You might have noticed it over the past few days, but the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Jewish watchdog group that has done strong historical work fighting anti-Semitism, now wants you to believe Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist.
And why is that? Because Carlson has committed the sin of listening to the American Left and accurately reporting what they’ve told each other.
What follows is one of the stupidest political contrivances in recent years — though making such a statement is fraught with risk, because the political contrivances get dumber by the day.
This one deserves some sort of an award, though. For sheer audacity and, well, manifest defamation of its target if nothing else.
Carlson listened to a fairly widespread Democrat Party “demographics is destiny” narrative over the past decade or more, as lots of informed conservatives have. That narrative isn’t what you’d call surreptitious. Democrats have been quite open about their giddiness over what they’ve called the “browning” of America.
Wholesale immigration on a scale not even matched by the waves of European migrants — from Ireland, Italy, Germany, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere — in the 18th and early 19th centuries has been U.S. government policy for a half-century. But the migrants, legal and illegal, headed to our borders haven’t come from Europe for the most part. They’ve come from Latin America and other parts of the Third World.
It’s been Democrats, analyzing the effect of this migration, judging it to be a boon to their future political prospects. Democrats have touted the demographic changes emanating from the mass immigration from poor countries like Somalia and El Salvador as an inevitable tidal surge that would sweep away the Republican Party and the conservative movement as viable political entities.
Nobody hid this. It was an open boast. James Carville talked about it. The Atlantic has published braggadocious screeds on the issue. So has Michelle Goldberg at the New York Times. The irritating Joaquín Castro prattled about it on national TV.
And most of them have actually used the word “replacement” to talk about the demographic effect of the mass migration.
There’s context here, because mass immigration to dilute and alter the electorate has been a standard ploy of virtually every left-leaning political party in Western Europe since the end of the Cold War. And it hasn’t been a secret in any of those countries, either.
What’s more, neither has the rhetorical flair accompanying the public policy. Because to object to this mass immigration is to signal your racism, in the universal parlance of the parties of the Left.
It doesn’t matter that importing millions of unskilled migrants from the Third World has a particularly deleterious effect on members of racial minorities native to the receptacle country. If you’re black or Hispanic and working class or outright poor, do you think your prospects for climbing the economic ladder improve with the addition of large numbers of job-seekers who will work for the minimum wage or less?
Not so much, right?
The mass immigration of the past half-century has coincided with a stagnating standard of living for the middle and working class in this country. It isn’t a shock that would be the case. Flood the job market with cheap labor, and people without special expertise or highly marketable skills become cheap labor themselves.
It isn’t bigotry or xenophobia to note that this practice, which is presented as inevitable because Shut Up, You Racist, carries with it downsides. As Jeffrey Lord has noted in The American Spectator, the same party that throws a fit over the gentrification of neighborhoods has a lot of nerve attacking people who object to being replaced as the electorate of their own country.
Carlson pointed those out in the context of the current chaos on our southern border. He noted that for whatever economic effect the mass migration might have had, the political effect can’t be minimized. Particularly when that effect is precisely that which was designed by the Democrat Party when this process was set in motion in the mid-1960s — to import huge numbers of mostly Democrat voters who would over time change the electorate.
For his trouble he was castigated as a white supremacist by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
The ADL is now headed by a Democrat political operative named Jonathan Greenblatt, who cut his teeth as a staffer for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s a shame that the ADL hired this man to run its organization. Greenblatt has destroyed its credibility just as the cretins running the Southern Poverty Law Center have trashed that brand.
Maybe the ADL can change its name to the Northern Poverty Law Center.
It certainly shouldn’t call itself Jewish, as Dov Fischer noted in The American Spectator last week, since it doesn’t seem to care about Jewish issues much anymore. After all, this isn’t the turn of the 20th century, and the immigrants pouring in aren’t coming from Russia and Poland. The Guatemalans, Iraqis, and Ghanaians making their way here are, in the main, not Jewish.
So why would the ADL have a problem with Carlson noting that Jewish voters in New York, California, and other places have less of a say in their own governance thanks to the influx of migrants?
That’s a good question for the ADL’s dues-paying members, if any are left who aren’t fully on board with Greenblatt’s partisan hijacking of their organization.
What Greenblatt has done is to slander Carlson as a white supremacist for accurately recognizing a political tactic and accurately describing its effect.
Carlson slaughtered the false narrative of the ADL and the rest of the hacks attempting to cancel him with a long dissertation on the mass migration and its effect on the American polity, in California in particular. What had been a reliably Republican state likely never will be again thanks to migration from foreign countries to that state, and Californians have been evacuating in droves for two decades.
And what was the richest state in America, with a staggeringly large and prosperous middle class, now has a higher poverty rate than Mississippi.
There is no factual basis from which to attack Carlson on the immigration issue. He is correct. He is also correct in noting this phenomenon has gone exactly according to the Democrats’ plan.
Rather than attempting to sell that plan according to its benefits, and there are some, including the low birth rate among native-born Americans and the demographic effect that could have on things like Social Security funding, Democrats have chosen to attempt to cancel Carlson.
Well, they can’t. Nor can they replace him, as they’d like to both on television and in the electorate.
Carlson has won the argument. The question becomes whether or not America will ever slow the flood of immigrants and work to assimilate those here. We already know the Democrats will have to be put out of power — politically and culturally — in order for that to happen.