"Quit Lying About My Record!"
Somehow this meeting of the Wall Street Journal editorial board makes me even angrier than President Bush's casual dismissal of opponents of the new immigration bill as not "wanting what's best for America". Like Linda Chavez, they go whole hog and slander their good-faith allies on the Right as "irrational", "foaming at the mouth", and racist. As you watch this discussion, note carefully an exchange at about 4:10, where Stephen Moore notes that "they don't want them here legally, either". Paul Gigot then agrees and notes,
when we call them on that, they go crazy! Mark Levin, on some blog I saw, was assailing us because...we had a line as we often do saying that they're 'restrictionist'. He said, [mock-pounding the table] 'I'm not a restrictionist! I like legal immigration!' Who?And in response Daniel Henninger snarks:
Yeah, so long as they're from Western Europe!It's infuriating, but you gotta watch:
Thank God for (Californian) John Fund, who at least concedes a few points about assimilation, the anti-assimilation activists, and Antonio Villaigarosa and doesn't engage in smug name-calling like nearly everyone else, and seeks to understand where the opposition is coming from. (James Taranto keeps quiet, and Peggy Noonan isn't there.)
The others genuinely seem to believe their own slanders. Rather than acknowledging (let alone refuting) our claims about national security, social services, human rights and working conditions for near-indentured servants, they're content to adjudge us all know-nothings. It's much easier to fling around these baseless smears of racism at National Review and "the Right".* It's called race-baiting, and it's a term the WSJ understands quite well. As outspoken conservatives, these men know full well how infuriating groundless accusations of racism are, and yet they're surprised that Mark Levin, or more broadly, the party base, don't just sit there and take it with a smile.
You know, it all reminds me of something a wise fellow said once about journalists buying and selling easy, unsubstantiated accusations of racism:
This search for racial explanations isn't always innocent neuroticism either, but frequently reflects a grab for the meretricious moral status that seems to accrue instantly to anyone who lobs charges of racism.That was WSJ Editorial Board member Holman W. Jenkins, writing about the New York Times in 2000.
Interestingly, "meretricious" has two meanings: it means showy, gaudy, or pretentious; it also means "of or relating to prostitution".
* There are, and always have been noisy, obnoxious elements to the border-security crowd--as there are in any political movement. There are also some nativists and genuine racists who--as Bamapachyderm notes here--make it harder for the rest of us to stand up and make the case for sovereignty and security.
But they're a fringe. For the Wall Street Journal to pretend that they are of a piece with, say, Mark Levin and National Review is utterly disingenuous.