The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Conservative Movement

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Evilcons of the World, Unite! — Some blogger calling himself Tacitus[email him] has announced that he has decided not to invite me tocontribute to some website I never heard of (and which sounds intellectually pathetic) because I am one of those horrible “evilcons.”See, he was shocked to discover I once wrote this squirm-inducing essayon why I prefer watching black NFL quarterbacks to white NFL quarterbacks (because, on average, they are better at running with the football).

As Bugs Bunny would say , “What a maroon!” Tacitus should stick to squirming. He’s better at it than thinking.

Hover your cursor over my head shot photo above until you can read the caption I put there a couple of years ago. (Also, check out thecaption on the photo of Mrs. Thatcher and myself.)

The term “evilcon” is a joke I made up as a pun on John O’Sullivan’s categorization of myself as an “evolcon” in his 1999 National Reviewarticle “Types of Right.” John wrote:

“5. Evolutionary Conservatives. This is an almost wholly intellectual group (e.g., Steve Sailer, John McGinnis, Charles Murray)— not a politician brave enough to stand with them — who have realized two things: first, that lessons of the new science of evolutionary psychology arelargely conservative ones about an adamantine humannature, the natural basis of sex roles, and so on; second, that the knowledge gained from the Human GenomeProject and the rise of genetic engineering will throw up some fascinating and contentious political issues in the increasingly near future.”

In February 2002, after I was attacked by Jonah Goldberg because I “concentrate on genetic questions” (the horror, the horror!), I joked:

“Everybody’s got to have a label these days: neocon, paleocon, whatever. But I’m not sure that mine is working out. A few years ago in National Review, John O’Sullivan described Charles Murray and myself as the first ‘evolutionary conservatives’ – i.e., conservatives who actually know something about the science of human nature. ‘Cool,’ I thought. Still, this ‘evolcon’ label has not proven a good career move for Chas and me. That’s ‘evolcon,’ not ‘evilcon,’ dammit!”

Link: Jun. 25, 2004 14:48:45

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement 
🔊 Listen RSS

As I predicted here last week (sigh), the Democrats enjoyed a very merry Christmas (oops, make that “a jolly golly holiday”) unwrapping the unexpected present gift-wrapped for them by the Righteous Right punditariat (VDARE.COM comment: note in this December 24Chicago Sun Times column, John O’Sullivan’s first public criticism ofNational Review – v-e-r-y i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g!) in its frenzy tocondemn Trent Lott for his 100th birthday party effusion, which most Democrats had been willing to ignore.

With the enthusiastic aid of the liberal media, Democrats are now setting about delegitimizing both a large portion of the GOP base and the last 38 years of GOP history.

Indeed, the biggest problem facing the Democrats is an overly target-rich environment. There are lots of Lotts among Republicans. Like a barracuda approaching a school of sardines, the Democrats are having trouble staying locked on a single victim.

Should they pursue Attorney General John Ashcroft, Senator George Allen (R-VA), Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Congressman Cass Ballenger (R-NY), Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT), or even male ingénue Bill Frist (R-TN) (who was chosen to replace Lott in part because he’d never run for office until 1994—or even voted until 1988—and thus has had little time to develop a rap sheet of “insensitive” statements)?

And the main response that GOP publicists like the Wall Street Journaleditorial page (December 28) can think of is—Lott-style witch hunts against Democrats like Robert Byrd!

Gentlemen, why is it necessary to remind you that the Republican Party cannot win a war of attrition fought on this particular battlefield?

But at least bashing Byrd is a better Republican response than mass purges of Republican officeholders–which, incredibly, is what WSJEditorial Page staffer Brendan Miniter is calling for (December 23):

“Trent Lott is gone as leader, but if the GOP wants to prove its commitment to equality, it will have to find the little Lotts who lurk about in the party and make sure they no longer feel welcome.”

The longer-term fallout will be to delegitimize the Southern Strategythat has served the Republicans well for decades. Indeed, the Washington Post just came up with a new name for the Southern Strategy: the GOP’s ” racially tainted recent past.”

Time Magazine’s Jack White announced:

“The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party’s four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. Republicans won’t make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies. The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it’s with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican’s selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.”

Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism, Dec 14, 2002

The trick is to pound in that—although white Southerners’ votes aretechnically equal to all others—everyone who is acceptable in polite society knows that’s just some legal loophole in the Constitution. Nice people know it is immoral to pursue white Southerners’ votes.

