National Review's cruisers have left the port and are now aurora-gazing and glacier-hiking and grizzly-fleeing. Say a quick prayer that Jim can run faster than his buddy. On Immigration, Walker Is Talking the Talk Everything you need to know about the state of the union, in a headline (courtesy of the Washington Post): "Scott Walker tells undocumented worker that immigrants must follow the law": PLAINFIELD, Iowa — As presidential hopeful Scott Walker toured a farm in this tiny town where he lived as a child, he was confronted by an undocumented worker from Mexico who is living in Wisconsin and demanded to know why Walker does not support President Obama's plan to give temporary status to some undocumented workers, including parents of children who were born in the United States. "We're a nation of laws," Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, repeatedly told Jose Flores, 38, who was joined by two of his four children, Luis, 7, and Leslie, 13, who had tears rolling down her cheeks throughout the exchange. Flores, who lives in Waukesha and works for a medical supply factory, said he and his wife live in fear of being deported and separated from their children, who he said were all born in the United States. "My point," Walker said, "is that you have to follow the law, follow the process." A nation of laws -- what a concept! National Review has noted Walker's about-face on the subject of amnesty, but since his declaration that he had changed his mind, not only has he been consistent in his remarks on the topic, he has gone further than any other candidate in calling for a wholesale reevaluation of immigration priorities -- with American workers specially in mind. Note the last sentence here: Walker was forceful as he told the Flores family that immigrants must follow the rules, but he added, "I completely sympathize with the situation you're all in and others are in." One of the activists, Sam Freeman of Wisconsin's Voces de la Frontera, cut the governor off and shouted, "So that's why you want to separate their family?" Walker curtly said that he wanted to talk only with the family and that their plight is the reason the United States must go forward with "putting in place a logical system." To address illegal immigration, Walker said, the nation needs to secure the border and enforce its laws before it can focus on other issues. An immigration system cannot come at the cost of American workers and their wages, he added. It's an important point, one which demands debate -- a debate that, as I wrote back in April, the Republican party seems notoriously unwilling to have: There is, finally, a question of principle at stake. Is the Republican party a party of ideas, of free and open debate in which the best ideas can win the day? Or is it a party of censorship that requires toeing predetermined lines? Because it is the Left that is notorious for demanding ideological uniformity; it is the Left that ostracizes and excommunicates. Democrats' marketplace of ideas has always been a command economy — which is why Hillary Clinton's ideas are from the 1990s, and Barack Obama's were from the 1930s. But the reaction to Walker's call for an open debate on legal-immigration policy has been indistinguishable from what one sees on the left. A Republican party that shouts down anyone who calls for a closer examination of the evidence is thoroughly illiberal — or thoroughly liberal, as the case may be. John Thune, John McCain, et al. presumably do not support open borders, which means the question has to be, Where do we draw the line? Scott Walker wants to ask that question. A healthy party would have the debate, and eagerly. Yes, Terror Works Via the Washington Post: The top editor and publisher of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical French newspaper that suffered a deadly terrorist attack in January, said the publication would no longer draw the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have garnered it worldwide notoriety. "We have drawn Muhammad to defend the principle that one can draw whatever one wants," said Laurent Sourisseau, in an interview this week with Stern, a German magazine. But Sourisseau, who goes by the cartoonist nickname "Riss," said that it was not Charlie Hebdo's intent to be "possessed" by its critique of Islam. "The mistakes you could blame Islam for can be found in other religions," he said. It's hard to blame Charlie Hebdo after what the magazine has been through. Would I have the courage in the wake of such slaughter? I don't know. But at least when Jyllands-Posten, which became famous for the Mohammed cartoons that sparked riots in the Middle East in 2006, refused to published the offending Charlie Hebdo covers earlier this year, it acknowledged that it was out of fear. In Mr. Sourisseau's statement, there is a great deal of dissembling, if not self-deception. The effort to equate Islam's violence with that of "other religions" is just shallow secularist dogma; presumably Charlie Hebdo will continue to publish "offensive" images of Jesus, fully aware that French Catholics will not take up arms. And, of course, the principle of being able "to draw whatever one wants" is not won once and for all. It must be continually defended -- against those who attack it most aggressively. At the moment, the aggressor is Islam. It's difficult to see this as anything but capitulation to fear. Mr. Sourisseau should call it that. We would not fault him for being human. The Blaring Trump-et Finally, in case you missed it this weekend, your unneeded reminder that Donald Trump is an indubitable tool: Trump, speaking at a question-and-answer session at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, commented on [Arizona senator John] McCain, with whom he's recently feuded over illegal immigration. "He is not a war hero," Trump told pollster Frank Luntz, who was hosting the session. "He is a war hero," Luntz interjected. "He is a war hero because he was captured," Trump said, cutting him off. "I like people that weren't captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He is a war hero because he was captured. OK, you can have -- I believe perhaps he is a war hero." On the Corner, The Boss notes: The media is now writing that Trump is toast because of this episode. Trump will eventually be toast (the witless bravado will lose its charm over time), but it will almost certainly take more than this because 1) it's John McCain, who is anathema to Tea Party voters for some very good reasons; and 2) Trump was responding to McCain's provocation of calling conservatives in his state who responded to Trump's immigration message "crazies." All that gives Trump a little cushion in this instance, but there will be more where this came from. There will indeed. Because it's not (just) the substance of Trump's remarks that is repellent. It's the tone of the whole exchange: nasty, scoffing, self-aggrandizing. You can dislike McCain, agree with Trump that he should get a forceful primary, think McCain was flip in describing Trump's audience in Arizona as "crazies" -- and also think that Donald Trump puts the "ass" in "crass." I understand that conservative voters are tired of the conciliatory "nice guy," "Beltway Republican" who can't win Ohio and Florida. But there are candidates -- Walker, Rubio, andPerry come to mind immediately -- who speak forcefully on issues close to the hearts of Tea Party conservatives, and do it without also being, well, jerks. ADDENDUM: Bored today? Trump your cat. | 
Comments
Post a Comment