February 5, 2007

My New VDARE.com column

Who is America's MVP (Most Valuable Politician)?


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

By Steve Sailer on 2/05/2007

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Interesting essay. I wonder if you meant to call for an end to "immigration" at the end, or just an end to illegal immigration. It seems that some of the problems of having so many low-skilled Mexicans could be ameliorated by importing more highly-skilled Indians, Koreans, etc.

Also, could there be a policy where foes of illegal immigration like Tancredo and "comprehensive" fans could find some common ground? Specifically, why can't there be a consensus to come up with ways to encourage economic development in Mexico? What if we offered financial incentives to the Mexican government to modify some of its laws which stifle economic growth (e.g., to allow foreign ownership of some of its coastal land)? Mexico has a lot going for it in terms of climate, natural resources, proximity to us, etc. It should be possible to employ more Mexicans there.

2/5/07, 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...

Tancredo has no chance of getting elected President, even he said that much. The best that he can hope for (and this is a long shot since it assumes that the media will actually give him the time of day) is that his hard stance on immigration will enourage other candidates to take a harder stance on immigration.

As for the poster's comment above about finding common ground, well, why do the people who favor "comprehensive" solutions have to find common ground with Tancredo. Tancredo is a stick in the wind to them. They control academia, the news media, Hollywood, etc. They will never accept anything but complete capitulation on immigration policy.

2/5/07, 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...

Politicians are what they have to be to get elected and that is skilled and talented at getting people to vote for them. In reading through your post and links. I noticed that you implied that politicians (Bushes inner party) are stupid. People like Carl Rove and the Bush administration are skilled talented and knowledgeable at how to get people to vote for them. The insiders are expects at negotiating the internal politics of the bureaucracy. They may or may not have skills and knowledge in other areas related to actually doing their jobs but they are rarely stupid.

(Political talents include good looks and appealing personality. Political skills are knowing how to say what the majority of Americans want to hear in a soft non-aggressive manor and how to put together a campaign.)

In my mind this why a corrupt politician like Bill Clinton is about the best you can hope for. He was corrupt enough to say exactly what the people wanted to hear and follow through on none of it, so as to not hurt the country enough so that the actual state of things would cost him re-election. If Bush had planned properly dragged things out all the time threatening all out bloody war with Iraq (the voting people wanted war with Iraq) until winning a second term and then dropped the whole thing we and he would have been much better off.

BTW The country did great while Warren G Harding was president. No wars and good economy.

But I will hope against hope and work for the non-corrupt Ron Paul.

2/5/07, 2:25 PM
Audacious Epigone said...

Online petition encouraging Tancredo to run is here. Sign it!

2/5/07, 5:54 PM
Garland said...

"I wonder if you meant to call for an end to "immigration" at the end, or just an end to illegal immigration. It seems that some of the problems of having so many low-skilled Mexicans could be ameliorated by importing more highly-skilled Indians, Koreans, etc."

He said "cut back," not end. Even skilled immigration should be reduced for a while because balkanization is a problem for all ethnic groups, especially with multiculturalism still the law of the land, and even some high-skilled labor sectors are feeling wage hits from immigration. However, to reduce immigration is not to end it. The lower legal levels should then be re-prioritized to take in skilled immigrants.

2/5/07, 9:00 PM
Anonymous said...

I would contribute a few hundred bucks to a Tancredo run.


Im going to contribute to whatever Democrat is most right on immigration. Im going to contribute to whichever Republican candidate who is most right on immigration.


If two open borders types get nominations, I will again vote for the Reform party or some independent with no chance.



I would love to see Tancredo run in the race. I think the establishment would be astonished/terrified at how well he would do.

2/5/07, 11:00 PM
Anonymous said...

For reasons that, perhaps, you could analyze better than anyone, Tom Tancredo's campaign is DOA.

That's why I ignored him in my recent assessment of Republican candidates.

Mitt Romney and New Gingrich are the best hopes on the Republican side and it's not clear that they have much of a chance either. Pro-immigration John McCain is the likely victor.

"The country did great while Warren G Harding was president."

Harding was a great president, it's too bad he died.

2/6/07, 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...

Half sigma,

Nobody saw Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan coming man..............................................


We have GOT to break the hegemony of the media PICKING the primary "leaders" for us by telling us "who is electable". Screw them, they are democrats. Its OUR party.

I'd love to see Tancredo get in the race. You might be shocked.......

2/6/07, 11:18 AM
Anonymous said...

Steve, I respect your intellect and very much appreciate isteve. You haven't, though, made a compelling case for not attacking Iran. It seems like an Iran war runs counter to your cautious intuition about foreign policy adventures and to your isolationist emotions. Fine. But the basic question is "Why should we allow a people with a long history of throat slitting tribalism, a significant percentage of whom would cheer our destruction, gain a nuclear weapon?" It just doesn't seem that hard to break up Iran's nuclear program (though military action may involve terrorist reprisals in the US). You've previously claimed that Iran are certain to gain a weapon, so the heck with it. What makes you so certain? And do you really want to ride with that 5% chance or whatever of a major rogue state nuclear event simply to avoid the messy business of taking action?

2/6/07, 6:25 PM
Anonymous said...

also, it may sound farfetched now, but the recent Guiliani publicity storm seems engineered to benefit Gingrich by halting McCain's momentum in favor of an unnominatable Guiliani who won't run well in the South. Jay McIntyre thinks Gingrich is doomed for the GOP nomination because he's perceived as unelectable in the general election, but I think perceptions may change when the primary season begins. Surely it doesn't take extraordinary imagination to imagine a Gingrich nomination.

One firm principal of the presidency is that it's virtually impossible to win without being very smart or having a very smart advisor. McCain is therefore doomed from the beginning, like Al Gore. He is poorly positioned with antitax and social conservatives and hasn't spent the last 5 years developing and honing his message, as Gingrich has. Guiliani isn't as badly off, but if you set aside the "unelectable perception" issue, he doesn't measure up to Gingrich on any other factor. I mean, the gun lobby and social conservatives, for starters...

2/6/07, 6:42 PM
Anonymous said...

if not engineered, then at least done with the acquiescence and support of the gathering Gingrich camp.

2/6/07, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...

"Nobody saw Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan coming man"

I'm sure someonw saw them. I see Sam Brownback as the dark horse candidate. Not that I want him to win, it's just what I see.

Tom Tancredo seems like a good candidate, but I don't see the immigration issue as marketable in the current election.

2/6/07, 7:55 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)