Democrats are locked into affirmative action and other racial policies that are detrimental to the interests of the white four-fifths of electorate. So it’s extremely convenient for Democrats to rewrite history and rule out of acceptable discourse all of those issues—which otherwise help Republicans win.

The beauty of this trick is that zero facts or logic are required. The goalis not to win a debate, but to prevent debate from ever taking place.

The Washington Post provided a classic example of this delegitimization in its December 22 front-page story “GOP Pins Its Future on Wooing Minorities.”

For example, Thomas B. Edsall wrote, campaigning against racial quotas helped Jesse Helms’ win a tough Senatorial race in 1990.

“In 1990, media consultant Alex Castellanos produced the Helms reelection commercial showing a white man’s handsripping up a job rejection slip as the narrator said, ‘You needed that job . . . but they had to give it to a minority.’ … Castellanos, [send him mail] asked if he would use in 2004 an ad along the lines of his famous ‘white hands’ commercial of1990, said: ‘The world has changed. That was 100 years ago—longer.’”

In fact, of course, the 1990 commercial was simply telling the literal truth. The whole point of racial preferences is to give jobs to minorities that otherwise would have gone to whites. That’s indisputable.

But now opposition to affirmative action has been redefined as part of that “racially-tainted” Lott era.

Two months after the election triumphs of November—victories won essentially by what VDARE.COM calls the “Sailer Strategy,” getting more whites to show up at the polls, especially in the South—the Righteous Right commentariat appears to have succeeded in demoralizing Republican campaign managers, always a mindless bunch, and in inflicting a permanent wound on its own party.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement 
🔊 Listen RSS

Let me see if I have this straight. According to 95% of GOP pundits:

A. As Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott was an utter disgrace to the fundamental principles of the Republican Party. His resignation from the Majority Leader position was an absolute moral necessity after his crime against humanity

B. As a U.S. Senator, on the other hand, Trent Lottremains a valued public servant. Any notion that heshould resign from the Senate is unthinkable. For him toquit now, just because a few folks have said a few unkind words about him, would be a crime against humanity.

A contradiction, no?

The explanation, of course: Lott’s resigning allowed Karl Rove to move his boy Bill Frist into what had been a power base independent of the White House.

But if Lott also resigned from the Senate, the Democratic Governor of Mississippi would appoint a Democrat, splitting the Senate 50-50. That would give the Democrats a good shot at luring a liberal Republican to switch sides, thus regaining the majority.

Okay, now that we all understand, let’s chant along with theRighteous Right:



Just two weeks ago, on VDARE.COM, I was complacently discussing the likelihood that the Supreme Court would soon outlaw racial preferences in college admissions.

Well … that was a long time ago.

Now the question is how much of the wish-list of race hustlers like Jesse Jackson is going to be granted, due to the Republican meltdown.

Yeah, sure, Trent Lott should be hung up by his toenails in every townsquare in America and all that. But it’s important to go over exactly what happened.

The fundamental fact is that this disaster was almost completely self-inflicted by Republican pundits. It was the “right wing” mouthpieces, not the liberals, who went hysterical.

The initial reaction of most Democratic politicians and journalists was that Lott was just blowing smoke to make an old man happy at his retirement/100th birthday party. Nothing important should be read into it.

As Howie Kurtz reported in the Washington Post on 12/16:

“A dozen reporters heard the Senate majority leader say the country would have been better off if Thurmond had won the presidency—and it was carried on C-SPAN—butonly an ABC producer thought the remarks werenewsworthy. Even then the story didn’t make it to thenetwork’s main newscasts. Baltimore Sun reporter Julie Hirschfeld Davis says there was so much ‘tongue-in-cheek’ talk at Thurmond’s birthday party ‘that a lot of us probably tuned out remarks that we might have been more careful listening to if it hadn’t been such a jubilant atmosphere.’”

The very liberal retired Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) attended the 100th birthday party. He said later,

“I’ve worked with Martin Luther King Jr. and been at the forefront of civil rights legislation. If I thought it was serious, I’d be denouncing it. But I think it’s being taken out of context, and that’s not being fair to Trent.”

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said,

“There are a lot of times when [Lott] and I go to the microphone and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I’m sure this was one of those cases for him.”

Soon afterwards, two of Clinton’s attack dogs, Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville, sent out mass emails trying to peddle the story. The websites of a few Democrat picked it up. But the big-time liberal mediastill wasn’t interested.

