This article, by National Review editor Rich Lowry, could have been very good.
It has some good portions. It correctly identifies the problems of Howard Zinn’s historiography and laments that “American elites are enmeshed in the world of globalization.” Both are true, I suppose. But Zinn has been dead a while now and calling American elites “globalists” (which of course they are) won’t make them quiver in fear.
The word “nation” appears about 70 times in the linked essay in various forms: national, nationalism, nation-state, nations, nationality, and so on. We inherited that word from the Latin nationem meaning “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” and literally “that which has been born.” Your nation is where you’re born.
This is a long article. But the word immigration appears only once, neutrally (“he saw immigration as an opportunity to create ‘the first international nation…’”).
Could the good Mr. Lowry not devote a single sentence to protesting illegal immigration? Or the tremendous changes caused by legal immigration in numbers beyond what anyone expected would be the case half a century ago?
Our elites have sold out normal Americans on so many areas, including gun rights, the culture wars, jobs, and now the weird trans fixation being foisted on us. But nowhere has the sellout by the elites been so pernicious as the de facto open borders to the south, and the demographic revolution that it caused. Including–presumably even Cruise Ship Conservatives care about this–a newly imported voting population that breaks something like 9:1 for the Democrats.
But despite glimmerings of good writing, one should not expect too much from the increasing nominal conservatives at National Review. This is the same magazine that published “Why we should recognize same-sex marriage” in 2015 and has recently been publishing a series of articles, including in February 2018 and August 2019, calling for “red flag laws.” One still hopes for better.
This article, by National Review editor Rich Lowry, could have been very good.
It has some good portions. It correctly identifies the problems of Howard Zinn’s historiography and laments that “American elites are enmeshed in the world of globalization.” Both are true, I suppose. But Zinn has been dead a while now and calling American elites “globalists” (which of course they are) won’t make them quiver in fear.
The word “nation” appears about 70 times in the linked essay in various forms: national, nationalism, nation-state, nations, nationality, and so on. We inherited that word from the Latin nationem meaning “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” and literally “that which has been born.” Your nation is where you’re born.
This is a long article. But the word immigration appears only once, neutrally (“he saw immigration as an opportunity to create ‘the first international nation…’”).
Could the good Mr. Lowry not devote a single sentence to protesting illegal immigration? Or the tremendous changes caused by legal immigration in numbers beyond what anyone expected would be the case half a century ago?
Our elites have sold out normal Americans on so many areas, including gun rights, the culture wars, jobs, and now the weird trans fixation being foisted on us. But nowhere has the sellout by the elites been so pernicious as the de facto open borders to the south, and the demographic revolution that it caused. Including–presumably even Cruise Ship Conservatives care about this–a newly imported voting population that breaks something like 9:1 for the Democrats.
But despite glimmerings of good writing, one should not expect too much from the increasing nominal conservatives at National Review. This is the same magazine that published “Why we should recognize same-sex marriage” in 2015 and has recently been publishing a series of articles, including in February 2018 and August 2019, calling for “red flag laws.” One still hopes for better.