American Exceptionalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very proud of what we have accomplished in this country but the people going on about American Exceptionalism sound a lot like the Nazis and their Thousand Year Reich.

I agree. Generally, people in other nations enjoy a certain amount of nationalism and think they're country is exceptional. I don't know what the issue is with Obama's one-time statement that Americans feel they are exceptional, the Greeks believe Greece is exceptional, etc. What's the issue?

But carrying it to the point of ONE country being superior, sounds too much like the Aryan superiority doctrine of Hitler.

America has been on the slide (at a faster rate during the 8-year Dubya/Cheney reign). I see the degradation of education due to Republican sponsored animus to cut education budgets every chance they get. Education is the foundation and platform to strengthen the backbone of any nation. Without this, you got nothing. Exceptionalism is the first to go.

should be their. Sorry for misspelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope I can state this as a serious question, not another left/right bashing party: It seems that recognizing American exceptionalism has become the right's new test of patriotism. To me, however, this is jingoism, praising our country by denigrating others.

I don't mean to say anything negative about America. I was born here and cannot imagine considering myself anything but an American. I have no desire to move to another country. I have spent time elsewhere and, much as I have enjoyed other countries, I always considered myself a foreigner there. This is my country and I love it. But just as I love my wife and family above all others and yet can see that they have their faults and are not inherently superior to other people, so I see faults with my country and don't presume it to be superior in all respects to every other nation.

My question is, am I missing something? Can someone tell me whether I am misunderstanding the phrase?

I'll take a stab at responding. People on the right, myself included, want to elect politicians who feel that America is a country with positive attributes that distinguish it from other countries, and that those positive attributes ought to be protected and preserved. This desire is prompted, in large part, by what seems to be the desire of the left to see America as fundamentally flawed, particularly in contrast to the vastly more statist social democracies of Europe, and to change America to be more like them. It also goes to whether America has a culture that is worth preserving (I think it does), or whether that culture ought to be significantly transformed via multiculturalism, mass immigration, etc. The point is that right and left really do have fundamental disagreements on these issues, and the language of American exceptionalism is really just shorthand for declaring which side of those issues you are on.

For those of us who do not want to be more like Europe, especially, willingness to defend America-as-it-exists, as opposed to America-as-it-might-be-reformed, seems a pretty good proxy for politicians who are more likely to be on our side than not. This is not to say that America is without flaws, of course; it is merely to point out that whether you view America as basically-good-with-flaws vs. America as basically-bad-with-some-redeeming-qualities actually is a pretty significant difference in world view that has a lot of consequences. Because committed progressives generally can't really bring themselves to articulate the many positives about America or the (in my view) reality that America is clearly better, on the merits, than almost every other society that currently exists, it is a pretty good way to identify what people really think and vote accordingly. Yes, the Europeans have their defenders, and it is not unreasonable to view them as better -- reasonable minds can disagree on this point, in my view.

To me, the political left obsessively focuses on America's flaws without any real perspective as to where America actually stacks up compared to other regimes that actually exist, and holds America to a standard vastly higher than any other country; indeed, to a standard that is vastly higher than any actual government that exists in the real world could ever meet, given the flawed world we live in. This is done to justify ever more radical "reforms" designed to address "problems" in a society that, as a practical matter, is pretty darn good in my view, especially given what human beings are like and what sorts of political arrangements are actually possible.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, 10:12. That's the kind of answer I was hoping for. I think we can agree on several of your descriptions, even though I am on the liberal side. I also see America as having "positive attributes" that "ought to be protected and preserved," and "as basically-good-with-flaws." Where we sometimes differ is in our view of which aspects are good and which are flaws.

I think the feeling that we liberals want to apologize for America comes from the fact that we want to apologize for flaws, like the exalting of guns and the persecution of homosexuals, which many conservatives celebrate as quintessentially American.

