Sunday, August 21, 2005

What--Exactly and In Principle--Is Wrong With the "Minutemen"?

So, I've stayed out of the debate about the "Minutemen" (not those from the Revolution, who I'm definitely in favor of, but the contemporary ones, who I'm tentatively in favor of). Dave Neiwert has his finger on the pulse of American racists like almost nobody else, and he's anti-Minuteman. But thus far I've found his arguments unconvincing--though I haven't read all of them I must admit. At any rate, Dave's judgments on this are better than mine, but here're mine for what they're worth.

There are at least two questions at issue here, as is usually the case: the question of principle and the question of practice. That is:

1. Are the Minutemen doing something that is wrong in principle?

and

2. Are the Minutemen, as a matter of actual fact, reprehensible?

Now, I don't know what the actual characters of the actual Minutemen are like. I'd guess they're a mixed bag, but I don't know. Neiwert is probably the man to go to on this question. I'll not address it.

However, I'm more interested in the first question anyway. Is there anything in principle impermissible about private citizens banding together to assist the authorities in apprehending criminals? It's hard to see how the answer to that question could be 'yes.' If the law in question is just, then it is permissible and perhaps even obligatory for us to assist the authorities in enforcing it.

So whence opposition to the Minutemen?

My guess is that it is based on some mixture of the following:

First, suspicion--warranted or not--that the Minutemen are, in fact, motivated by racism. (If they ARE racists, then, of course, to hell with 'em--but I'm in no way convinced that they are.)

Second, liberal antipathy to this kind of direct action by citizens.

Third, opposition to current immigration laws.

I'm actually a supporter of stricter immigration laws, because I think we're already over-populated. Some have grouped me in with racists because of this position. They point out that some racists advocate stricter immigration laws because they hate non-whites, and that I advocate stricter immigration laws...so... (At this point their little minds seem to go all awhirl, but you know what they're thinking...) My position here is an environmental one, however. I also think we should have fewer babies. Note that neither of these conclusions has anything whatsoever to do with skin color.

At any rate, if one advocates greater rates of immigration, then one should work to raise immigration quotas. Advocating illegal immigration is clearly not the rational solution. I'm more than willing to listen to arguments for the conclusion that we should raise the quotas--but more illegal immigration simply cannot be the correct solution to the problem.

Given this, and given that the government is currently ineffective in solving the problem, it is apparently a good thing that citizens should try to help out. Now, so long as they aren't hurting anyone but are merely assisting law enforcement, it's difficult to see what objection one could raise to their actions. One might, of course, object to their character, but that's a different matter. Again, if they are, in fact, racists, then to hell with 'em.

But my suspicion is that the charges of racism are (sadly, typical) knee-jerk reactions from the left. Many of the protest-prone on the left think that all white males who live outside of NYC are racists. They see a rancher with a pickup truck and a cowboy hat and the case is closed. But here's the thing: if I thought that our immigration policies were just (which I do), and illegal immigrants were cutting my fences, killing my cattle, and shitting on my land, and if the government wasn't stopping them, then I'd be doing exactly what the Minutemen are doing. And I'm as anti-racist as you can get. Consequently, acting as the Minutemen are acting does not ipso facto make you a racist, nor reprehensible in any way that I can discern.

So I look at the Minutemen and think there but for the grace of God go I. Only the fact that my folks' farm/ranch is in Missouri rather than New Mexico separates me from them. But for an accident of geography, those scrawny little rich kids in their studiously pre-shabbified Ambercrombie and Fitch t-shirts would be calling me a racist. Hell, I was bucking racism when those weenies were attending their upscale, racially integrated preschools. How irritating. How tedious. How predictable...

Liberals would do well to distance themselves from the kookier elements of the left, especially the knee-jerk yer-a-racist crowd. Among other reasons, liberals have--in case you haven't noticed--more important things to be doing these days.

[Note: as always, this is intended to be the next word, not the last word, on the subject. I'm more interested in hearing your reaction than expressing my own. As always, I could be wrong.]

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston,

3 comments:

1. The 'Winston is a racist' canard is a classic undistributed middle: a) All racists are for stricter immigration laws b) Winston is for stricter immigration laws c) Therefore, Winston is a racist.

2. Even if they ARE racists, if what they do is not illegal or immoral, and they do in fact assist our law enforcement, what's wrong with them doing it anyway? As long as the actions aren't bad, who cares if the mind is? I mean, I wouldn't necessarily be happy about it, but if a racist cop can still be a good cop (an actual real law/government official), is there a good reason to remove him or her from their job?

I suppose to some extent it depends also on what actions on their part would be sanctioned. If you allow armed apprehension/subduing of illegals, you may be asking for trouble. But if it's spot 'em and call the authorities, do you see a serious problem?

3. "But for an accident of geography, those scrawny little rich kids in their studiously pre-shabbified Ambercrombie and Fitch t-shirts would be calling me a racist. Hell, I was bucking racism when those weenies were attending their upscale, racially integrated preschools."

From where I sit, you're creating a caricature here in order to beat the $hit out of a strawman. After spending several paragraphs implying that the Minutemen (or some of them) may in fact be racists, you're singling out some particularly irksome (to you) subgroup of the left for opprobium. Kind of a knee-jerk response from the "kookier elements" of the right, don't you think?

8:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston,

Do you have any specific reaction to Dave Neiwert's 8/8/05 post on the minutemen, and the accompanying photos?

9:39 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Um, try to pay attention, Azael. I know it's a lot to ask...

I pointed out that some of the actual Minutemen might be racists. If so, then very much to hell with them, and doubly so if they're Nazis.

But:

(a) THe question is: what's wrong with the Minutemen *in principle*.

and

(b) The Ambercrombie and Fitch stereotype isn't fabricated...that's one of the few actual images I saw while on vacation...some of the professional collegiate protest crowd protesting the Minutemen as racists.

So, to sum up: There seems to be nothing inherently and in principle wrong with being a Minuteman. On the other hand, some of these guys are bastards. On the other hand, some of those protesting against them are idiots. But neither of those facts is relevant to the question of principle.

11:31 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

I may agree with you, A, on the practical question. But I was addressing the question of principle.

Contrary to what you assert, you can't really think about these issues clearly unless you separate the questions of principle and practice and deal with them separately. In fact, much needless disagreement is generated when one side is arguing about the principle and the other is arguing about the actual facts on the ground.

Your beer and weapons example is a good one--but not the sex with 12-year-olds. That, see, is also wrong in principle.

Anyway, I think we're probably in agreement about much of what's substantial here, for what that's worth.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In the broader scope, there are a zillion things where there is nothing wrong *in principle*, yet are absolutely terrible ideas *in practice*. For example, lets take sleeping with 12 year old girls. No, biology pretty much says that they're ready to breed, yet we have a zillion social mechanisms to prevent it (at least in this country and in my state - Idaho is another story)."

Professor Russell, is that you? ;)

10:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll be check back to see your Blog again too. Have a great day.

5:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

super cool **t-shirts**

5:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greatest Blog Post. Please visit this site on unlimited long distance carrier
unlimited long distance carrier

12:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home