What happened next was the key. According to Jim Rutenberg and Felicity Barringer in the New York Times (December 17),

“Early, widespread and harsh criticism by conservativecommentators and publications has provided much of thetinder for the political fires surrounding Senator Trent Lott since his favorable comments about the segregationist presidential campaign of 1948. Conservative columnists, including Andrew Sullivan, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and publications like National Review and the Wall Street Journal have castigated Mr. Lott …”

Similarly, the Washington Post’s Kurtz wrote,

“Even after Lott’s comments were reported, though,much of the establishment press ignored them for days.It wasn’t until Lott apologized last Monday night thatsuch newspapers as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today took note of the matter. In the meantime, Lott was pummeled by a number of online Weblogs – particularly by conservatives who agree with him on many issues – in a way that helped force the story into public view.”

A Hundred- Candle Story And How To Blow It (

Kurtz cited David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, and Glenn “Instapundit“Reynolds.

David Frum is a longtime journalist and former Bush speechwriter. Ican’t really remember much of anything special about him other than that he wrote two-thirds of the “axis of evil” phrase, and that he’s replacing the unique and iconoclastic Florence King on the back page of National Review, which is depressing. Maybe NR thought they were hiring David Brooks instead.

Andrew Sullivan is the world’s foremost spokesman for Andrewism, which is best defined as whatever Andrew is worked up about at the current stage in his prescription testosterone cycle. (Click here for his 7,000-word ode to injecting the manly molecule, and to the wildly variable impact it has on his judgment.)

I rather like Andrew, in part for his brave advocacy of The Bell Curve, in part because he has elevated hypocrisy to an art form. Thedisjunction between what he preaches and what he practices is so stark that it somehow feels wrong to judge him according to the normal standards of truth, logic, honesty, and morality that apply to drab analysts like me. Instead, Andrew is more like the lead characterin the great roman a clef novel (think of Saul Bellow’s Ravelsteinabout Allan Bloom) that no doubt will be written about him after he’s gone.

Instapundit is less interesting. Glenn Reynolds is a law professor who used his amazing skill at typing fast to invent “blogrolling,” or online backscratching. Every day he skims lots of other web logs and jots down countless quick links to those who agree with him. This drives traffic to various lonely bloggers, who gratefully respond with adulatory links back to him. It’s mutual-admiration perpetual motion machine.Reynolds offers the usual libertarian-militarist ideology found online. But he distinguishes himself by being, even for a blogger, exceptionally self-righteous and self-regarding.

Despite the desperate idolization of Instapundit by other bloggers,however, the tracking service Alexa seems to show that VDARE.COM has more traffic. Hardly surprising. Visiting is like being caught in a hailstorm of ping-pong balls. Apparently, Instapundit and Sullivan are more socially respectable to link to, but VDARE.COM is more interesting to read.

So as soon as these Righteous Righties decided that Lott’s 100th birthday party bloviating was the most serious statement ofconsidered belief since Luther’s 95 Theses, the bloggers who take their direction in hopes of getting a link back began howling for Lott’s head.

And it was only then that the New York Times and the rest of BigLiberal Media jumped on the story.

Instapundit, the All-Seeing Sage of Blogovia, has whined that it was “galling, and unjustified” that the Democrats were using his witch burning crusade to advance their agenda of racial preferences.

And Andrew has complained:

“Some of the sanctimony is now beginning to bug me. …The equation of opposition to affirmative action or hate-crime laws or any other number of leftist policies with racism strikes me as a massively cheap shot. (I was on WBUR last night and paleo-lib Jack Beatty went straight to that knee-jerk point. Grrrr.) And the blithe assumption of moral superiority is equally galling.”

Similarly, Frum has lamented that the Washington Post reported that the White House looked more likely to argue in favor of racial preferences in the University of Michigan quota case.

Of course, the establishment conservatives are trying to tellthemselves that it will ultimately be all for the best. Noemie Emery writes in the Weekly Standard:

“It is now a great mess for the Republican Party, but one that has the potential to turn into a great opportunity, and one the party should eagerly seize. It is a chance for the GOP to clean up its act and its household, haul tons of old rubbish out of the attic, and banish some shopworn oldghosts.”

Which sounds an awful lot like Greta Garbo playing the Soviet commissar in “Ninotchka.” Asked the news from Moscow, she replied:

“The last mass trials were a great success. There are going to be fewer but better Russians.”

I now expect a concerted effort to silence anyone on the rightsuspected of crimethink about human biodiversity. Already, Frum has smeared my website in his NRO column.

Of course, he doesn’t make any arguments against anything I’ve written. He’s smart enough to know that getting into a public debatewith me over race is a losing proposition. (If he’s brave enough, I’m ready to debate him anytime.)