Similarly, conservatives see as flaws some of the things we liberals strive for. But rather than apologizing for those things, some conservatives attack them as un-American and imply that we liberals are un-American because we have a different view of how to improve the America that we also love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'll take a stab at responding. People on the right, myself included, want to elect politicians who feel that America is a country with positive attributes that distinguish it from other countries, and that those positive attributes ought to be protected and preserved. This desire is prompted, in large part, by what seems to be the desire of the left to see America as fundamentally flawed, particularly in contrast to the vastly more statist social democracies of Europe, and to change America to be more like them. It also goes to whether America has a culture that is worth preserving (I think it does), or whether that culture ought to be significantly transformed via multiculturalism, mass immigration, etc. The point is that right and left really do have fundamental disagreements on these issues, and the language of American exceptionalism is really just shorthand for declaring which side of those issues you are on.

For those of us who do not want to be more like Europe, especially, willingness to defend America-as-it-exists, as opposed to America-as-it-might-be-reformed, seems a pretty good proxy for politicians who are more likely to be on our side than not. This is not to say that America is without flaws, of course; it is merely to point out that whether you view America as basically-good-with-flaws vs. America as basically-bad-with-some-redeeming-qualities actually is a pretty significant difference in world view that has a lot of consequences. Because committed progressives generally can't really bring themselves to articulate the many positives about America or the (in my view) reality that America is clearly better, on the merits, than almost every other society that currently exists, it is a pretty good way to identify what people really think and vote accordingly. Yes, the Europeans have their defenders, and it is not unreasonable to view them as better -- reasonable minds can disagree on this point, in my view.

To me, the political left obsessively focuses on America's flaws without any real perspective as to where America actually stacks up compared to other regimes that actually exist, and holds America to a standard vastly higher than any other country; indeed, to a standard that is vastly higher than any actual government that exists in the real world could ever meet, given the flawed world we live in. This is done to justify ever more radical "reforms" designed to address "problems" in a society that, as a practical matter, is pretty darn good in my view, especially given what human beings are like and what sorts of political arrangements are actually possible.

This is a really interesting analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but it's well thought out. I do have a couple of questions, though. When you say American culture is worth preserving, what are you talking about specifically? And do you think progressives are proactively trying to change the culture by implementing or enforcing policies that favor or protect other ethnicities? In my leftist view, at least, we are trying to protect certain American rights for "all" people, not just some. And if that means a good portion of the U.S. ends up speaking Spanish primarily, so be it. It's the natural progression of things. Will I be sad if English isn't the primary language someday? Probably. But that is incidental to the greater good, IMO, of fighting for and preserving Constitutional rights, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'll take a stab at responding. People on the right, myself included, want to elect politicians who feel that America is a country with positive attributes that distinguish it from other countries, and that those positive attributes ought to be protected and preserved. This desire is prompted, in large part, by what seems to be the desire of the left to see America as fundamentally flawed, particularly in contrast to the vastly more statist social democracies of Europe, and to change America to be more like them. It also goes to whether America has a culture that is worth preserving (I think it does), or whether that culture ought to be significantly transformed via multiculturalism, mass immigration, etc. The point is that right and left really do have fundamental disagreements on these issues, and the language of American exceptionalism is really just shorthand for declaring which side of those issues you are on.

For those of us who do not want to be more like Europe, especially, willingness to defend America-as-it-exists, as opposed to America-as-it-might-be-reformed, seems a pretty good proxy for politicians who are more likely to be on our side than not. This is not to say that America is without flaws, of course; it is merely to point out that whether you view America as basically-good-with-flaws vs. America as basically-bad-with-some-redeeming-qualities actually is a pretty significant difference in world view that has a lot of consequences. Because committed progressives generally can't really bring themselves to articulate the many positives about America or the (in my view) reality that America is clearly better, on the merits, than almost every other society that currently exists, it is a pretty good way to identify what people really think and vote accordingly. Yes, the Europeans have their defenders, and it is not unreasonable to view them as better -- reasonable minds can disagree on this point, in my view.

