Fake Opposition, Fake Discussion, Fake Diversity

At my least favorite paper, the New York Times....Bill Kristol joins the op ed page Marcus Epstien writes:

Lost in this shadow boxing between the far Left, the Respectable Right, and the Establishment Left is the fact that Kristol isn’t a real conservative and that Rosenthal’s support for "opposing views" and a "variety of opinions" is limited to his chosen opponents.

Take the issue of immigration. Just like Bill Kristol, David Brooks, John Tierney, and William Safire—the current and two previous token conservative columnists at the Times—all support some form of amnesty for illegal aliens. Having these writers creates a façade of debate, while pushing out serious conservative views off the table completely.

That being said, Kristol is much worse. Both David Brooks and John Tierney have acknowledged that there were very understandable reasons why Americans were outraged over amnesty and mass immigration. John Tierney even used the semi-taboo field of evolutionary psychology to explain why people are naturally averse to foreigners. Throwing Hawks a Bone, May 16, 2006, also here

(Indeed, Tierney’s mysteriously short tenure on the op-ed page—he hasn’t appeared since 2006—was probably due to his occasional ventures outside of liberal/neocon orthodoxy on matters like sociobiology, a trip Kristol has never taken. Tierney has even quoted Steve Sailer, getting into trouble even when the subject was golf).

Kristol, in contrast, professed to be perplexed by why anyone would oppose illegal immigration. He asked "What damage have they done that's so great in 20 years?" and even dismissed concerns about the massive demonstrations with Mexican flags. He is openly hostile to opponents of amnesty, whom he called "yahoos" who will turn the GOP into an "anti-immigration, Know Nothing party." [Y is for Yahoo, April 10, 2006]

Kristol does not even attempt to call his stance conservative. He admitted to Chris Wallace that, "I’m a liberal on immigration" and that "I am pro-immigration, and I am even soft on illegal immigration.

---

- how about a real, not neo, conservative?? Seems to me that the East coast establishment is involved in some nervous, awkward attempts to react to growing opposition to both their power and their increasingly dubious policies.

Hey, there's a Ron Paul revolution? We'll float Bloomberg as an outsider to the establishment....we're too liberal? We'll put a 'hard line' conservative like Kristol - as Epstien points out, Kristol is only hawkish about one thing - bombing the hell out of every country within a thousand miles of Tel Aviv. There is nothing conservative, or even humane, about him.