Immigration: The "Tit For Tat" Mentality genre: Hip-Gnosis & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation

When I was in high school, I used to occasionally write for the school paper. At the time, I never wanted to write a regular column on a scheduled basis. I wanted to write when I was moved by an issue or a topic. Typically, I would write after a subject had been aired by the opposing sides and when there seemed to be no resolution in sight...when it finally looked like the sides had exhausted the ever so frequent "tit for tat."

Since I launched Thought Theater, I've recently found myself in similar situations with the same instinctive feelings. Let me try to explain. Many blogs seek to report on the daily buzz...those polarized and partisan issues that become red meat for those on opposite extremes of the spectrum. I've done some of it myself as it's easy to get caught up in the perceived need to attract site visits. The risk in doing so is that it often prevents the rumination I think is necessary to boil out the impurities in order to obtain a potable conclusion.

Those who have read some of my postings will know that I'm often troubled by the rhetoric, the rudeness, and the random barrage of attacks that permeate many comment threads...not to mention a number of the actual blog postings. That's not to say I am opposed to a raucous debate...debate being the key word...meaning some degree of decorum is afforded in order to avoid a slide into personal attacks and demeaning and derogatory dishing. I much prefer wry sarcasm, clever witticism, or pointed, yet thoughtful and provocative humor.

That brings me to today. I think the anxiety born of a nagging sense of being on the fringe of my own comfort zone had gotten the best of me. As I've jumped around from site to site in the last couple days, something hasn't felt right. I've felt the need to rush to react and respond and at the same time I've felt the pull of restraint that is ingrained in the core of my identity. Once I stopped to acknowledge the problem, relief ensued.

I decided that I would step back today and reflect on what I've seen and heard...like I used to do all those years ago. It's funny because that has always been the motivation behind Thought Theater. As so often happens in life, I had to admit that I found myself traveling the wrong path. The following snippets from the blogosphere are offered to demonstrate how the debate about a particular topic (immigration) can quickly evolve into the "tit for tat" mentality I mention above. At the end, I've added my own additional reflective thoughts on the immigration topic and a much larger vision of wholesale social change.

The Immigration Debate:

It seems to me that Monday's nationwide protest has triggered a tipping point in the debate. By this, I mean much of the restraint and nicety has been expunged such that we have evolved towards a more frank and, at the same time, more frightening discourse. The indicators are numerous. They include debate over the flags carried by protesters, the signs and placards being displayed, the chants and sayings being spoken, the language with which they are spoken, and so on and so forth. It's the time in the debate where symbols of convenience are extracted in order to put forth biased propaganda to foment the opposing extremes. Some examples follow:

From Wizbang:

The protests were scheduled for today, May 1, for a reason: it's May Day, the day set aside to celebrate the communist uprising. From CNSNews:

Monday, May Day, is International Worker's Day and the communist celebration of the Bolshevik Revolution. It is also a day when illegal immigrants plan to boycott work, school and shopping in an effort to show the contribution of undocumented aliens to the U.S. economy.

Protesters will march in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles to urge Congress not to support a bill introduced by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), which would make it a felony to illegally enter the U.S. or facilitate the illegal entry of someone else.

Calling it "a day without an immigrant," boycott organizers chose Monday because of its socialist and communist roots, according to Lee Siu Hin of Immigrant Solidarity Network. "We're linking workers' rights and immigrant rights. That should be very clear," Lee told Cybercast News Service.

The masses of illegal immigrants probably don't realize they're being used as tools for communist propaganda. They're being told that the protests and boycott are to celebrate the contributions of immigrants in America when in fact they are being use by the communist party in an attempt to manipulate America's political landscape:

Today's protests are an attempt at an immigrant revolution. The protests' organizers, ANSWER, a communist organization founded by Ramsey Clark, have convinced the illegal and legal immigrants that they are the oppressed "proletariat" exploited by the "bourgeoisie," which is why they use language (we clean your toilets, we watch your children, we pick your fruit and vegetables) that pits the illegal and legal immigrants against the middle class. This is classic communist propaganda meant to "empower" the masses of the "oppressed" immigrants and to intimidate congress and the American people into giving illegal immigrants full amnesty.

From The American Thinker:

Hugo Chavez of Venezuela does not lack for ambition. Sitting atop billions of petrodollars, closely allied with Fidel Castro (whose life span soon is nearing its natural end), Chavez is already sticking his nose in the business of other Western Hemisphere nations, supporting leftist candidates, Marxist rebels, aimed at toppling American imperialism, and buying far more arms than would be necessary to defend his borders.

There is every reason to suspect that Hugo Chavez may even be playing a planning and supporting role in today's (May 1st - the Communist holiday) "Day Without an Immigrant" demonstrations.

This is an issue we ought to be watching closely. If Hugo Chavez is instigating or financing any of this, then we are seeing a whole new kind of attack against the U.S.

The deeper truth is that irredentism is congenial to our serious enemies because they recognize its potential to subvert America.