To me, the political left obsessively focuses on America's flaws without any real perspective as to where America actually stacks up compared to other regimes that actually exist, and holds America to a standard vastly higher than any other country; indeed, to a standard that is vastly higher than any actual government that exists in the real world could ever meet, given the flawed world we live in. This is done to justify ever more radical "reforms" designed to address "problems" in a society that, as a practical matter, is pretty darn good in my view, especially given what human beings are like and what sorts of political arrangements are actually possible.

This is a really interesting analysis. I don't agree with all of it, but it's well thought out. I do have a couple of questions, though. When you say American culture is worth preserving, what are you talking about specifically? And do you think progressives are proactively trying to change the culture by implementing or enforcing policies that favor or protect other ethnicities? In my leftist view, at least, we are trying to protect certain American rights for "all" people, not just some. And if that means a good portion of the U.S. ends up speaking Spanish primarily, so be it. It's the natural progression of things. Will I be sad if English isn't the primary language someday? Probably. But that is incidental to the greater good, IMO, of fighting for and preserving Constitutional rights, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or nationality.

Let's take Spanish language, it's a good example. You say that it is the "natural progression of things," perhaps, if a good portion of the U.S. ends up speaking Spanish primarily. But that isn't so -- it is the result of very specific policy choices regarding immigration. It is not just accidental or natural, it is a policy choice based on a left-wing world view regarding the relative value of certain human interests (i.e., the trade-off between making immigrants better off by allowing them to come here vs. the interests of the people who already are here.) (There's also a right-wing business view of the benefit of lower cost labor, I leave that aside for now, since the issue is quite complex.) My own view is that there is a little bit of a flavor of "let's elect a new people" to the left-wing push for open borders, but perhaps that is uncharitable.

Now, there is nothing wrong with Spanish per se. But there is, in my view, quite a bit of risk associated with changing a single-language nation into a bilingual nation, because language differences are political fault lines in many countries, such as Canada and Belgium. Is it really realistic to expect people who can't even speak to one another to see themselves as part of a single nation? Aren't there likely to be unintended consequences to that? How many good examples of successful multi-ethnic and multi-lingual democracies are there?

Also, in a democracy, if you change the demographics of the population, you change the political outcomes. And if you import significant numbers of people with different cultural assumptions, you change the culture. And, if I recall correctly, recent research suggests that increasing the level of diversity in a society decreases the trust level across the board, even within ethnic or socioeconomic groups, and the level of trust within a society is a very strong predictor of economic success.

On some of the other points you mention, I don't think conservatives actually disagree that rights for "all" should be protected, the disagreement is simply what falls within the category of rights. Ultimately, I think the left is way too confident in their prescriptions for social reform, and way too dismissive of the prospect for unintended consequences. I don't expect you to agree, but hope you have a little better sense of where I am coming from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you, 10:12. That's the kind of answer I was hoping for. I think we can agree on several of your descriptions, even though I am on the liberal side. I also see America as having "positive attributes" that "ought to be protected and preserved," and "as basically-good-with-flaws." Where we sometimes differ is in our view of which aspects are good and which are flaws.

I think the feeling that we liberals want to apologize for America comes from the fact that we want to apologize for flaws, like the exalting of guns and the persecution of homosexuals, which many conservatives celebrate as quintessentially American.

Similarly, conservatives see as flaws some of the things we liberals strive for. But rather than apologizing for those things, some conservatives attack them as un-American and imply that we liberals are un-American because we have a different view of how to improve the America that we also love.

I think this, esp. the last sentence, is very well said.

I heard someone (Bill Maher?) say that America was like the valedictorian of summer school-- we're great in comparison to what's out there, but that doesn't mean we should sit around congratulating ourselves on how great we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Similarly, conservatives see as flaws some of the things we liberals strive for. But rather than apologizing for those things, some conservatives attack them as un-American and imply that we liberals are un-American because we have a different view of how to improve the America that we also love.

