Elitist Republicans and the reason they fail America

Perusing through the NRO Corner this morning I found that Mr. Krikorian had posted about a meeting he had attended an immigration debate held by FrontPage Magazine. Now just on the quick read through on the 'pro' side of the immigrant debate to have illegals put into a 'regular' status we have Linda Chavez and she has one very interesting part of her view which I will highlight:

The bigger problem is that a guest worker program should be only one component of an immigration overhaul. We also need more legal permanent residents if we are to satisfy our labor needs, on the order of about 1.5 million a year when our economy is creating 1.5 to 2 million new jobs each year as it is now. And these should be new persons, not just those already here adjusting their status, which is the current practice. I have no problem with a point system based on our economic needs in determining who gets in—with the caveat that we need not only more scientists, engineers, and mathematicians but also more people who can fill jobs that require little education but can’t be outsourced to another country or done away with by automation. What sense does it make to encourage Americans with 13 years of schooling (on average) to take these jobs—even if an employer could afford to pay wages to such workers to entice them into the jobs? And if any of the critics actually spent time with employers who have seen their industries transformed by immigrant workers, they would learn that having employees who are eager for these jobs-- not resentful as most American high school dropouts are that they’re stuck doing difficult, often dangerous and dirty, work, even at $20 an hour-- they would understand why employers are so eager to hire immigrants. It is worth remembering that the labor force participation rate of illegal alien men from Mexico is 94 %, while the comparable rate for native-born white men is 46% and the rate for blacks is 40%, and many of those not in the work force are in school or entangled in the criminal justice system. These men are largely unemployable.

You know, when folks complain about Republicans making elitist arguments, this is what they mean. So here's the deal: if you actually educate someone through high school it makes NO SENSE to have them take low skills jobs, and if drop-outs took them then they RESENT it. Well, isn't that a lovely view? Yes, American children are, apparently, over-educated *and* want high skill, high wage jobs when they don't have the skills to get the job. So they are resentful! Excuse me for saying so, but THAT is not a well functioning society that encourages that attitude in children: drop out and feel that you should get a high wage job.

The idea of 'universal education' was to get adults who learned civics and their role within society as citizens and the expectation of THEM within society. If those dropping out feel that they should have a privilege to high wage jobs with no skills, then this Nation has a far deeper problem way beyond illegal aliens taking jobs.

Now lets take a look at the labor force participation rate, as seen from Wikipedia:

The labor force participation rate is the ratio between the labor force and the overall size of their cohort (national population of the same age range). In the West during the latter half of the 20th century, the labor force participation rate increased significantly, largely due to the increasing number of women entering the workplace. In the United States, the labor force participation rate rose from approximately 59% in 1948 to 66% in 2005, with participation among women rising from 32% to 59% and participation among men declining from 87% to 73%. Conversely, the labor force participation rate can decrease when the rate of growth of the population outweighs that of the employed and unemployed together. The labor force participation rate is a key component in long term economic growth, almost as important as productivity.

This is a form of cohort analysis, to see about how a cohort, usually a group of individuals having similar characteristics like all of those born in a given year, performs on various criteria. An example of this is longevity of the cohort, so that when a given cohort passes a set survival amount, it can be said to be in decline with only a minority survivorship. Insurance companies love this stuff with actuarial tables for selling life insurance. Here Ms. Chavez is looking to use the overall participation of a given sub-cohort (illegal aliens from Mexico) and compare that to the overall white and black male participation rate for their cohorts (whites and blacks). She is saying, if I read this right, that of all illegal alien males from Mexico 94% participate from their cohort, while in the overall US cohort, the sub-cohorts of white and black males are 46% and 40% repsectively. She is also ignoring the participation rate of women in the US and the overall labor force participation rate for the Nation which is *rising* as seen from 1948-2005. What she also does *not* address is that within these cohorts are steep demographic differences: children, elderly, retirees, and those in otherwise non-labor roles are included in the overall population analysis, while for the illegal aliens from Mexico who are primarily childless, male, and non-retirees, the participation rate is much higher.