From The Influence Peddler:

It fascinates me that supporters of the 'immigrant cause' have selected Monday, May 1, to try to get America to stand up and notice them. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of American culture, a tribute to Marxism, and a tin ear as to how to appeal to a majority of Americans.

What is the significance of May 1? Why is that date International Workers' Day, as apart from any other day on the calendar? Because May 1 marks the day in 1886 when Chicago labor leaders organized a strike against the McCormick reaper plant. On May 3, two strikers were killed by police during a fight on the picket lines, and the next day anarchists organized a rally at Haymarket Square, where eight police officers were killed when a fused bomb exploded among them. Police opened fire and four protesters were killed. The Haymarket Riot was born.

Ultimately 8 leaders of Chicago's anarchist movement were arrested and convicted for the crime. All but one were (was) of German ethnicity. They had all advocated violence to overthrow the current system. Four were hanged. These 8 anarchists became martyrs to leftists around the world, and May 1 became the day to celebrate their 'sacrifice.'

From Michelle Malkin:

She provides a group of photos to support her assertion of a Marxist, anti-American motivation underlying the protests.

Compare the NY Times' white-washed May Day photo section with these candid shots of yesterday's National Day to Hate the Yanquis:

Protest Warrior Chicago exposed ugly, American flag-trashing advocates...

And a Che-approved (reference to Che Guevara), border-sabotaging message...

And Slapstick Politics in Denver saw a pro-illegal immigration sign-waver who makes the open-borders agenda crystal clear.

Is this our inevitable destiny? If the GOP and the White House roll over, they won't have to play dead in 2006 and 2008. They' will be long-gone cold and stiff.

Look, I no more think the immigration debate is about communism than I think it is simply about granting amnesty and the full rights of citizenship to illegal immigrants. Those who attempt to make it either are simply couching hidden agendas they are fearful to express. Are some of those in this debate on the extreme...absolutely. I have no doubt some are communists (I would more likely say Marxists but I use communists to keep consistent with the rhetoric). Do some prefer fully open borders without enforcement thereby allowing unfettered immigration...sure. Do some prefer a full-scale round-up of all illegal's in order to return them to their country of origin...yep. Do some simply dislike Mexicans and find it convenient to oppose them by speaking in broader terms about the illegal immigration problem...no doubt. Do any of these positions represent a majority consensus or are they the appropriate focus to bring to the debate...not a chance.

Where does that leave us? Back to where I started...near the end of the "tit for tat" debate that has done nothing to resolve the underlying problem. So where is the "truth?" In my opinion, smack dab in the middle. The vast majority of illegal immigrants worked on Monday like they do every Monday. They had children to feed and take to school in the morning. They had to stop at the grocery store after work to get what they needed for dinner. They do the right thing day in and day out because they came here out of despair and a hope for a better existence. They appreciate the opportunity to be in this country and they are willing to do what may be necessary to obtain citizenship.

As to the communists and those who believe in unfettered border crossing...well those people existed before this issue and they will exist after this issue is resolved. Picking a handful of communists out of a crowd estimated to be less than ten percent of the total illegal immigrant population serves only one purpose...inciting and promoting an unspoken agenda for those who lurk within our society just waiting for an opportunity to unleash anger and hatred. Are they a large portion of society...of course not.

It is no different on the other end of the spectrum. Picking a handful of bigots out of the crowd of those opposed to illegal immigration, which represented a miniscule percentage of the citizenry of this country, and reporting on their remarks also serves only one purpose...to incite and promote an unspoken agenda for those who lurk within our society just waiting for an opportunity to unleash anger and hatred.

Can value judgments be made about these opposing extremes...sure. One might be a lesser evil than the other. However, stoking the anger and hatred of one side or the other does nothing to solve the problem. It might feel good for the moment but if change is the goal, and at times I seriously doubt that it is, then the methods must become effective and they must be chosen and measured accordingly.

I'll offer some further speculation. Not unlike many of our politicians, a number of blogs have figured out that the means to their own success (which equates with success for the individuals behind the blogs) is most easily attained by courting those on the extreme. Again, those in the middle are busy working, taking children to school, and stopping at the grocery store. That's not to say they don't care about the issues. I believe they do. At the same time, I would argue that they don't like the rhetoric because it becomes the only obvious constant. The change they desire and the solutions they seek with regard to the larger societal issues are consistent with the realities they face in solving their own problems on a daily basis...if they don't solve them, life becomes untenable.

Sadly, many blogs are simply microcosms of the larger problem. In order to obtain influence, wealth, and power, they succumb to the path of least resistance while claiming to be purveyors of change...they court the extremes. I would contend that speaking to those on the fringe provides the quickest results. I understand and accept that reality but I can't condone it. Do many of them believe in the causes they promote...sure they do. Are many of them able to separate self-interest from public service...I don't know but I'm skeptical. Does the inability to honor those competing interests have the potential to compromise the pursuit of meaningful change...unfortunately I submit that it does.