I think this, esp. the last sentence, is very well said.

I heard someone (Bill Maher?) say that America was like the valedictorian of summer school-- we're great in comparison to what's out there, but that doesn't mean we should sit around congratulating ourselves on how great we are.

That sentence may be well-said, but is it true? Do you really disagree that there are broad swathes of the left who don't seem to love America much, or at all, or that such love is fundamentally conditional upon an on-going leftward reformation, and will be abandoned if that changes? Not accusing OP of that, but it is often how it sounds to those of us on the other side. I'm not trolling, that really is how it seems sometimes. And yes, I freely acknowledge that many well-meaning liberals are often unfairly accused of being anti-american by those on the right. And that's wrong. But isn't there a grain of truth there that you may be ignoring?

And Maher is glib, but is he right? Given human nature, what can we really expect a country or its government to be? It is easy to say we're the top student in summer school, but if there is no real school out there to point to -- and there doesn't seem to be -- how is this anything other then empty rhetoric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, in a democracy, if you change the demographics of the population, you change the political outcomes. And if you import significant numbers of people with different cultural assumptions, you change the culture.

On some of the other points you mention, I don't think conservatives actually disagree that rights for "all" should be protected, the disagreement is simply what falls within the category of rights. Ultimately, I think the left is way too confident in their prescriptions for social reform, and way too dismissive of the prospect for unintended consequences. I don't expect you to agree, but hope you have a little better sense of where I am coming from.

Well, this already happened with the decimation of the Native American population and tribes following the British invasion. Why is it acceptable for a crown/government to come for a land grab and exterminate the indigenous population & culture but not for legal immigrants to affect cultural change? I don't think immigration will exact a marked cultural change, but it will influence culture, foods, festivities by region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, in a democracy, if you change the demographics of the population, you change the political outcomes. And if you import significant numbers of people with different cultural assumptions, you change the culture.

On some of the other points you mention, I don't think conservatives actually disagree that rights for "all" should be protected, the disagreement is simply what falls within the category of rights. Ultimately, I think the left is way too confident in their prescriptions for social reform, and way too dismissive of the prospect for unintended consequences. I don't expect you to agree, but hope you have a little better sense of where I am coming from.

Well, this already happened with the decimation of the Native American population and tribes following the British invasion. Why is it acceptable for a crown/government to come for a land grab and exterminate the indigenous population & culture but not for legal immigrants to affect cultural change? I don't think immigration will exact a marked cultural change, but it will influence culture, foods, festivities by region.

See, this I don't follow. I don't think anyone would argue that the decimation of the Native Americans was "acceptable." It surely wasn't by modern standards, although history is filled with conquest and genocide, people being what they are. But how does that matter to what we do today? Nothing we do today will undo that historic fact, and it is not at all clear to me that there is an answer as to what this history means for the ethical obligations of the descendants of those who decimated the Native Americans. That strikes me as a complex and debatable question.

But it reveals an interesting assumption I see in the left -- the idea that because Americans did that in the past, somehow they have it coming if it is done to them in return, and accordingly it is wrong, indeed immoral, to resist. See here for a particularly pathological example. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/3/916577/-An-Open-Letter-to-the-White-Right,-On-the-Occasion-of-Your-Recent,-Successful-Temper-Tantrum Not saying you agree with that dude, not a bit, but it highlights a way of thinking about the world that, in far less pathological form, does underlie some of the views of the American left, or so at least it seems to me.

As for whether immigration will exact a marked cultural change, there we just disagree, we're not going to convince one another, and it is pretty much an empirical question anyway. Time will tell, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Similarly, conservatives see as flaws some of the things we liberals strive for. But rather than apologizing for those things, some conservatives attack them as un-American and imply that we liberals are un-American because we have a different view of how to improve the America that we also love.

I think this, esp. the last sentence, is very well said.

I heard someone (Bill Maher?) say that America was like the valedictorian of summer school-- we're great in comparison to what's out there, but that doesn't mean we should sit around congratulating ourselves on how great we are.

That sentence may be well-said, but is it true? Do you really disagree that there are broad swathes of the left who don't seem to love America much, or at all, or that such love is fundamentally conditional upon an on-going leftward reformation, and will be abandoned if that changes? Not accusing OP of that, but it is often how it sounds to those of us on the other side. I'm not trolling, that really is how it seems sometimes. And yes, I freely acknowledge that many well-meaning liberals are often unfairly accused of being anti-american by those on the right. And that's wrong. But isn't there a grain of truth there that you may be ignoring?

And Maher is glib, but is he right? Given human nature, what can we really expect a country or its government to be? It is easy to say we're the top student in summer school, but if there is no real school out there to point to -- and there doesn't seem to be -- how is this anything other then empty rhetoric?

Thanks for all of your postings. Your analysis is quite thoughtful (though, I don't agree with quite a bit of what you said).

In the paragraph I highlighted, aren't you playing with words here. Would the right still love America if it continued a leftward reformation? Or would they love America but not necessarily all of their (new) fellow Americans. It's hard for me to say, because I think they would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent that from happening. It feels like the right is fighting to keep a very narrowly defined, less inclusive definition of America or what it means to be American.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Similarly, conservatives see as flaws some of the things we liberals strive for. But rather than apologizing for those things, some conservatives attack them as un-American and imply that we liberals are un-American because we have a different view of how to improve the America that we also love.

I think this, esp. the last sentence, is very well said.

I heard someone (Bill Maher?) say that America was like the valedictorian of summer school-- we're great in comparison to what's out there, but that doesn't mean we should sit around congratulating ourselves on how great we are.

That sentence may be well-said, but is it true? Do you really disagree that there are broad swathes of the left who don't seem to love America much, or at all, or that such love is fundamentally conditional upon an on-going leftward reformation, and will be abandoned if that changes? Not accusing OP of that, but it is often how it sounds to those of us on the other side. I'm not trolling, that really is how it seems sometimes. And yes, I freely acknowledge that many well-meaning liberals are often unfairly accused of being anti-american by those on the right. And that's wrong. But isn't there a grain of truth there that you may be ignoring?

And Maher is glib, but is he right? Given human nature, what can we really expect a country or its government to be? It is easy to say we're the top student in summer school, but if there is no real school out there to point to -- and there doesn't seem to be -- how is this anything other then empty rhetoric?

Thanks for all of your postings. Your analysis is quite thoughtful (though, I don't agree with quite a bit of what you said).

In the paragraph I highlighted, aren't you playing with words here. Would the right still love America if it continued a leftward reformation? Or would they love America but not necessarily all of their (new) fellow Americans. It's hard for me to say, because I think they would fight tooth-and-nail to prevent that from happening. It feels like the right is fighting to keep a very narrowly defined, less inclusive definition of America or what it means to be American.

But that's my point. The right really loves the America they have right now and doesn't want it to change, at least not fundamentally; the left really loves the fundamentally different America they intend to put into place, and are deeply conflicted about the America that actually exists today. At least, at a very broad brush level. Whatever the merits of the issue, that is a meaningful difference.

You say the right is fighting to keep a "narrowly defined, less inclusive definition of America" -- that a relative statement, and I'm not sure what, specifically, you are comparing it to. What is it that you think is not included in that definition that you want put it? I'm sure it is obvious to you, but it isn't to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, in a democracy, if you change the demographics of the population, you change the political outcomes. And if you import significant numbers of people with different cultural assumptions, you change the culture.

On some of the other points you mention, I don't think conservatives actually disagree that rights for "all" should be protected, the disagreement is simply what falls within the category of rights. Ultimately, I think the left is way too confident in their prescriptions for social reform, and way too dismissive of the prospect for unintended consequences. I don't expect you to agree, but hope you have a little better sense of where I am coming from.

