VDARE.com: 10/11/04 – Blog Articles
Newsweek`s Samuelson Knows (And Sometimes Reports)
The Immigration Score [Peter
Several readers have sent us Newsweek economics
columnist Robert J. Samuelson`s October 18
The Changing Face Of Poverty, which notes that
the increasing poverty rate, and the increasing numbers
of individuals without health insurance, are essentially
driven by immigration. Of course, both points have
already been made by VDARE.COM`s
Ed Rubenstein (for example,
here). I`m confident, however, Samuelson really
knows the score. I had marked his work more than ten
years ago and sent him an inscribed copy of
Alien Nation—no response, alas. But as he says
in this column:
You haven`t heard much
in this campaign about these problems—and you won`t. To
raise them is to seem racist; that`s a heavy burden for
politicians or journalists.
Some day soon, I predict, Samuelson will venture to look
at the fact that a disproportionate share of jobs are
going to immigrants (Ed wrote about it
here) and that immigration is impacting the incomes,
not just of the unskilled, but also of the
More power to him.
Liberals And Naiveté
Mickey Kaus has
an item on welfare reform, and the drop in
illegitimacy caused by
welfare reform, and removal of a
guaranteed income for any mother of an illegitimate
child. He refers to Jason DeParle`s
new book on the subject and says:
DeParle drives home a
point I first saw made by journalist Leon Dash:
Many teenagers have out-of-wedlock babies because they
want to have the babies,
not because they do not have access to or knowledge of
This is what makes neoliberals look naïve. Didn`t
everybody always know that if you pay people to
have children they`ll have children?
He too was surprised that the young mothers were getting
pregnant on purpose. But it wouldn`t have surprised any
conservative anywhere, at any time.
Why does it take years of research so that a neo-liberal
can have a Road to Damascus moment and realize what
their mothers and grandmothers knew?
Bryanna vs. Joe On Bush [Bryanna
That said, I disagree with my friend`s analysis of why
women support Bush.
Joe`s right about the salary gap between male and female
political staffers. There really is a noticeable and
But, in my experience as Chief of Staff for a Member of
the California State Assembly, most senior staff members
or decision maker, at least for Republican politicians,
Not to destroy the image of the sweet, unassuming little
woman…but most women who choose politics as an
occupation are far more interested in controlling the
decision-making process than compensation.
Plus I think the reason women are shifting their support
toward Bush isn`t complicated. (Full disclosure: Yes, I
am a Bush supporter).
It is due to human nature; something instinctive in our
Women naturally gravitate towards men like President
Bush—men who make decisions, right or wrong, and offer
don`t mean he is incapable of admitting error. But he is
a disciplined man, ready to brazen out any blunder but
only in due course; never at the expense of the duty at
Indecisive men, men who say “I don`t know, what do
you want to do?” appear weak.
look at President Bush and see a Commander-in-Chief. The
extraordinary number of military personnel under his
command need a leader who will pick a side and then
abide by it.
Maybe President Bush will do that with immigration
reform. But I won`t hold my breath.