Well of course it is!

They are not here permanently, do not have families here, are not children, have not reached retirement age or are elderly. They have a high participation rate HERE because they are NOT part of our society. Apparently this is news to Ms. Chavez. The moment you make them LEGAL those rates will DECREASE as dependents, children, retirees and non-working mothers show up in the pool. It is only high because these individuals lack all attachments and overhead to society that they can get such a high participation rate. And once those children become Americans they won't want to do these jobs EITHER.

Perhaps it is time to pay a bit more for undesirable jobs or to not look down upon those that take manual work that is 'dangerous'. Apparently Ms. Chavez has never seen an episode of 'Dirty Jobs' on the Discovery Channel. I have not seen loads of illegal aliens lining up for coal mining, cess pit cleaning, sewer cleaning, or working to make charcoal. There are loads of dirty, dangerous and down right disgusting jobs that do NOT have high pay and people are still found to do them without looking for illegal aliens.

Then there is Clint Bolick who puts forth this lovely inanity:

Building a wall on our southern border will not halt the flow of illegal immigrants. Immigrants want the something we have: freedom and opportunity. People who would risk their lives to come to our nation---like our forefathers and mothers---are not easily deterred. Conservatives usually understand the laws of supply and demand. Our immigration laws have not been overhauled in more than 20 years. Millions of people want to come here, and employers hunger for them. Why don’t opponents of comprehensive reform---who love to say they are not anti-immigration but only anti-illegal immigration---ever propose approaches that lift the number of immigrants who can lawfully enter from Latin American countries? Until that issue is addressed---until those who enter illegally because there is no hope for legal immigration perceive a meaningful change---true border enforcement is a pipe dream.

To which the answer is: we don't know as NO ONE has tried to put a wall there. But the areas that used to be high traffic ones that have *fences* have seen a dramatic decrease in border crossings AND crime. These illegals may want freedom and opportunity, but that only comes with respecting the law. They are not respecting the law and actually degrading it which puts those same freedoms and opportunities at risk for everyone. As for proposing to lift the limits on Latin American countries, how about a counter-offer: raise the limits to all of those Nations that have been Friends and Allies in war and peace? Why make it regional and *not* conditional that people must come from Nations that respect and are friendly to the US and help us out when we need it, and we do the same for them? How about Nations recently out from under Communist repression for decades? How about Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Ukraine, Georgia? How about long time Friends and Allies like: the UK, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea?

Those should work out just as well and give us stronger ties with Nations that have supported us and not those that look to exploit the US economy by coming here illegally. Probably even better as people from those Nations tend to respect the rule of law and understand the responsibilities of being a citizen.

No wonders we have a problem with illegal aliens in the US.

We are teaching our children to HATE work.

Tell you what, lets stop over-educating our children, teach them to respect all forms of work, that getting good paying jobs requires decent education and work attitude and, if you drop out of that path to success, you tend to get stuck with low paying, low skill jobs. Apparently we are teaching our children just the opposite of these things and we are paying for THAT with illegal aliens.

Of course if you say *that* then you really are out of tune with the elitist atmosphere of the education establishment of the US and, apparently, the two political parties.

It is sounding more and more if we need a Nationalist party - a political party that actually supports the Nation and not ideological objectives. The goals of having a law abiding citizen that actually understands and adheres to the responsibilities of *being* a citizen. Not ones of citizen as sum of their 'associations' or as 'economic unit', but as individuals to respected as such and to have expectations of them for the Nation.

I would support a party like that.

Too bad we don't have one like that in America these days.

It's Dumb Looks Time with: John Derbyshire and COIN!

Today's contestant on all things Counter-Insurgency (COIN) is John Derbyshire of The Corner on National Review Online! And for his great offering let us take his post response to Jonah Goldberg on COIN. A big round of applause to Mr. Derbyshire to step into the spotlight on this! So to start off with we will look at his posting and examine it for any and all Dumb Looks that can be given to it completely for FREE!

