Reason Writers Around Town: Kerry Howley on the GOP and the Politics of Exclusion

July 16, 2008

Over at Talking Points Memo, Senior Editor Kerry Howley explains how Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's Grand New Party endorses the politics of exclusion.

Read all about it here.

Comments

|7.16.08 @ 5:30PM|#

"The wage subsidies R&R propose might do something to improve marriage markets for poor women, encouraging the social stability they seek without reinforcing the pernicious gender norms Dana and I were discussing earlier."

"Pernicious gender norms". I wish someone would explain to Howley that a lot of women don't get to live the fantasy life of the educated well off white woman that she lives. A lot of women don't get to write for Reason or run off to the University of Iowa and spend three years getting an MFA of dubious marketability. A lot of women, like a lot of men, go to crappy jobs that could do without but work anyway because they have to pay the bills.

To those women having the wherewithal to stay home and raise their kids is about as good as it gets. Oh to be thrown into the briar patch of "pernicious gender roles". Moreover, those women who do stay home and raise their kids will do a bigger service to society than either Howley or I ever will. Someone has to raise the next generation into decent human beings.

Yes, Kerry, lets do absolutely nothing to help parents. Lets do nothing to help women who want to stay home and raise their kids because God forbid some over educated single person might have to pay a little more than their fair share.

|7.16.08 @ 6:27PM|#

Yes, Kerry, lets do absolutely nothing to help parents

You don't think parents benefit from less taxation?

-jcr

|7.16.08 @ 6:56PM|#

Lets do nothing to help women who want to stay home and raise their kids

If I happen to be married to said woman, or had a hand in spawning said kids, I would be more than happy to help. Otherwise, leave me out of it.

Dagny T.|7.16.08 @ 7:25PM|#

God forbid some over educated single person might have to pay a little more than their fair share.

Well, maybe not God, but I'll sure try to prevent that when/if I can.

As I believe you've mentioned in previous threads, John, no one should have to subsidize the choices of another (no matter how praise-worthy or foolish you may consider those choices to be).

shecky|7.16.08 @ 9:17PM|#

Shorter John: Welfare for parents and stay-at-home moms!

|7.16.08 @ 9:22PM|#

Yes, yes, John. We all read that article, too. It's interesting and thought-provoking. I think you took the wrong lesson from it, though.

By the way, the reference is a little too obvious, don't you think, Dagny?

Fracisco d\'A.|7.16.08 @ 9:25PM|#

Thank you, shecky. Don't mind if I do.

Hey, I'd like to be a stay-at-home Dad. Isn't that more important than something trivial like going to work! Think of all the valuable life lessons I could impart from the sofa, as I'm eating popcorn and watching my Soaps. Doesn't Kerry want to subsidize my important mission by paying "her fair share?"

|7.16.08 @ 9:40PM|#

So this is like Douchehat with a lisp?

Joseph Stalin|7.16.08 @ 9:52PM|#

Well, JCJ really elevated the thread's intellectual plane, didn't he? Pretty subtle.

You know, the other boys used to call me "Joe Sh*t Stall." I had the last laugh, though, when the NKVD rounded up my former class mates and impaled them on 3-meter-long stakes. Best puppet show ever.

Orange Line Special|7.16.08 @ 11:11PM|#

FTA: Theirs is a deeply nationalist vision that seeks to exclude low-skill Latino immigrants to the benefit of those lucky enough to have been born in America

Kerry doesn't have the brainpower to figure out how she's not just anti- and un-American, but objectively wrong.

After allowing millions of low-wage Hispanics to come here despite the harm to our own citizens, there would still be billions of people even poorer than those Hispanics. By Howley's own "logic", we'd be evil people unless we let them move here. And, of course, allowing the world's population to move to the U.S. would not work.

Since Howley doesn't understand or support fundamental U.S. concepts, I urge her to leave. I don't know if any country would be interested in taking her, but she doesn't deserve to live here.

|7.16.08 @ 11:36PM|#

Orange Line:

Objectively wrong? Her statement was characterizing the subjective attitude of Douthat and Salam.

Let's assume that your position is objectively correct. It is possible to agree with her characterization of them as nationalists while believing that their beliefs are prudent. Objective right and wrong doesn't come into play -- at least in the snippet you chose to quote.

Therefore, she can not be objectively wrong.

When you learn how words and sentences work, feel free to sit at the adults' table again.

By the way, a statement like, "allowing the world's population to move to the U.S. would not work," is not objectively true. If you meant that we can not physically fit the world's population in the U.S., that would be objectively false. If you meant that we can not do so in a way that makes you happy, that refers to your subjective opinion. It is not objectively true, because it relies on your emotions -- you as a subject rather than an object.

d|7.17.08 @ 1:46AM|#

> By the way, a statement like, "allowing the world's population
> to move to the U.S. would not work," is not objectively true. If
> you meant that we can not physically fit the world's population
> in the U.S., that would be objectively false. If you meant that
> we can not do so in a way that makes you happy, that refers to
> your subjective opinion. It is not objectively true, because it
> relies on your emotions -- you as a subject rather than an
> object.
>
I'm not sure you've "learn[ed] how words and sentences work"
either. What O.L.Special meant to say (which is pretty obvious
from the context) is that allowing all the world's poor to move
here is not a viable solution, since our social welfare systems
would be overwhelmed, we would not have enough jobs to go around
(at least not for a long time, until the economic structure
adjusts), etc.

