Share This Article with a Friend!

Thank You Rich Lowry

We’ve had our occasional differences with National Review and its editor-in-chief Rich Lowry (See “Why We Must (Gently) Disagree With Rich and Ramesh” for an example) mostly because we think NR has too often become the mouthpiece for “establishment conservatives” who are unwilling to call the Republican Party to account for its failure to deliver on its promises to govern according to conservative principles. 

Rich LowryAnd we think that leads NR to put itself too often on the wrong side of the great divide in conservative politics between country class voters outside the DC Beltway and those among Washington’s elite who claim to be conservatives. 

But in his recent article “Yes, Pander To Trump On Immigration,” Lowry has gotten it right on Donald Trump and the immigration issue and for that we thank him and join him in recognizing that, “Amid the barstool bombast about deporting all illegal immigrants already, here is the core of a program that is more sensible than the ‘comprehensive’ solution offered by the political establishment.” 

Lowry points out that “What Trump offers is an entirely different framework for considering the issue. It is populist rather than elitist, and nationalist rather than cosmopolitan. It rejects the status quo rather than attempting to codify it. It puts enforcement first and dares to ask whether current high levels of legal immigration serve the country’s interest. In short, it takes a needed sledgehammer to the lazy establishment consensus on immigration.”  

And most importantly he joins us in our view that the Trump plan is so uncontroversial that it should qualify as pablum: “Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first — not wealthy globe-trotting donors.” Who could disagree? 

Well, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and a majority of the United States Senate for starters, but we digress. 

Conservatives outside the Beltway shouldn’t underestimate the risk in Lowry’s article; as he noted “invoking the interests of America’s workers is a faux pas that leads to a blackballing by whatever is the Chamber of Commerce’s equivalent of Skull and Bones.” 

And while he put it terms that are equal parts sarcasm and humor he’s not wrong – we can think of at least two longtime political “friends” that seem to have lost our phone number after we started writing that Senator Jeff Sessions was right and what America needs is less, not more immigration, due to the impact the open borders policies of the past two decades have had on the quality of life of American workers and their families. 

But country class voters who were losing faith that the old line Washington “establishment conservatives” would ever listen to anyone outside the Beltway can take heart that Lowry recognizes the common sense in Trump’s written plan, which calls for allowing “record immigration levels to subside to more moderate historical averages.” There is no reason why we should we blithely accept historically high levels of legal immigration with almost no discussion says Lowry and we agree wholeheartedly. 

Of course Rich can’t quite bring himself to endorse Trump’s ideas without trashing Trump’s delivery; “witless bravado” is one of his kinder formulations for Donald Trump’s stream of consciousness speaking style. 

But Rich Lowry doesn’t endorse everything Trump has to say on immigration.  

His conclusion, “Trump is giving voice to a popular impulse almost entirely absent from the elite policy discussion. Other Republican candidates shouldn’t seek to mimic his witless bravado, nor should they follow him down the rabbit hole of his ill-considered fixations (like getting Mexico to pay for a border wall or revoking birthright citizenship)” dismisses at least one important discussion – birthright citizenship – that is, in our opinion, definitely worth having.  

Rich Lowry’s analysis that “Conventional wisdom assumes that the Trump plan is a political train wreck. The thrust of it isn’t” is hugely influential and anytime National Review dumps elite DC Republican opinion to embrace the views of country class voters outside the Beltway we’re happy to welcome them into the light.

Click the link to read Rich Lowry's article "Yes, Pander to Trump on Immigration"

Share this

Ill-considered Fixations

Excuse me? Getting Mexico to pay for a border wall and eliminating so called "birthright" citizenship ARE NOT, "ill-considered fixations."

Mexico SHOULD pay for it, after all the damage they've done to our nation by encouraging their citizens to illegally immigrate (and yes I can show you proof they have done so), and the purposeful "misinterpretation" of the 14th amendment to flood our nation with even more illiterate third world immigrants has to stop.