Here he begins thusly:

Jonah: Nope, don't care whether Iraqis "choose our side" or not. And I believe the American people have a much higher tolerance than you think for bloobaths caused by our giving up on people who—I think the American people would say—were so intrinsically hopeless, we had no choice but to give up on them. The American people barely turned a hair at Pol Pot.

Oh, my! Mr. Derbyshire has decided to call the American People heartless, callous and having a high degree of tolerance for the deaths of foreigners! And lets take that in reverse order, so we can find out why he says such a thing.

Pol Pot was the genocidal maniac leading Cambodia into its era of the Killing Fields! And do you know WHY Americans 'barely turned a hair' to that genocide? Because the Mainstream Media of the day DIDN'T REPORT ON IT DAILY!! Yes news reports did NOT flood in, day after day, from village after village, witnessing the carnage of this bloodthirsty tyrant who gleefully slaughter all of his opponents inside Cambodia. That lovely Communist formed up Democratic Kampuchea and then, because such groups as: Buddhist monks, western trained intellectuals, anyone with a decent education regardless of source, anyone who had any contact with western Nations, people who 'looked intelligent' (including those wearing glasses), the crippled, lame, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Laotians, ethnic Vietnamese. And does Mr. Derbyshire know *why* there was so little reporting on this?

Because Pol Pot killed the reporters who were: intelligent, intellectuals, had contact with western Nations and had a decent education!

Oh, my! The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is moving hard over on that concept: the American People didn't KNOW about the genocide and almost no one else DID EITHER. It took getting rid of Pol Pot's regime to know the true horror and vast scale of it as it concentrated on first eliminating the weak links with the outside world. Mr. Derbyshire has just intimated that the American People should be outraged about something that only came to light YEARS after it went on.

But, lets be fair, there is a good reason WHY there was no good reporting on this beyond Pol Pot's willingness to just kill those that could report on it. We did NOT give up on the Cambodians because they were 'intrinsically hopeless'! No we gave up on the South Vietnamese as 'hopeless' as was the war we were fighting there. And WHY did the US give up on that? Because we only fought to preserve the South Vietnamese and NOT take out North Vietnam. And who did North Vietnam supply?

Pol Pot!

There you have it, the South Vietnamese were hard pressed because the US would not liberate North Vietnam and, so the Cambodian People were 'intrinsically hopeless' because we would not bring down the regime that supplied Pol Pot!

Uh, oh! The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is squarely into the DUMB LOOKS territory and going hard through that into the HEADSHAKE OF IMPOSSIBILITY region!

So there you have the basis for 'the American People having a much higher tolerance for a bloodbath of foreigners' concept! It comes squarely on the US inability to fight to WIN against an enemy, then FLEEING the region leaving no trustworthy journalists behind who would, in any event, have been caught up in the Killing Fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia and KILLED so we couldn't learn about it anyways! Perhaps the American People are supposed to be MIND READERS?

That is *just* the opening paragraph by Mr. Derbyshire, perhaps he can get back to simple DUMB LOOKS and not head into the SIGH OF EXASPERATION territory.

And I must say, your ruthlessness seems pretty tame to me. REAL ruthlessness is what Winston Churchill (disapprovingly) called "frightfulness." I think you'd have to conclude, looking back after the last century or so, that modern Anglo powers simply don't do "frightfulness"—not as a land-war tactic, anyway: the city-flattening air raids of WW2 were in a category of their own. The Brits tried the well-proven Roman-Ottoman style counterinsurgency tactics in Ireland (the Black and Tans) and India (Amritsar—that was Churchill's context), and discovered they had no stomach for it. That's why Ireland and India are independent. I doubt we have the stomach either.

Oh, my, here he purports that the Roman-Ottoman style of COIN was utilized in Ireland and India. Now here it is difficult to tell just *which* COIN campaign waged by the Romans or the Ottomans he is talking about. Is this the placement of Roman troops and leadership amongst barbarians to civilize them? Or is it more along the lines of losing a revolt of indigenous peoples one once controlled, as the Ottomans clearly demonstrated they couldn't do in a losing Campaign in the Middle East during the Arab Revolt? Perhaps he is talking of the Belisarius North African Campaign to retake that area from the Vandals during the reign of Justinian? Or perhaps the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks?