He simply argues by labeling – hyperlinking to my site on the helpful words “inescapable racialism” and lumping me in with the “paleoconservatives.

I’ve certainly got nothing against the paleos. They have proven infinitely more interested in learning from the human sciences thanhave the increasingly anti-scientific neocons. (For a laugh, check out “Has Darwin Met His Match?” in the December 2002 edition of Commentary).

Still, I’ve never been a paleo. In 1999, John O’Sullivan wrote in National Review an article entitled “Types of Right.” Number 5 was:

“Evolutionary Conservatives. This is an almost wholly intellectual group (e.g., Steve Sailer, John McGinnis, Charles Murray)— not a politician brave enough to stand with them — who have realized two things: first, that lessons of the new science of evolutionary psychology are largely conservative ones about an adamantine human nature, the natural basis of sex roles, and so on; second, that the knowledge gained from the Human Genome Project and the rise of genetic engineering will throw up some fascinating and contentious political issues in the increasingly near future.”

On the political front, the Establishment media is now enthusiastically answering the Weekly Standard’s call for one, two, many purges. But they will conduct the hunts on their own liberal terms.

For Trent Lott is not some kind of unique locus of Political Incorrectness in the Republican Party. There are lots of Lotts.

Between 1/3rd and 3/8ths of the GOP vote comes from white Southerners. The vast majority of these citizens no more want the return of Jim Crow than they want the return of summers without air conditioners. But they do bear normal human feelings of loyalty and affection toward their parents, grandparents, and more distantancestors – which are expressed through various exercises in symbolism, or through mere politeness.

A huge fraction of all Republican office holders are from the South.Virtually every one of them is on record committing Lott’s Sin: saying something nice about a representative of the Old South.

In the feeding frenzy of the last week, we’ve been treated to one story after another about how all Republican victories since KevinPhillips wrote The Emerging Republican Majority in 1969 were illegitimate because they were based on white Southern voters.

I believe the success I’ve had as a voter analyst stems in large part from my taking a moral stance that happens also to be a factual reality. I believe in the equality of American citizens. I refuse to fall for the increasingly common assumption that “While all voters are equal, some are more equal than others.” I try to remind everybody that they still count everybody’s vote the same.

For example, for 20 years the press has been telling us that the gender gap is going to devastate the GOP. But it never happens, because a man’s vote counts exactly as much as a woman’s vote. And men, although the media doesn’t care, tilt just as much to the Republicans as women do to Democrats.

Similarly, Democrats have often succeeded in delegitimizing Republicanvictories won with white votes. This isn’t just symbolic. Democrats have actually scared Republicans away from strategies that worked in the past.

For example, George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign against Dukakis’ softness on crime was permanently libeled as racist because the bestexample of Dukakis’ foolishness was a furloughed murderer named Willie Horton – who happened to be black.

Similarly, the GOP has been brainwashed into believing that Pete Wilson’s spectacular comeback in 1994 is now off-limits because it appealed to The Wrong Kind of Voters.

Well, I’m too much of a small “d” democrat to believe that there are Wrong Kinds of Voters—there are just voters.

But that’s going to be an increasingly rare view as the fallout from theRighteous Right’s temper tantrum continues.

Great going, guys. Thanks a Lott.

(Email David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Reynolds.)

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement 
🔊 Listen RSS

My VDARE article “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote“—which demonstrated that if George W. Bush had merely won 57% instead of just 54% of the white vote, he would have earned an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171—continues to elicit strong reactions.

A supporter tried to post my article on the conservative discussion website, which played such an heroic role in exposing the Clinton scandals. Alas, the owner, Jim Robinson, deleted it. He claimed it was “divisive” and “promoting racism.” Eventually, a more open-minded citizen sneaked it past the vigilant Mr. Robinson. Numerous people then responded in a rational manner. Despite Mr. Robinson’s fears, all this free speech did not bring about the end of the world as we know it.

A few comments on the self-defeating mindset of conservatives like Mr. Robinson.