Well, this already happened with the decimation of the Native American population and tribes following the British invasion. Why is it acceptable for a crown/government to come for a land grab and exterminate the indigenous population & culture but not for legal immigrants to affect cultural change? I don't think immigration will exact a marked cultural change, but it will influence culture, foods, festivities by region.

See, this I don't follow. I don't think anyone would argue that the decimation of the Native Americans was "acceptable." It surely wasn't by modern standards, although history is filled with conquest and genocide, people being what they are. But how does that matter to what we do today? Nothing we do today will undo that historic fact, and it is not at all clear to me that there is an answer as to what this history means for the ethical obligations of the descendants of those who decimated the Native Americans. That strikes me as a complex and debatable question.

But it reveals an interesting assumption I see in the left -- the idea that because Americans did that in the past, somehow they have it coming if it is done to them in return, and accordingly it is wrong, indeed immoral, to resist. See here for a particularly pathological example. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/3/916577/-An-Open-Letter-to-the-White-Right,-On-the-Occasion-of-Your-Recent,-Successful-Temper-Tantrum Not saying you agree with that dude, not a bit, but it highlights a way of thinking about the world that, in far less pathological form, does underlie some of the views of the American left, or so at least it seems to me.

As for whether immigration will exact a marked cultural change, there we just disagree, we're not going to convince one another, and it is pretty much an empirical question anyway. Time will tell, I guess.

I threw this out there for thought to point out that throughout the course of world history, there has ALWAYS been migration, whether by a single tribe or a whole civilization due to drought, search of food, etc. Did you know the Finnish language is close to the Hungarian language when they are nowhere near each other? It's because the Hungarian tribes (im)migrated to Finland centuries ago. Cultures, like language, evolve with time. We certainly don't use the same vocabulary from 20-50 years ago, right?


I don't know if you're anti-immigration altogether or anti-undocumented immigration, but you can't stem the flow. Maybe you can stem it a little more than they did during the times of immigration thru Ellis Island. FWIW, I agree that there need to be some controls on whom to let in and whom not to let in: criminals, drug/human traffickers, as an example.

[Anonymous]

I do not understand the conservative point of view on American exceptionalism.

Exceptional individuals in any context are those who constantly push themselves to be better, to grow and change.

The bedrock of biological nature is change and adaptation. Species unable to change get weeded out as other, more adaptive species outcompete them.

In the sphere of politics, our very ideas of democracy and liberty were the product of political and philosophical change.

In world history, time and again countries that fail to change get relegated to the dustbin of history. Empires fall because they do not adapt.

And America's strength has been in its ability to grow and change. We went from an ineffective confederacy to a unified nation. We moved from an agrarian society, through manufacturing, and on to technology and services. We moved from an isolated nation to a world power.

And yet, despite universal evidence that change is necessary for growth, we have this odd conservative notion: that staying the same is the key to success.

John Locke's ideas were not yet 100 years old when our founding fathers adopted them in our Constitution. They were grasping with, historically, the new and the radical. Their entire body of work, from Declaration of Independence to Articles of Confederation to the drafting of the Constitution was created in 11 feverish years by a country that was brand new.

Do we honesty think that they would look favorably on us, 221 years later, if we did not attempt to move forward, to advance their ideas? Would they not have attempted to confront the implications of modern society? The average person in 1789 lived on a farm and died around the age of 40, probably a handful of miles from where they were born. We now have family around the country, we work in information, and we live to our upper 70's. I think it impossible that a bunch of radical thinkers would have been content to sit on their second try at government without lifting a finger to make it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
But that's my point. The right really loves the America they have right now and doesn't want it to change, at least not fundamentally; the left really loves the fundamentally different America they intend to put into place, and are deeply conflicted about the America that actually exists today. At least, at a very broad brush level. Whatever the merits of the issue, that is a meaningful difference.