Just which, pray tell, COIN mind-set does Mr. Derbyshire refer to? Because these are all EMPIRES not democracies that are waging COIN and using drastic and draconian means to do so. Empires, typically, have only one good path to COIN: kill until peace is achieved.

Is that what he is referring to for the US and the UK? That we do not LIKE GENOCIDE? He is quite correct, but not, I think, in the way he means. If that is Mr. Derbyshire's conception of 'successful COIN' then he really does have a limited view of it.

Yes it is the SIGH OF EXASPERATION time! Someone saying that genocide is the only means to peace and that ethnic cleansing, as it is now known, is not liked by democracies and so they will ALWAYS FAIL. That is one of the most highly negative views of modern civilization I have ever seen and looks to be pining for the days of successful genocidal campaigns to pacify regions that I have ever seen.

The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is nearly pegged over at RAMPANT NEGATIVISM, and the needle has been replaced by numerous contestants who have broken the poor thing by their outlooks at the incapacity of Western Civilization to do any good whatsoever in the world. Let us hope that Mr. Derbyshire doesn't wander into *that* territory:

The very interesting question, raised by Luttwak and others, is then: Does any other kind of counterinsurgency work? I think both a priori considerations of human nature and the historical evidence say "No." Still, I'm happy to wait for General Petraeus's report in mid-September.

Luckily this is all for that post, but it will be time for another needle replacement job, I can see. Previously I have left thoughts at the Bereft site on this very matter of Luttwak and his outlook, so let me lift from my response on that:

Luttwak makes the common mistake of assuming that once the oil slows from the ME, the power will wane. Terrorism now uses multiple sources for funding: narcotrafficking, bank fraud, grey market goods sales, theft, kidnap for ransom, and the ever popular murder for hire. Petrodollars make it worse, yes, but the present idea that free markets and cheap goods are making things safer and the world freer is misguided and no place more so than the Middle East. Trade does not get freedom. International insitutions do not get freedom.

If either of those were true then after 90 years of having it go on in the Middle East, it should be the freest place on the planet. I do not see that for some very strange reason.

This is primarily not a money flow question as that area has been a haven for tyrants, thugs and Empires for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Of freedom and liberty based upon the rights of man, there has been scant evidence of it. In fact the drying up of money will make things more restive, more tense and those new sources, like Canada with the tar sands and the US with its oil shales, even more hated for 'taking such riches away'. That is, of course, irrational. Perhaps Mr. Luttwak has not noticed the lack of rational actors in the region?

Mussolini still managed to get a lot of folks killed, threaten the vital supply link of the Suez and had an outside chance, with Germany, of cutting off Gibraltar if Germany had held to its original War Plan. Thankfully that was not done.

This enemy has no Nation and wishes all Nations overturned. It can get cheap arms anywhere because we do not do a thing about going after trade with our enemies. There are a number of vital supply and transport links that can be targeted with some ease and if any non-conventional weapon is used possibly removed from the global economy on a long-term basis. I suggest that the economic argument is trivial compared to the long-term survival argument. If we do not put an end to terrorism and dreams of Empire we and our children *will live* to regret our effete attitudes towards civilization and how to hold it.

The fighting would have been bad, but manageable in 1917 and given basis for the US to help bring about more Nations aligned with their Peoples. We did not do that.

The US could have done a bit more after WW II beyond mere anti-colonial support and put in some actual help to the region in the way of schools and building a good base for decent jobs. We did not do that, either.

We could have stopped supporting tyrants or actually overthrown those not in the direct control of the USSR. We did not do that.

Now we pay for the inaction of parents and grand-parents who could have helped other Peoples find a route to freedom by expending blood and money to fight a hard, nasty war that had no good end because it was not fought to completion anywhere. That is still left undone in the Balkans and Middle East. And the price of that is held by a butcher that has decided we need to pay with our lives and freedom.