  • Elections are supposed to be “divisive.” Hell, in the British House of Parliament, a vote is called a “division.” Dividing the electorate to see who gets more votes is the essence of democracy. In contrast, keeping the people united is the essence of fascism. That’s why Mussolini chose the name. A “fasces” is a bundle of rods that is weak when divided, but strong together.
  • “Racism” is to the current era what “unAmericanism” was to the Fifties: a curse word that provides a handy substitute for logical thought.
  • Mr. Robinson implicitly endorses the liberal mythology that delegitimized the victories of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I because they were built on a “Southern Strategy” of maximizing the GOP’s white vote. In the aftermath of Bush I’s easy 1988 victory over Dukakis, the liberal media managed to transform the catch phrase “Willie Horton“—from shorthand for the kind of brainless liberalism that would lead Dukakis to veto a bill preventing first-degree murderers like Horton from being let out of the slammer on vacations, into a catchphrase for evil Republican racism. Stupidly, the Republicans have been apologizing for “Willie Horton” ever since. As you may have noticed, once they started letting the Democrats define “Willie Horton” for them, they haven’t yet won the popular vote for President.
  • The current American racial system (e.g., affirmative action and political correctness) rests on the assumption that the majority will continue to behave more generously and more disinterestedly than the minorities. What happens, though, when mass immigration transforms our society so everyone is a minority? If you don’t want whites to act like a 21st century American minority group—e.g., racially conscious, bloc voting, biased, prickly, and lead by racial racketeers quick to proclaim their group’s victimization – then don’t make whites a minority.

In contrast to Mr. Robinson, the participants in the Free Republic forums tolerate heretical thought. Shortly, I’ll respond to them.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Conservative Movement 
🔊 Listen RSS

“The stunning victory of Mexico’s president-elect Vicente Fox … opens the door to a period of sustained economic prosperity that could carry Mexico into the front-ranks of the information-age global economy,” supply side economist Larry Kudlow has excitedly announced in National Review Online, [Fox-Trotting Through North America, July 11, 2000]

Sorry, Larry, but it’s not going to happen. No politician has that kind of power. Nothing Fox could possibly do will convert the Mexican people into a bunch of Mountain Dew-mainlining way cool Java geeks.

How do I know? Because immigrants are leading indicators. If the only thing holding down a particular people’s inventiveness is their native country’s bad government, then their immigrants will prosper in America. For example, it was no surprise that Bangalore, India has become a software boomtown. Until the Nineties, India had nightmarish Fabian socialist policies, but Indian immigrants had long been doing brilliant work here in America. Similarly, it was obvious from watching Israeli immigrants that even the Knesset’s socialist laws couldn’t keep the Israeli people poor forever.

In contrast, the heart of the global information economy, California, is currently home to about ten million people of Mexican descent. Their creative contributions to Silicon Valley, however, are miniscule.

There is, however, a minority within Mexico that could join the high tech world if it wished. It’s largely unknown to Americans because its scions have no need to immigrate. They only come to the U.S. for advanced degrees.

My introduction to Mexico’s ruling caste occurred at UCLA’s Graduate School of Management. In an elaborate marketing strategy simulation game, my team got drubbed by a three-man squad consisting of one American and two dark-blonde young men from Mexico. The American explained the secret of their success: when they couldn’t agree on their next move, Alfredo and Jose would start talking in Spanish and after a few minutes they would tell him what the team was going to do. Mexico’s white technocrats, however, have traditionally found it far more lucrative and less work to simply reign over Mexico’s brown masses than to compete on the world market.

This is not the first time supply-siders have fallen deeply, madly in love with a new El Presidente with a glib line of patter about “free markets” and “globalization.” Robert Bartley, the Wall Street Journal’s influential Editorial Page Editor, recalled his romance with President Carlos Salinas (1988-1994) in a WSJ column on July 10. To find out how well the Journal’s infatuation worked out, you don’t have to be a National Security Administration cryptographer to be able to read between Bartley’s lines:

“I was particularly close to Carlos Salinas, who served a time as director of Dow Jones & Co. after finishing his presidency. I was of course familiar with the controversies that surrounded him, for example visiting him in Mexico City on the eve of his flight from the country. Mexican cynicism to the contrary, the analysts I most credit say he did win the 1988 election, with plenty of electoral fraud on two sides but northern voters moving into the PRI camp to avert a leftist victory. I suppose his brother [Raul] belongs in jail, but I see little reason to believe he’s guilty of the assassination conspiracy of which he was convicted. And while Mexican economic policies concocted an explosive mixture in 1994, I think a crisis as huge as the 1995 collapse might have been averted if Pedro Aspe had been kept at the hard-money tiller.

(To get the unbowdlerized story on the Salinas Gang, read my May 5th VDARE column, Shackled to an Ungrateful Corpse,”)

Kudlow goes on to say, “[Fox] also favors closer relations with the U.S. Expect a clear foreign-policy tilt toward America in diplomacy, defense, and — perhaps most importantly — trade and immigration.” Well, to the extent that America’s political, corporate, and media establishment already favor even more immigration from Mexico, Fox will certainly do his best to be “pro-American.”

