accused of hate, we might as well really hate. I hate a**holes like Rubin. I really hate, hate, and hate her ilk.

David said...

>If we're gonna be accused of hate, we might as well really hate.<

Yes. After all, quoting Chait, "If the Gang of Eight bill fails [NB: or succeeds], Richwine’s comments will continue to linger and recirculate in the Latino-American media [owned by Latino-Americans, sure] until immigration reform finally passes. Republicans will never be able to convince Latinos" etc.

Chait. Another Jew. Interesting.

Still more interesting (pdf).

I have a message for the Jewish community.

Quoting Chait again:

"The need to put this behind them is growing desperate."

Anonymous said...

"Second, Richwine’s quote is exactly the sort of political nightmare Republicans hope to put behind them by passing some kind of reform."

Except if Richwine's right - which he is - then the Republicans have a much bigger problem i.e. there'll only ever be a minority of prosperous enough hispanic GOP voters.

Anonymous said...

"The Heritage report doesn't rely on an IQ argument. Stick to that."

There's more than one tack on each tack. One tack on the IQ argument is simply to point out how dishonest the blank slate and pro-immigration lobbies are.

.
"I would suggest they take a page out of the UKIP playbook which has been so effective"

Ukip's success is less about anything they've done and more about the political elite in the UK being just as destructive and genocidal as the US but Britain being smaller and more crowded so it's harder for the media to hide what's really happening.

Anonymous said...

Chait writes, "...fallout of the episode will play out in two ways. First, it has demonstrated that the balance of power within the party has shifted.
... Republican elites were hesitant to rile up social conservatives directly and explicitly. ... not merely endless placating of nativists.
... Second, Richwine’s quote is exactly the sort of political nightmare Republicans hope to put behind them by passing some kind of reform."


There is another possibility. It has to happen sometime. The truth of the statement "large numbers of unskilled immigrants does not benefit America" will become realized and accepted, because it is true. The natives get restless enough to climb the castle hill with pitchforks. And what's this "placating nativists"? Who are the anti-Americans pushing this immigration and why? Why do they hate americans?

Immigration is simply bad for the economic well-being of american citizens. It might be good for some Wall Street types, but it's a case of "privatize profits and socialize costs". It's just another way to transfer wealth to the very top. Immigration is not about what's best for America, it's about importing voters and clients for certain political blocks and factions. Bad profiteers, blocks, and factions.

Anonymous said...

"Richwine’s quote is exactly the sort of political nightmare Republicans hope to put behind them by passing some kind of reform."

The Republicans will never put this sort of quote behind them, because it is the truth and the truth will never go away. They need to realize this.

Ideas can change. The idea that everyone could just lie about basic truth with respect to the impact of low-skill immigration could work when the number of such immigrants was small. When it's not small the polite pretty lie can't stand. And other lies, like there's magical education pixie-dust that can turn any human at any age into "an american". Of course, there are many ways to lie. They can always try to change the definition of american. We're all citizens of the planet, aren't we?

Anonymous said...

Heritage is correct yet Heritage has found itself in a public relations crisis. Our dilemma in a nutshell. The immigrationistas are in the wrong but they get to dictate the 'moral' agenda.

Anonymous said...

What I love about Jonathan "Mr Liberal Asshole Amnesty" Chait is that he's a hardcore Zionist.

That's right: according to Chait, Jews have a right to a homeland, but Americans don't.

So Conservatives hate and abuse Latinos, Mr Chait? Not as much as you and your ilk hate and abuse Palestinians.

Anonymous said...

The sad fact is that this is the last nail in the coffin of the London School of Psychology. The already sparse number of adherents will dwindle down to nothing, because no one, wants what happened to Jason Richwine to happen to them, and he isn't even a psychologist. Political Correctness needed only twenty years after the Bell Curve to eliminate IQ and it's implications from public discourse. Remind me again, who won the Cold War?

Anonymous said...

But doesn't importing more people into our country make us more crowded and polluted, make our real estate more expensive, and undermine our wages?

In the short term yes, but given the low birth rates of whites, there may be fewer whites in the future. Thus, Hispanics would for the most part replace and not augment the white population.

I have heard statistics that in Russia, they are losing 1 million Russians per year due to low birth rates not being able to replenish deaths. I think Putin is starting to turn this around, but you get the point. If you put enough social stresses on a group, you might cause them to decrease in population.

C. Van Carter said...

"Richwine’s comments will continue to linger and recirculate in the Latino-American media"

Look for a in depth discussion of cognitive science on next week's episode of Sábado Gigante.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous asked: Remind me again, who won the Cold War?

The Frankfurt School, that's who.

Matthew said...

"Republican elites were hesitant to rile up social conservatives directly and explicitly. When the base revolted against immigration reform in 2007, the GOP elites had no responses but to cover their face and try to absorb the beating."

They're going to get beaten either way. The social conservatives will either stop the amnesty, or voters will abandon the GOP in droves after it passes. You want to keep getting tax cuts for the rich? Forget about open borders.

"Second, Richwine’s quote is exactly the sort of political nightmare Republicans hope to put behind them by passing some kind of reform."

Oh God, really? No one besides a bunch of wonks gives a shit about Richwine or his dissertation. No one. The only headline that matters is that this amnesty will cost us $6 trillion+. Everything else is a footnote.

There is one and only one response to the aallegation that being opposed to mass immigration/amnesty is racist: "No, it isn't."

That's all you really have to say. Don't get defensive, don't equivocate, don't back down, don't feel the need to justify. Just calmly yet forcefully respond "No, it isn't." If you want to throw in a "If you think it is then go fuck yourself," feel free to do so.

"So Conservatives hate and abuse Latinos, Mr Chait? Not as much as you and your ilk hate and abuse Palestinians."

One could argue that Zionists hate anyone they won't let immigrate to Israel, which is pretty much everyone who isn't Jewish. At least that's the argument Lefties make about American immigration policy.

Anonymous said...

"Even if it lowers your wages, drives up your cost of living, and pollutes your environment?" - Especially if it does all that.

rightsaidfred said...

Notice that if Chait and the pro-immigrationists are wrong, they pay no price. Others pay.

Cail Corishev said...

But doesn't importing more people into our country make us more crowded and polluted, make our real estate more expensive, and undermine our wages?

Yes, but if it means the country becomes crowded with members of my own tribe, and damages the prospects of the enemy tribe at least as much as my own tribe's, odds are I'll take that deal.

Anonymous said...

C. Van Carter said:Look for a in depth discussion of cognitive science on next week's episode of Sábado Gigante.

I was watching Univision the other day and the blond girl in the bikini had some thoughtful points about the factor analysis methods involved in calculating general intelligence. She wasn't a huge PCA fan, and I suspect that the host secretly shared her reservations.

-The Judean People's Front

ben tillman said...

Can any iSteve readers of Hispanic descent tell us why Americans of Hispanic descent are pro-amnesty?

They aren't.

Anonymous said...

The part where he mocked Richwine's name was particularly sour, since more than once I've misread that byline as "Jonathan Cheat"