One Cheer for Kevin Williamson — Favorable Mention for Pat Buchanan in National Review
Kevin Williamson did something unheard of at National Review Online–he uttered words of praise for the man who predicted it all, Pat Buchanan. More than that, he defended one of the more “controversial” (meaning obviously true) statements of the great lost leader of the American Right.
The United States of America is not the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federal Register. It is not a legal entity, and it is not an abstraction. It is a particular people, with a particular culture and particular institutions. It is an open society — you can become American in a sense that you cannot become Mongolian — but it is not an infinitely plastic one. The English language, and the culture associated with it, are as basic to the American identity as the Japanese language is to the Japanese identity. Pat Buchanan was mocked and derided for noting that the immigration of 1 million Englishmen to Virginia would be less disruptive than the immigration of 1 million Zulus, because mockery and derision are what one turns to when the opposition is clearly and inarguably in the right.
[How to Think About Immigration, by Kevin Williamson, National Review, July 13, 2014]
Just so. Well put. Was that so hard Mr. Williamson?
Actually, apparently it was. Though these days one is tempted to take say “take what you can get” from National Review, I can’t help but notice that Williamson has to hem and haw in order to give himself permission to make this obvious point. He triangulates against his “friend” Mark Krikorian (who is a bit soft himself) that he is a “squish” on immigration. He notes that he is “generally in favor of relatively high levels of immigration, at least of certain kinds of immigrants.” If we’re in agreement that America is more than just an economy — why?
And of course, though he quotes PJB, he fails to note that Buchanan (along with certain former NR staffers) predicted exactly what is happening today, and NR savaged them for it.
Williamson outlines the fundamental importance of borders, sovereignty, and the pursuit of national interests — but so what? At this point, these are irrelevant concepts to the people who rule us. Nor does President Obama care about the law, the Constitution, or the historic American nation that he has spent his life organizing against. He is going to continue to do everything he can to import illegals by any means necessary.
Williamson casually tut tuts Obama on this, but doesn’t seem to suggest action except to note it is “troubling.” Along with the rest of the Beltway Right, Williamson apparently thinks it would be uncouth to mention impeachment.
Budget overruns are “troubling.” This is treason. Enlighten us, Mr. Williamson — what does the American conservative movement suggest we do about it?