Fox appeared on ABC’s “This Week” gabfest and trumpeted his solution for illegal immigration: legalize it. “Asked whether he would like to see a totally open border between the United States and Mexico, Fox said, ‘Yes, 10 years from now… That’s what we should shoot for, and then we finish with … illegal migration.“’[Mexico President-Elect Seeks Open Border with U.S.]

Does this sound crazy? Well, he’s crazy like a Fox. By pushing fantasy policies like this, Fox is making it easier for him to get the next American President to agree to some sort of “compromise” like his recent trial balloon that America should let in more Mexican legal immigrants in return for Mexico’s purported help in cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Mexico’s economic problems are so fundamental, so deeply rooted in Mexico’s oppressive racial structure, that the surest thing any Mexican president could do to substantially improve his people’s standard of living is help more of them get the hell out of Mexico. Fox hopes to build a permanent political base among Mexicans in the U.S. and their relatives back home who get remittances from them.

So Fox will use his Yeltsin-like glamour as the liberator of Mexico to badger Washington into accepting more immigrants. Not that he would have to push Dubya terribly hard. How better to show the Compassionate Conservative’s sensitivity to Hispanic concerns than by letting in a million or two more?

Hey, it might not be the first time for the Bush family. A reliable source familiar with the NAFTA negotiations reports that in return for Salinas cutting the price subsidies that would have allowed Mexico’s peasant corn farmers to compete with Midwestern agribusiness, President Bush Sr., in violation of his oath to faithfully execute the laws, secretly agreed to let in more illegal immigrants.

Although the Bush dynasty has had close political and business ties to Mexico’s discredited Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), Kudlow urges Dubya to view Fox as a comrade in arms: “The Fox victory in Mexico could well portend a rising political tide of conservative victories in the U.S. and Canada during the next 12 months.” No doubt, if Dubya wins, the libertarian right will push this we’re-all-in-it-together line of thinking on Bush. The unexpressed flip side to Kudlow’s thinking is that if Fox falters, then it could turn the tide against Dubya. So, Bush had better be ready to bail out Fox to preserve his own hide.

Fox needs a compliant American President just as much as Boris Yeltsin needed an acquiescent Bill Clinton to survive all those years of corrupt, drunken misrule. But Mexico’s most important law limits presidents to a single six year term. Why would Fox need so much American support?

First, though Fox talks about reducing the enormous power of the President, he won’t do it to any important extent. He’ll have no problem talking himself into the belief that decentralization can wait until after he’s used the full power of the Presidency to root out corruption from Mexico. Since this will prove a Sisyphean task, he’ll find endless justifications for postponing imposing checks and balances on himself. Peru’s formidable Alberto Fujimori has followed this road into authoritarianism.

Second, assuming Fox enjoys some success, then I predict that Fox will try to run again (and again after that). That’s what democratically elected Latin American politicians do if they are at all effective. In Argentina, Menem almost succeeded in getting around his country’s two-term limit. Fujimori strong-armed his way to a third term in violation of the law.

Fox will be able to make a case that will seem persuasive to Americans that letting him run again is a “democratic reform.” After all, since Mexican presidents have traditionally been instant lame ducks, they don’t have to worry about pleasing the voters. That’s one reason why they steal such enormous sums.

What Americans won’t understand is the cynical wisdom behind Mexico’s one term tradition. President Calles instituted it in 1929 to keep ambitious politicians and generals from murdering the President, as had happened so often over the previous two decades. The one-term limit inculcated patience as the prime political virtue.

By attempting to stay in power for twelve (and possibly 18 or even 24 years), Fox will vastly raise the stakes in Mexican politics. Ambitious middle-aged men in other factions will fear that Fox will block them from ever getting a crack at supreme power. Tensions will mount and political violence will flare. Washington will grow worried that a new Mexican revolution, like the one that began in 1910 and killed millions, will send twenty million refugees fleeing north toward the border.

The American president will ask Fox what could we do to help preserve democracy in Mexico and stave off civil war. Well, he’ll reply, it would sure let off steam if you’d double or triple your intake of immigrants. All you’d have to do is tell the INS to go easy.

We’re all paying the price for America’s delusions about Yeltsin. The people of America and of Mexico will both suffer if America’s elites continue to ignore the harsh truth about the Mexican power structure.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Conservative Movement, Mexico 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?