When no compromise is possible

In his article about the immigration bill that I wrote about the other day, Charles Krauthammer kept asking why the senators won’t agree to do the one thing they all agree on (border security), and leave aside the things they don’t agree on (everything else):

Comprehensive immigration reform has simply too many contentious provisions to command a majority of Congress or the country. We all agree on enforcement, don’t we? So let’s do it. Make it simple. And do it now. Once our borders come visibly under control, everything else will become doable. Including amnesty.

In the past, of course, Krauthammer was always on the liberal side of the immigration issue. Now, because of the sheer extremity and irresponsibility of the Bush-Kennedy bill, he finds himself on the conservative side of the issue for the first time in his life. And being on the conservative side, he falls into the typical delusion of conservatives, namely he fails to grasp the radical nature of his liberal adversaries. He imagines that there is some reasonable, moderate position with which the liberals will be satisfied, namely to achieve real border security first, then proceed to amnesty. He doesn’t understand that the liberals do not want border security. They don’t care about border security. They resent the very idea of border security. They want to bust America’s borders so wide open they can never be closed again.

It’s like what happened with Britain’s Sexual Orientation Regulations. The conservatives said to the left, “Gentlemen, we are reasonable and tolerant Britons, we support this new law banning all discrimination against homosexuals in the provisions of goods and services. But we’re sure you agree with us that there ought to be an exception for Catholic adoption agencies, which, because of the Catholic disapproval of homosexual relationships, will be forced to close their doors if this bill is applied to them and forces them to adopt children to homosexual couples.” And in response to this reasonable-sounding position, the left changed from its business suit to its leather leggings and badge and coldly said: “All discrimination against homosexuals must be ended, period. When we say all discrimination, we mean all discrimination.” The conservatives were dumbfounded by this extremism, even as they continued to support the Sexual Orientation Regulations as a whole. And so the left won.

For years I have written about the “radical mainstream,” which puts up a front of normality and moderation and so legitimizes itself. In recent years the left has taken off its moderate mask. It wants systematic equality, systematic non-discrimination, comprehensive open borders, and will brook no compromise. Unless conservatives understand this fact about liberalism, they are always going to end up seeking accommodation with radicals with whom no accommodation can be made, and so end up losing everything.

The great thing about the current immigration debate is that vast numbers of Americans seem to have gotten it, even if Krauthammer, so far, has not.

- end of initial entry -

Tim W. writes:

Charles Krauthammer’s willingness to take liberals at their word is typical of neocon or “mainstream” conservative thinking. They view liberals as being slightly misguided individuals who at heart are honest and patriotic. Thus, Krauthammer declares that everyone in the immigration debate agrees that we need real border enforcement, and wonders aloud why we can’t just pass a strict borders law unanimously and then worry about the controversial proposals afterward.

But anyone with half a brain can see that liberals do not want the borders protected. Ted Kennedy may not be the brightest guy around, but he isn’t completely stupid. And only a total moron could have made as many “honest mistakes” as he’s made over the past four decades on immigration. How many times has he assured us that one of his proposals won’t increase the actual number of immigrants, won’t change the demographic nature of the country, won’t lead to future amnesties, or won’t harm border enforcement? Over and over he assured us of these things, and every single time the proposal in question resulted in the precise opposite of what he predicted would happen. Yet all Teddy has to do is declare his support for tougher border enforcement and everyone inside the Beltway believes he really, really does want to crack down on the number of illegals slipping into our country.

This type of outright dishonesty from liberals has been going on since at least the sixties, and “mainstream” conservatives never learn. During the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Hubert Humphrey famously promised that the bill would never in a million years result in reverse discrimination against whites, pledging to eat the entire Congressional Record if it did.

A few weeks ago I made the mistake of turning on Tucker Carlson’s show on MSNBC. He asked his two reporter guests why homosexuals so strongly support Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and other Democrat presidential contenders given that they’ve made it clear they strongly oppose same-sex “marriage”. Everyone agreed that homosexual activists are only supporting these people because they see them as the lesser of evils compared to the Republican candidates. It never occurred to Tucker or his guests that Hillary & Obama are flat-out lying when they claim to oppose same-sex “marriage”, and that homosexual activists support them because they know full well that that’s the case. Overwhelming public opposition to same-sex “marriage” (voters have repeatedly rejected it by large margins on referenda) has merely taught the Democrats that they’ll need to lie about their support for it. Once elected, they’ll use bureaucratic maneuvering and judicial appointments to try to impose same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

It’s the same deal with supposed liberal support for border enforcement. Any statement from them calling for better border control is just a lie.

Joseph C. writes:

How right you are regarding the leftists and their determination to get their way on everything, and on the conservatives’ refusal to call them on it and take a stand. A fried of mine says that the left has nerve but no honor, while the right has honor and no nerve. I do not know what is worse—an enemy that you completely disagree with who is willing to fight you, or an alleged ally with whom you agree on many things but who will not fight for anything no matter how intractable the enemy.

As always, it comes down to principle. Conservatives say they stand for limited government, border security, law enforcement, traditional values, etc. But of course, this is true so long as there is nothing at risk, and standing for something costs nothing, in either political capital or moral opprobrium. But like all moderates, their conservatism is political, not ideological, and tolerance, reasonableness, stability, and conflict avoidance are their first principles.

Oh sure, conservatives say they have limits, and will fight when the other side “goes too far” (whatever that means any more). But they always prattle on about picking their battles and reaching consensus. I remember one of your posts where Norman Podhoretz crowed about the acceptance of certain lifestyles, because “at least they are not rioting in the streets.” So the disintegration of the society didn’t bother NPod, since his peace was not disturbed. And so it goes for all conservatives who say they will fight for their first principles. For the political conservative, no principle on earth is ever worth fighting for, because avoiding fighting is the only principle.

LA replies:

Very interesting. It’s another way of saying that conservatives are a variant of liberals. They must avoid fighting with liberals because that would make them non-liberals.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 19, 2007 11:14 AM | Send