Oh, and by the way, it's 'cannot' (one word), not 'can not [sic.].'
Please learn how to write properly before you make condescending
remarks towards others.

Orange Line Special|7.17.08 @ 1:48AM|#

If this is the adult's table, the whole world is in big trouble.

As for the book, I could care less. I was responding to Kerry Howley's 3rd-grade-level contention that we should allow LimitlessHispanicImmigration because we can't give our own fellow citizens a better break than anyone else. And, unless she's playing favorites, that would lead to us having to invite everyone else here lest we be meanies.

And, the world would be in big trouble if we allowed the world to move here, since the U.S. would no longer exist and would have been replaced with, most likely, a global Chinese empire. Of course, everyone realizes that allowing everyone to move here "would not work", in the sense of "in our universe, it wouldn't solve anything and it would make the situation far, far worse."

The more I visit this site the more I think libertarianism is a genetic defect.

Scott66|7.17.08 @ 2:48AM|#

OLS: "The more I visit this site the more I think libertarianism is a genetic defect."

I agree with you that there are a lot of arrogant non-thinkers here like Howley and Gacy with his ohh so clever words. However, that should not stop you from supporting true small government libertarianism. After all with a less intrusive government the likes of Gacy can ramble on to his fan club without the power to effect you.

zoltan|7.17.08 @ 4:13AM|#

Look at what the stay-at-home moms of the post-war gave us: Baby Boomers.

|7.17.08 @ 6:49AM|#

That's a low-blow, zoltan.

Scott66,

I didn't believe in unintentional irony until I read your post.

Robert Enders|7.17.08 @ 10:35AM|#

Orange Line,
Just because people are allowed to move here, doesn't mean they will move here. Not everyone wants to live in America.

green jellyfish|7.17.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Kerry's post-national contentions are ridiculous. She should stick to "Red Eye", where she is at least entertaining.

|7.17.08 @ 12:45PM|#

d: "Can not" should always be "cannot?" Not according to this. Both are correct. "Cannot" is, arguably, more correct.

The point about "objectively true" is that Orange Line was trying to imply that his point was indisputable. In order for something to be a "viable" solution, as you suggested, it must be "capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately[.]"

So, the viability of something (in this sense) rests on subjective reasoning. That makes it debatable. I'm not twisting his words. Rather, you're trying to give his words a more favorable spin than they deserve.

If he wants to actually defend his position, that's one thing. If he wants to attempt to shut down all debate by declaring differing view points to be off limits, then I'll correct him.

|7.17.08 @ 12:59PM|#

Scott66:

Words are important. If we allow them to be stripped of their distinct meanings, then, eventually, we're left with countless, worthless synonyms for good and bad. Many of those will be interchangeable.

Eddie Izzard put it this way.

America needs the old version of awesome, because you're the only ones going into space. You've got a bit of cash and you go up there, and you need 'awesome' because you're going to be going to the next sun to us. And your President's going to be going (American voice) "Can you tell me, astronaut, can you tell me what it's like?" "It's awesome, sir." "What, like a hot dog?" "Like a hundred billion hot dogs, sir. Sir, it's the dog's bollocks, that's what it is!"

Affect. Effect.

|7.17.08 @ 2:24PM|#

Kerry's post-national contentions are ridiculous.

I'm sure I'm quite ridiculous, but I'm afraid that Hayek and Mises largely shared my views on this subject. Here's Mises:

The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction. Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense, humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a cosmopolite.

Dennis|7.17.08 @ 3:07PM|#

For God's sake, libertarianism has nothing to do with unrestricted immigration. American citizenry, if anything, is a society, a club, and membership in it is no more guaranteed than membership in the Mensa society or the Boy Scouts. American borders, likewise, are a collective property of American citizens, and non-members have no more right to move across them than they have the right to move into Miss Howley's home. At the very least, they are guilty of tresspassing.

I respect a nation's ability to decide who its citizens are PRECISELY because I am a libertarian: I happen to believe - strongly -in property rights and freedom of assembly.

P1t|7.17.08 @ 5:44PM|#

If I may add to the conversation, I think part of the problem with immigration is big government. For one, welfare programs are certainly an incentive for people to move from poor countries to rich countries (Although whether they do receive those benefits depends on their circumstances. Some might receive them, others might not). So, maybe the solution would be unrestricted immigration in the sense it follows the law of supply and demand. I think most of immigration is because of economic reason (Rich countries have better job opportunities than poor countries). If you think about it, it is not so different from domestic migration (e.g.: moving from Montana to New York for a job). The only difference is the type of government involved. Now, assuming we end up with a limited government (And I mean, a welfare system less generous than the current one), then immigrants would come to the US to find jobs. But, this is of course assuming the domestic supply of workers is too low for the domestic demand of workers (Some industry might need them). I dunno if this is what Kerry Howley has in mind when talking about unrestricted immigration.