A potential nativist or protectionist theme in the post-cartoon world
Overview
The nativist sentiment that has begun to overflow — taking the form of opposition to the Dubai ports deal — from revulsion at the cartoon riots presents a possible path to victory for Democrats, giving them a plausible coherent narrative that they have lacked since 9-11.
Discussion
Wretchard makes a fascinating point, that the MSM’s refusal to show the cartoons is less about fear than about their desire to keep the current World War defined small. It is clearly true that the Left has sought to minimize the War. You recall the argument that America created the terrorists in Iraq; you recall the Democratic presidential candidate making his famous “nuisance” comment to Matt Bai of the NYT in October 2004:
When I asked Kerry what it would take for Americans to feel safe again, he displayed a much less apocalyptic worldview. ”We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,” Kerry said. ”As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”
As we have noted, the cartoon riots make it clear that the Islamists are aggressive and violent, they are fervent with ideology, they are waging war as they can, they have global goals, they won’t be placated, and they’re coming our way. The cartoon riots make it clear that President Bush has not exaggerated the danger, but has minimized it in his rhetoric. Wretchard says that the Left has no plan or policy to deal with the idea that the conflict is even greater than Bush has claimed, since they have been fully invested in precisely the opposite worldview. He is correct.
One of the early benefits of democracy in the Islamic world — with Ahmadinejad and Hamas — has been for us to see how potent and popular a movement Islamism actually is. This has been confirmed and writ large by the cartoon riots. We believe that the ports controversy and the Halimi funeral demonstration in Paris suggest that the mood of the people in the West may be shifting to the right of even conservative governments. We see people pretending to have nice thoughts and tolerant feelings, but secretly harboring deep bigotries of the sort commonly expressed a century ago, but fobidden today.
At the moment it seems unlikely that they Left could seek to come to power by exploiting nativist sentiments, given how PC the Left has become over the last generation. Watching Senators Shumer and Clinton on the ports controversy, however, suggests that this scenario should not be ruled out.
UPDATE
With regard to a possible emergent Democrat nativist theme, we note that Ari Berman in the Nation has nice things to say about Montana Democratic governor Brian Schweitzer’s appearance on 60 Minutes, in which the governor shares some opinions about foreigners.
“Why wouldn’t we create an economic engine that will take us into the next century, and let those sheiks and dictators and rats and crooks from all over the world boil in their own oil?” Schweitzer said at a press conference. Schweitzer has called them rats and crooks and hasn’t held back on bit. “Hugo Chavez, the Saudi royal family, the leaders of Iran,” he said. “How about the countries that end with ’stan’? Nigeria? You tell me. Sheiks, rats, crooks, dictators, sure.”
Dennis the Peasant notes, with disapproval, other examples of similar sentiments on the Left. Never say never.
UPDATE II
A Fox poll shows strong sentiment against the ports deal across the board, with Republicans — the group most favorable to the deal — 2 to 1 against:
The poll has a biased sample of 43/33 Democrat to Republican, which gives Fox a scare headline to lead with (ie, Bush approval below 40%), but is irrelevant to the port question. The poll is of registered voters, which means that the GOP needs to take the anti-Dubai and nativist sentiment very seriously.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
The Democrats’ purity on this issue has now been undercut by the disclosure that Bill Clinton has been playing footsie with Dubai while his wife inveighs against the P&O deal (as always, Bubba’s narcissism trumps party, principle, everything); that besides Bob Dole, the other big lobbying firm working on this for Dubai features Clinton’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (whose mental acuity can be judged from the fact that she ‘forgot’ she was Jewish); and, more broadly, by Al Gore’s disgraceful boot-licking remarks to the Saudis several weeks ago. So much for the Democrats…
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:47 am
I fail to understand why so many leading conservatives feel the need to defend the Dubai ports deal. Frankly, I think they are grabbing onto this issue to show that they are not “nativist” — despite their strong support for the war on terror, which inevitably carries an anti-Islam tone about it (despite all the protestations about Islam being a “religion of peace”). This strikes me as “politically correct” posturing that is actually quite politically dumb, as you point out in your post.
The war on terror has shown in stark, unavoidable terms that our civilization and Islamic civilization are neither morally equal nor politically compatible. Peaceful coexistence will not be possible, if at all, until the western powers demonstrate to the Islamic world, as they did to the Soviet Union and its proxies, that they will not allow themselves to be pushed around or subverted from within. We cannot apologize our way to peace, or buy peace through “friendly” commercial transactions (after all, we buy lots and lots of Middle Eastern oil and look where we are today). Most Americans are starting to understand this. Hence, the rising political salience of anti-immigration sentiment and the anti-Dubai reaction. For Republicans to cede this issue to Democrats strikes me as political folly and a national security disaster — because for all their recent tough talk, Democrats cannot be trusted to deal forcefully with our enemies abroad or at home.
March 5th, 2006 at 8:20 am
The fact that the term “nativist” has been settled upon so quickly by the MSM tells us that the Democrats and their ideologists, the academic left, will NEVER pursue that policy. “Nativist” is used to refer to groups like the Know-Nothings, Anglo-Americans during immigration absorption difficulty times like the Irish famine and the late 19th century, and the ultimate evil, the Klan. “Nativist” = “Racist”, nativist bad!
Also the Democratic hacendados are trying desperately to keep Hispanic immigrants illiterate and dependent on handouts, and “Nativist” is a good term to use to frighten Pedro.