The new issue of The Social Contract is online and has an interesting topic: “When Liberals Were For Sensible Policies – on the Environment, Immigration, and the National Interest.” Be sure to check out the many excellent articles.
Whatever happened to liberals with sensible ideas about the limits to growth on our little planet? They certainly are an endangered species today when the far left Democrats demand open borders to America even as the world edges toward eight billion residents — it’s crazy.
Can you recognize the liberal luminaries of the past and present pictured on the cover? From the top going clockwise they are: Edward O. Wilson, David Brower, Garrett Hardin, Gov. Richard Lamm, George F. Kennan, Sen. Eugene McCarthy, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, and Rep. Barbara Jordan.
My article begins with a somewhat nostalgic reminiscence of Latin American revolutionaries of earlier decades who chose to fight for their own countries rather than illegally immigrate to the US to steal jobs and benefits. Even commie dictators are worth our attention, since bad examples definitely have a place in today’s environment where college students are trained to believe in the socialist model — hey kids, how about an educational semester in Venezuela? Be sure to pack a lunch.
Liberal Policy Switches – From Latin American governance to environmental protection, the reversals are dizzying, By Brenda Walker, The Social Contract, Winter 2019
Is consistency a desirable trait in deeply felt values that form policy positions? You would think so, but the leftward political contingent appears to be unburdened by such moral steadiness, preferring instead the pursuit of power by any means necessary. A major example of inconstancy has been the immigration issue, where lefties once supported nation states around the world, but now side with the hated globalist corporations in pursuing a borderless planet. Go figure.
Confession: I’m beginning to miss Fidel Castro. He may have been a mass-murdering commie dictator, but he at least chose to fight for his own country rather than immigrating for the easy freebies in America. He had a reputation of being a decent baseball player with a wicked curveball, so he had a shot at an illustrious career among the evil capitalists. Harper’s magazine reported in 1989 that he had turned down an offer to play for the Giants. That claim has doubters in some quarters, but the Internet certainly has plenty of photos showing Fidel playing ball.
In contrast, the choice to stay and fight for one’s homeland is rarely made today. The earlier Latin American tradition of revolution against tyranny is just plain gone, with the modern ease of transportation and iPhones to make travel easier for illegal aliens. Are you a Latin American wishing for “a better life” immediately? Just hop a north-bound train or join a well-funded caravan to invade the United States to steal jobs, education, and welfare. Illegal immigration is the acceptable ticket to personal betterment in the modern twenty-first century — according to the left-bent mind at least.
It’s obvious that liberals are fine with that change. The idea of Hispanic national self-determination through political and revolutionary struggle has disappeared from public consciousness. And while liberals love to fling the “racism” charge against Americans who reject open borders, it is genuinely racist to believe brown people must be rescued from their own nations via immigration to the United States. The rescue fantasy is usually a flashing neon light of liberal virtue signaling. (Plus, the fact that most amnestied Hispanic illegals eventually vote Democrat may be a reason the D-party panders to them.)
It is not cruel to limit immigration to America. In fact, ending it entirely would have a positive effect on the Third World. If there were no comfy welfare state to which to immigrate, local people across the planet would get serious about building reform at home.
Looking at the recent past, it’s curious how strongly felt beliefs of left-wingers are so apt to change over time, sometimes doing a 180 to fit the political winds (or the preferences of funders).
A few decades back, leftist revolutionaries were the totally cool icons among Democrat elites in America, to whom Fidel Castro and other Latin insurgents were great heroes. The late Tom Wolfe described “Radical Chic” where wealthy New York liberals celebrated revolutionaries like the Black Panthers and Castro.
Radical chic has more recently expanded into “terrorist chic” among the open-borders left, because murderous jihadists might want to immigrate here and vote Democrat. Muslims with vague unscreenable backgrounds were certainly no problem for the Obama administration. In 2016, his administration announced it would admit 30 percent more refugees in the next year, with the target total being 110,000. The Obama White House brought in 10,000 Syrians in 2016 despite the obvious danger of admitting persons with no background files.
Times have definitely changed. Liberals once espoused the idea of homegrown reform where brown people took their destinies into their own hands through armed revolution and political activity.
And the struggle was real. In 1987, Foreign Affairs began an article titled “Revolution in Central America?” by noting: “On President Reagan’s first inauguration day [1980], revolution appeared to be spreading across Central America. The Sandinistas were consolidating their hold over Nicaragua and guerrillas in El Salvador and Guatemala were on the move.” (Continues)