I'm not a religious person and I don't believe in an afterlife. Ironically, while I won't stake a claim to being a Christian in the defined and institutional sense of the word, I am content to support the notion that the examples offered by a man (fictional or factual are irrelevant to me) named Jesus can guide us to change. His is the story of a social critic who dissected the fallacies and hypocrisies that permeate the human experience. He did so at great personal risk because I believe "he" saw it as I choose to see it...if one man can elect to pursue and follow "truth" then he is entitled to believe and expect that all men can do the same. In doing so, when each individual makes this necessary choice, we will cease pursuing and negotiating for a better, future destiny...and we will finally live heaven on earth. Our destiny is of our own making. I refuse to allow religion, or those who believe it is theirs to define, to remove that destiny from my earthly grasp.

Daniel DiRito | May 3, 2006 | 12:14 PM
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

1 On May 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM, Jimi wrote —

Daniel,

Your question of courting the extremes brings more to my mind: Is there anyone left to court the middle? and Where is the voice that speaks for them?

I think you are a voice that speaks well for the Middle ground. It seems to me both Party's tend to marginalize the center for the sound byte that carries the charged message. Which you pointed out.

Is not the center paralyzed by the extremists on both ends? What path is open to achieve a rational discourse and workable solution when they are to busy 'tit-for-tatting'?

Jimi

2 On May 3, 2006 at 6:37 PM, Daniel wrote —

Jimi,

Sadly, I fear the system is designed such that the middle is overlooked due to the caucus and primary structure. Candidates seeking the nomination end up catering to the extremes because they participate disproportionately.

I also think you are right that a number of candidates use extreme rhetoric to attract extreme voters.

Yes, I think the center is in a bind. But I also think there is a lack of leadership. I am convinced the center is a majority of the voting public. What is lacking is a "reasonable" candidate (I hate the term centrist or moderate because both extremes call them spineless panderers) who can force the two extremes to spell out their goals in detail. By that I mean make the right say how many years a woman should spend in prison if she has an abortion...people don't understand the issue until it's more than rhetoric...as they say show me the money.

On the left, we need a dose of reality. Hey, I'm gay but I realize if I insist that every Democrat make gay marriage a "vocal" priority, we may never elect another Democratic president. At the same time, I am happy to believe that if we can get Democrats in power, they will do what they can to help gays. A number of gays will hate my saying that but unless we're ready to take to the streets and start a revolution, we need to work with what is available. The "truth" is, in my opinion that gays made a mistake by overreaching on marriage...such that we almost precipitated a constitutional amendment that may have foreclosed our hopes for more equality for decades.

By saying this, I'm not accepting that gays shouldn't have the same rights...we should...but I want to win...fighting for the simple sake of fighting does nothing for me. As they say, choose your battles well if you want to win the war.

In the end, petulance needs to be extinguished and replaced with reason and logic. Frankly, the number of demanding "brats" is a big part of the problem. My boss used to say, hey, I know what everyone wants...tell me how to get it and I'll be glad to listen.

All I can say Jimi, we just have to keep speaking as much "truth" as possible. I still believe the middle understands "truth"...they simply need someone to champion it.

Jimi, thanks again for the dialogue. In knowing you and many others like you are out there, I am able to remain hopeful and optimistic. Keep the faith!

Daniel

3 On May 4, 2006 at 9:21 AM, Billy Rubin wrote —

I think you gloss over the fact that rasicm (especially directed towards the brown-skinned) is part of America's history from the beginning. As such, it is not wrong or short-sighted to postulate that rasicm pervades the anti-immigration camp. Unqualified amnesty and communism obviously don't share the same history nor standing.

4 On May 4, 2006 at 10:22 AM, Daniel wrote —

Billy,

In my posting I state that racism is one of the elements in the debate. The point of my posting is that extreme rhetoric isn't going to solve the immigration issue. There are numerous groups with an axe to grind that want to hijack the debate. If we are going to talk about immigration, then I want to do that. If we want to talk about racism, I will do that also. But all too often issues are conflated such that a real and rational discussion about the specific topic never materializes. That is exactly what I mean about "tit for tat".

I'll give you a different example...look at Israel and the Palestinians...they seemingly never get to a point of resolution because they can't get beyond the injustices (whether perceived or real) they feel the other side has inflicted. So what happens...they kill each other. That's the eventual outcome of a "tit for tat" mentality. Do you want to go there? I don't so I say tone it down and let's all be reasonable.

Even if we agree that racism is a factor (and I think it is), it still doesn't solve the problem of immigration and it can't be the only consideration in determining the resolution. We can allocate blame till we're all blue in the face...that isn't good enough for me. I want to solve the problem, not argue about it for the next twenty years.

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your observations and I hope to hear more of your thoughts.

Daniel

Thought Theater at Blogged

Post a comment


Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry


© Copyright 2024

Casting

Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader

Encores

http://DeeperLeft.com

Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design