You say the right is fighting to keep a "narrowly defined, less inclusive definition of America" -- that a relative statement, and I'm not sure what, specifically, you are comparing it to. What is it that you think is not included in that definition that you want put it? I'm sure it is obvious to you, but it isn't to me.

I think this is all angels dancing on the head of a pin. I think both conservatives and liberals have a picture in their head of what "America" they are striving for, and their are *pieces* of actual America today that match up to both of those pictures. Arguing over who is a "real" American, or who loves America more, or who wants to change America "fundamentally", are all just ways of saying "my pictures/parts of America are better than yours".

It must be the same impulse that lets you say that it's wrong to say that liberals who want to improve America are "unamerican" and then say in the very same sentence that there's a grain of truth in saying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also, in a democracy, if you change the demographics of the population, you change the political outcomes. And if you import significant numbers of people with different cultural assumptions, you change the culture.

On some of the other points you mention, I don't think conservatives actually disagree that rights for "all" should be protected, the disagreement is simply what falls within the category of rights. Ultimately, I think the left is way too confident in their prescriptions for social reform, and way too dismissive of the prospect for unintended consequences. I don't expect you to agree, but hope you have a little better sense of where I am coming from.

Well, this already happened with the decimation of the Native American population and tribes following the British invasion. Why is it acceptable for a crown/government to come for a land grab and exterminate the indigenous population & culture but not for legal immigrants to affect cultural change? I don't think immigration will exact a marked cultural change, but it will influence culture, foods, festivities by region.

See, this I don't follow. I don't think anyone would argue that the decimation of the Native Americans was "acceptable." It surely wasn't by modern standards, although history is filled with conquest and genocide, people being what they are. But how does that matter to what we do today? Nothing we do today will undo that historic fact, and it is not at all clear to me that there is an answer as to what this history means for the ethical obligations of the descendants of those who decimated the Native Americans. That strikes me as a complex and debatable question.

But it reveals an interesting assumption I see in the left -- the idea that because Americans did that in the past, somehow they have it coming if it is done to them in return, and accordingly it is wrong, indeed immoral, to resist. See here for a particularly pathological example. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/3/916577/-An-Open-Letter-to-the-White-Right,-On-the-Occasion-of-Your-Recent,-Successful-Temper-Tantrum Not saying you agree with that dude, not a bit, but it highlights a way of thinking about the world that, in far less pathological form, does underlie some of the views of the American left, or so at least it seems to me.

As for whether immigration will exact a marked cultural change, there we just disagree, we're not going to convince one another, and it is pretty much an empirical question anyway. Time will tell, I guess.

I threw this out there for thought to point out that throughout the course of world history, there has ALWAYS been migration, whether by a single tribe or a whole civilization due to drought, search of food, etc. Did you know the Finnish language is close to the Hungarian language when they are nowhere near each other? It's because the Hungarian tribes (im)migrated to Finland centuries ago. Cultures, like language, evolve with time. We certainly don't use the same vocabulary from 20-50 years ago, right?


I don't know if you're anti-immigration altogether or anti-undocumented immigration, but you can't stem the flow. Maybe you can stem it a little more than they did during the times of immigration thru Ellis Island. FWIW, I agree that there need to be some controls on whom to let in and whom not to let in: criminals, drug/human traffickers, as an example.

Of course we can. Our capabilities are somewhat greater than centuries ago. Nor is it required to grant immigrants or their children citizenship; Europe generally does not, for example. That's the bait-and-switch of the liberal view: declare their preferred policy "inevitable" to argue that it is wasteful and immoral to oppose it.

I'm not anti-immigration per se, although I think it needs to be kept a levels that are low compared to the size of the overall population, certainly for the near future. Legalizing 10 million illegal immigrants is too many in my view; I think we should tighten enforcement on employers significantly and most people would likely return to their homes over time. If I were king I'd generally limit immigration to only those with high levels of skills or education, eliminate birthright citizenship, and focus on assimilating the large number of immigrants we currently have in place. No chance that any of that will happen, but that's what I would favor.