Time to put fancy ideas of economic reality away and start to deal with this other, actual, real sort of reality, where there are non-rational actors in the world.

Because if we do not put an end to them, then they shall do so to us.

Yes, Mr. Luttwak is looking at the WRONG REASON for terrorism and its continuation! Mr. Luttwak wants there to be nice, cozy, rational actors that will appear, magically, in the Middle East once the petrodollars go away. I have some bad news for him and any who believe in that: it didn't happen during the Barbary Pirates days! This meme of taking over the world for the Caliphate has been around for a long time and those supporting it do not believe, like good Christians, that people should decide for themselves to believe in God and bring it about. The radical Islamists want it at gunpoint and submission - the loss of freedom globally so that they may rule.

Apparently Mr. Derbyshire does not believe in that and, instead, believes these will be nice folks who will just leave the West alone once the US runs away. How unfortunate for the folks in London, Madrid, Bali, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, China (yes, western China these days), the Tri-Border Area of South America, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden... sorry, COIN just doesn't work don't mind the Caliphate repression as it will WIN over democracies which have a high toleration for the bloodshed of their neighbors.

Yes the needle is hard over at RAMPANT NEGATIVISM and that brings us to the historical research of Mr. Derbyshire and it is time to bust the poor 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter', again. We will start with one highly known, successful COIN operation waged by the United States of America!

This was against a ruthless, native enemy that we had not even FOUGHT against in a war and yet we got stuck doing COIN work against them.... an enemy so ruthless that they skinned people alive and stuffed the skins and left them by trails to be found at night... one that thought nothing of torture, mutilation and sending body parts back to villages. A hard fought, hard won campaign to help a Nation overcome its insurgent minority, islamic population. That was the Moro Rebellion of 1901-13 after the Philippine-American War (1899-1901). And by 1915 the Philippines was to be handed over to a reliable, native government!

If one looks at ethnic divisions and uprisings against a ruling government, then the entire set of Western Indian Wars by the US, lasting from the start of the Akira War starting on or about 01 JUN 1823 and lasting to the final treaties, ending them on 05 OCT 1898 is a 75 year COIN operation with perennial flare-ups, battles, wars, terrorism, killing and so on going on throughout the entire endeavor. There was, apparently, a lot of bloodshed going on in that time.

Prior to that the Northwest Indian War (21 JAN 1785 to 03 AUG 1795) would also be an example of COIN and ending such work on an ongoing basis. This was done by, yes, a democracy.

While we may like it less the British Malay Emergency solutions were on the order of 'relocating populations' but it was to prevent something worse from happening and was a long term problem until it was realized that it was unwinnable on the part of the insurgents. From this we get the 'hearts and minds' concept of COIN.

These solutions require: engaging the native population, ensuring that ethnic tensions and conflicts are addressed, and killing off the insurgents or giving them no long-term options for success. While Mao may like the idea of a 'fish swimming through populations of other fishes' and 'draining the swamp' comes from this concept, the one of helping to get local, accountable government structures that remove legitimacy from insurgent forces is key. That took a long time in the US and, to this day, the solution for Native Americans has been sub-optimal although the campaign was and is successful. Malay defensive relocation of ethnically 'at risk' populations allowed the government to quell tensions and give little options for insurgents to have legitimate cause to fight and wore them out. And in the Philippines, it was kill until respect is gained, in one of the most horrific and personal COIN fights the US has ever been engaged in and is still remembered by the Moros who bequeath names like "John", "Theodore" and "Pershing" to children.

Apparently using democratic means to create legitimate government and remove legitimacy from insurgents can and does work, via various means. So there we have historical analysis to demonstrate effective COIN work done by democracies. And so Mr. Derbyshire wins plenty of Free Dumb Looks for his Rampant Negativism on COIN and establishing governmental legitimacy by democracies.

Perhaps he would like a nice Islamic Empire, instead?