Abolishing America (contd.): Iowa`s Options – “Diversity” Or “Hate”?

The debate over immigration may
have smothered in its cradle in Washington and national
politics, but in more real places it`s still alive and
kicking.  One
such place is Iowa, which for the last nine months has
been pregnant with controversy over the issue.

Last September, the state`s
Democratic governor, Tom
was infected with the idea that what Iowa
really needs are more immigrants—namely 350,000 of
them—to be imported from Third World countries to help
poor, backward, white Iowa “diversify.” For all the
pompous rhetoric about the holy mantra of
“diversity,” the real reason behind the governor`s
plan was much more mundane. Iowa, a mainly rural state,
is losing population and needs more people to boost its
economy.  The
governor`s plan had the support of what at the time
were called “business and civic leaders”—that is,
those who directly profit form the cheap labor that more
immigration brings.

But those who don`t so
profit—the vast majority of Iowans – didn`t care
much for the governor`s plan.
Some 58 percent thought
Iowa was already diverse enough and expressed opposition
to the proposal.  A
more recent poll, released this month by the pro-immigration
Des Moines
, shows that number hasn`t changed and
also that some two-thirds of the citizens of Des Moines
think their city “has enough racial, ethnic and
cultural diversity for their needs and preferences.”

As suggested above, the invocation
of “diversity” has become a kind of dogma that is
never explained or subjected to scrutiny. It would be
interesting to know how one is supposed to decide how
much “diversity” is enough and how much is too
little.  For
that matter, it would be nice to know why “diversity”
is a good thing at all.
How exactly does Iowa suffer from not having more
“diversity”?  What
benefits of civilized life is Iowa lacking today because
it is not sufficiently “diverse”?
Alas, no one seems to know, or, if they know,
don`t say.

What they do say is that those who
oppose immigration and the “diversity” it brings are
full of hate.  Two
days after the Des Moines Register imparted the dismal news that Iowans are pretty
much satiated with “diversity,” the same reporter
unleashed another story claiming
that groups opposing immigration are all “hate
least one of the groups had run TV
against Gov. Vilsack`s proposal a few months
before.  The
meaning is clear. Iowans have been duped into thinking
their state has too much diversity because “hate
groups” have made them think so.

What`s interesting about the
second Register
story is that it never tells us what a “hate group”
is exactly—just as no one who is for diversity ever
tells us what good diversity does.
Both “hate” and “diversity” as they are
used today are codewords, deployed to invoke images in
people`s minds without inciting actual thought about
what they mean.  Everybody`s
against “hate,” of course, and everybody is for or
should be for “diversity.”
If you`re not for “diversity,” it must be
because you`re full of “hate.”

The source of the Register`s smear is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing
outfit that specializes in denouncing
any group it deems too far to the right as a “hate
group.”  But
it too doesn`t bother to define “hate group,” and
at least some of the information it purveys about some
of the groups in question is simply wrong.

Presumably, a “hate group” is
a group that advocates hatred—and therefore
violence—against certain racial, religious, or ethnic
groups.  The
problem is that I happen to know most of the groups
being denounced and know that they do no such thing.
Nor does the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Des
Moines Register
provide any information that they
do.  In the
amazingly non-diverse minds of the Center and the
newspaper, anyone who opposes immigration and thinks
Iowa is already diverse enough must be driven by
hate—and that, as far as I can tell, is the only
reason they have for claiming these are “hate

What is happening in the great
Iowa debate about immigration may explain why there
hasn`t been more of a debate about immigration in the
nation as a whole—those who support mass immigration
don`t really have much of an argument on their side,
so all they can do is invoke codewords like
“diversity” and smear anyone who disagrees with them
as driven by “hate.”
What ensues is not a debate but the forensic
equivalent of mud
wrestling, and what comes out of the “debate” is not
truth but merely emotional gratification and the
muzzling of real thought and real discussion. Iowans
ought to demand something better for their state,
because the nation as a whole has failed to demand it
for itself.


May 24,