In
Christopher Hitchens's piece on the Glenn Beck
Restoring Honor rally entitled "
White Fright", Hitchens argues that those who attended the rally did so mainly due to a concern of what he dubs "white fright" - the fear of whites becoming the minority race in America. Now I love and admire Hitchens for his stances that, in general, are in the interests of reason, questioning and intellect, but on this latest thought process he is wrong.
Hitchens claims that this fear of becoming the minority is going to soon become volatile. His own statements in the same article fly in the face of his assertions as he points out that portions of Texas and California have already become white minority. Was there violence in those areas as whites became a minority? Was there blood in the streets? Indeed there has been some, but it was between blacks and Hispanics fighting over territory, not whites.
It is quite obvious that Hitchens holds Beck in contempt in his descriptions of the man, comparing him to the father of the Christian Coalition and referring to him as a "quasi-educated Mormon broadcaster". I have my differences of opinion with Beck and do indeed think that he is using some people for his own - and his fellow supporting and "blessed" friends - own gain, but I would not go as far as to slam him quite so hard.
The crux of Hitch's argument comes back to religion in the piece time and again, with him being a non-theist or anti-theist this is understandable. Hitchens sees organized religion as just a method of fooling the masses and controlling them for power, fame and fortune all on a fairy tale of beliefs and hand-me-down stories. In this I agree with him on the manipulation. To somehow twist this whole rally on the "white fright" issue, just to justify his position against religion, is beneath him.
He tosses in the recent immigration battle in Arizona as just another example. He ignores the fact that there might just be a majority of Americans that want the actual rule of law to be enforced so that we can have some sort of societal control and order in this country. To simply assert that it is a mass outpouring of "angry white people" afraid of the [insert color of your choice] people, does not do justice to the intellect I believe he has. Come on Mr. Hitchens you are quite better than that my friend. I expected a reasoned debate on the detriments and merits of uncontrolled illegal immigration from you, not simply the talking points of La Raza that all of those opposed to illegal immigration are simply racists and bigots. That argument is simply non-intellectual and ill-reasoned.
Hitchens recently became a United States Citizen and we are much the richer for his joining of our country of his own choice because of his belief in our principles and system of government. But now he would have us believe that the 70-80 percent of his fellow countrymen, those who want immigration laws enforced, are simply racists or the "white frightened". I simply find that hard to believe that someone would join such a country they viewed that way of their own volition.
He continues, noting that those who oppose Obama rarely make slurs against him purely on the color of his skin and also notes that he is hearing more allegations that Obama is foreign-born or a Muslim. I suggest that in the former case that is because those who oppose Obama's actions are indeed not racist and therefore the issue has nothing to do with his skin color. To suggest that omission of direct racist attacks against Obama shows that those attacking his stances are truly racist flies in the face of reason. He seems to hint that it is just well hidden. How clever of the millions to simultaneously agree to not make racist comments simply because it would be poor form. As Mr Hitchens well knows, Americans are world renowned for their lack of keeping their opinions to themselves. To suggest a vast conspiracy of such a nature is pretty laughable from such a great thinker.
As for the latter assertion that there is more chatter questioning Obama's place of birth and religion, I would dare to point Mr. Hitchens to the fact that it is more than likely because of recent polling that came out. It is also due to the actions the president and his lackeys have taken that have increased this belief. How are people to judge someone other than on their actions? Recent polls showed the numbers on both of these issues were on the increase. The news media quickly plastered them all over the place.
Polls are polls and sometimes they are wrong and sometimes those sampled are different than those sampled before - as well as the wording of the polls. The increased chatter is coming from the left of the media that has continued to latch on in any way and trumpet from the mountaintop that America - and those who oppose Obama's stances - are simply hate-filled racists. That Mr. Hitchens - a generally great skeptic - cannot see that this "increase" in chatter is purely political maneuvering from a sympathetic wing of the media boggles my mind.
Hitch also takes a slap at Sarah Palin, and rightly so. Her lackluster speech was a rehash of every other speech she has given, and without any seeming passion. He blasts her for having to point out that she stands for our soldiers who have sacrificed, as if the rest of us need to be reminded, or somehow do not care. I am a vet myself, but many times I see people use the military and veterans for their own gain when they themselves have never sacrificed one thing. They go from mommy and daddy paying for all their food, clothes and shelter to mommy and daddy paying for their college to finally - after 25 years or so - actually earning a paycheck for themselves. Then a year or two later they come around to tell the rest of us how much our vets have sacrificed for us and how hard life is. Well that is very nice of you to state having never really sacrificed or suffered yourself. Hitchens is right to call them out on this.
The real crux though is when he states the following:
More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country.
Since when is it okay that citizens of a country feel unwelcome in their own country? When is it okay for their government to give benefits to others over the citizens of the country they are sworn to defend and serve. On this note I vehemently disagree with Mr. Hitchens. What is the point of becoming a citizen of any country if that country seems to treat citizens as the plague of the country's existence? When is it okay for a country to treat immigrants or visitors to a country better than its citizens? What is the point of having a country with laws, safety and security if it can just be walked into by masses of people - who do not hold the same principles to government and the rule of law or value of the constitution - and just take over portions of that country?
You cannot have equality for all, the continued existence of infrastructure and an ordered society if it is overwhelmed. This is the true heart of the immigration issue and it has nothing to do with any sort of "white fright" as Hitch puts it. The citizens of a country have a right to limit the number and skill-level of people that come to their country, so that proper planning can occur. They have a right to demand that they properly assimilate into the culture of the nation. They have a right to ensure that this action does not adversely affect citizens who are already here. To do it any other way is suicidal for that nation. Those who argue against this logic are doing so for some other purpose than the principles of our constitution and your rights as a citizen of the nation of the United States.
