Why Conservatives Need Rush Limbaugh’s Permission To Pass Immigration Reform

There are a lot of conservatives out there in denial about the racist component of the fierce and sometimes weird opposition to President Obama. I’ve written about it often, and while I obviously don’t think all or even most of the opponents of Barack Obama are outright racists, there is a rather large group of folks on the right, the white right, who resent the browning of America.

Along those lines, Mother Jones, which has been doing great journalistic work, published today this article:

mother jones and white nationalists

You can read the article and draw your own conclusions, but I have argued that a lot of the fuel that fires up the irrational hate-Obama movement is a fear that white culture—whatever that is—is being overrun by a foreign one, or many foreign ones.

Defending a white nationalist group, one of the conservatives featured in the Mother Jones piece, James B. Taylor, said:

You’ve got the NAACP and B’nai B’rith. Why not something for white people?

That nationalist group that Taylor was defending is this one:

npi

Here is part of the NPI’s “about” page:

npi about

Look at that nice white American family, those beautiful white children. The white culture these images are meant to represent is what a lot of people on the right are fighting for, indeed, have been fighting for long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama.

And although the cultural angst that some white folks feel didn’t start with our black president, unlike any American president before him he has the pigmented credentials that serve so well to feed the fear and paranoia that is today a part of the conservative movement.

Speaking of that fear and paranoia, isn’t it ironic that Republican Senator Marco Rubio, whose parents were Cubans and whose ethnicity Republicans are strategically, if not cynically, using to appeal to a broader base of Americans, today had to go before none other than Rush Limbaugh, the whitest of white Obama-hating conservatives, to essentially get his blessing on immigration reform.

And Limbaugh during his interview on Tuesday seemed to give Rubio permission by saying,

Well, what you are doing is admirable and noteworthy.

Ain’t that nice?

But Limbaugh asked him after that :

LIMBAUGH: This legislation that you’ve admitted is not written, but you’re here on the radio today, you’ve been doing a lot of media, who are you trying to reach with this?

RUBIO:  In terms of the —

LIMBAUGH:  The bill.  You talking Hispanics, illegals, are you talking the American people, who are you talking to?

Ahh. You see? “The American people” and “Hispanics” are not really the same thing in the mind of Rush Limbaugh, a man so powerful in the Republican Party that its most prominent Hispanic leader feels the need to get the radio host’s permission to pass immigration laws.

5 Comments

  1. LisaF

     /  January 29, 2013

    I believe that is why many Americans, especially older ones, could not believe that Mitt Romney lost. He had such a beautiful (white) family. How could anyone not see that Ann Romney would be a gorgeous, classy first lady? And Romney looked as though he was made in a presidential doll mold. These same people can not fathom that many Americans, of all races, see the Obama family as a lovely first family representative of the best of all of America.

    Like

  2. Jane Reaction

     /  January 29, 2013

    Well, they did get the frightened, racist-tinged voters out to uphold their idea of good-old American class, even if their choice was a Mormon vulture capitalist with a Stepford wife. They were more wholesome than the Donald Trump family.

    Like

  3. King Beauregard

     /  January 30, 2013

    “Why isn’t there an organization that works for us?” There is. It’s called Western Civilization.

    Like

  4. Scary stuff. The NPI’s appeal is subtle and powerful when they imply that “cultural excellence” and “science” derive only from white European Christian heritage. Hmm. I wonder what the European Jew Albert Einstein would think of that?

    Good post, Duane, even though reading is is something like turning over a rock and finding something really stinky under it. 🙄

    Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  January 30, 2013

    To all,

    In my view, the legitimate debate over immigration reform is the one focusing on the “path to citizenship”. Just who should, legally, follow that pathway is clear to me. Anyone living in this country illegally, period. Identify them, control them humanely and provide a reasonable opportunity to journey down a legal pathway to achieve legal residence.

    I am currently engrossed in watching an old TV series based on Herman Wouk’s book “Winds of War”. Part of that story is how we failed to allow Jews in Europe to flee the Nazi holacaust, legally to seek shelter in America. We failed in that effort by a wide margin but such is not the case today. “Mexicans” (essentially all illegal immigranst) are seeking a “better life” but NOT facing concentration camps in their homelands today.

    As the debate is joined the question of who exactly are “Americans”. To me that answer is simple. It is all people legally residing in the U.S. I don’t care what their color of skin, cultural origins, etc. might be. If “they” live here legally, then “they” are Americans. If they retain foreign citizenship while living here, legally, then our current laws seem appropriate as well. “They” for example should not enjoy the “right to vote” as an American citizen, etc.

    We current have some 11 million “illegals” living in America. What to do about that situation, as a matter of national security and control of criminals, real criminals whatever their ethicity might be is the question before all of us. SOME of those 11 million, how many of them none of us know for sure, should NOT be allowed to remain in America. If the number is only “1” then so what. But if that number is say “1 million” then “something” needs to be done.

    What exactly that “something” might be in the future is the debate, a reasonable one. And selecting the “firebrands of the right” ignores the reasonable issues to be decided. Limbaugh no more runs this country than does George Sorros and others. Forget those “crowds” and tell us, Duane, what your “reasonable pathway to citizenship” might be suggested. My hope it will be a reasonable pathway but I can’t tell yet, based on your polemics against those on the right that are as well polemical???

    And frankly, I cannot tell what Obama’s suggestions might be as well. I AGREE a legal pathway to citizenship is needed, but the devil is in the details, is it not? MY suggestion is “tough laws” that promotel “self deportation” for the “thugs” living in America. But we would then have to argue over “tough” would we not? A strawberry picker in CA is NOT a “thug” but he may well have a son that is a gang banger, residing in America. What do you suggest we do about the “son”??? Keep on gang banging, illegally in America, is NOT a good idea in my view.

    Anson

    Like

%d bloggers like this: