Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Teddy Kennedy, Dead at 77, 50 Years Too Late

Following is only a minuscule encapsulation of the evils this power-hungry, egalitarian aristocrat helped inflict on Americans:
Kennedy cobbled together legislative majorities (often bipartisan) that expanded the federal government's role in health care, boosted immigration levels, raised the minimum wage, increased environmental regulations, and enhanced legal protections for the disabled.
By all means, let us not speak ill of the dead, unless the dead happens to be someone who spent a lifetime violating the rights of his fellow man.

Edward Kennedy, may he RIP - Roast in Perdition.


madmax said...

He was a monster no question, and a murderer. But much of the criticism that he is getting from the Right has to do with his open immigration policies. Immigration is a difficult situation for me as an Objectivist. While I am for it in theory as part of a fully free society, I think there are grave dangers with it in today's advancing welfare state with massive amounts of racial collectivism, not to mention the problem that Muslim immigration represents.

You are one of the better balanced Rand-influenced commentators that I read. You understand the evil of the Progressive Left and the Religious Right without condemning all conservatives as theocrats which some Objectivists tend to do. So, if you ever have the time and inclination, I would be interested in your views on immigration and what to make of the Right's obsession with it, especially the Paleocons who are heavily influenced by racialism or as they call it "race realism"(ie see Steve Salier).

As for a guy like Kennedy, it almost makes you wish there really were a hell so he could rot in it.

Jeff Perren said...

My apology for taking so long to reply. It's been an unusually busy past few days (which will continue for the next few, at least).

"much of the criticism that he is getting from the Right has to do with his open immigration policies"

I haven't seen that; in fact, I've seen very little in the way of criticism at all (yet). Most commentators seem content to refrain (at least for a while) out of - in my view - a misplaced respect and tenderness toward his family.

As to my views on immigration, I confess they're muddled. I'm inclined to be more open, but share your concern about the effects a significantly more open policy would have, given the current welfare state.

That could, though, be countered by the simple expedient of simply not giving any to non-citizens. That isn't likely under the present circumstances, but neither is any large-scale correction of U.S. immigration policy, either, yet.

This is just one more example of Mises' (and many others') observation of how controls breed more controls, and that one bad policy generates pressure to enact another to compensate.

I have to add, though, that I don't think the Right in general is obsessed with this issue. There's a subset, to be sure. But I gauge their size and influence in the same rough and ready way I gauge that of the Religious Right. Look to the popularity of such commentators and politicians as, say, Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee. They have an audience, to be sure. But in percentage terms it's much smaller than more sensible conservatives, such as Jonah Goldberg and Michelle Bachman.

Many, like some of my relatives who are bonafide social (and fiscal) religious conservatives, are upset at the illegality and the security issues, and even more so at the destruction wrought by Mexicans coming over the border and trashing Arizona. Others have much less reason to be as concerned, apart from the easy route provided to jihadists by a porous border. (They don't seem to have much trouble getting in legally, though, anyway.)

This somewhat rambling response is one of the reasons I describe my views on immigration as muddled. I just haven't given the issue enough thought to have well-worked out, rational views.

Just on one point, though, I think if we had a much more vigorous and consistent defense policy (by, say, invading and altering Iran the way Japan was post-WWII) it would be much less an issue. Unfortunately, that's about as likely to happen in the next 3-7 years as any significant erosion of welfare for illegal immigrants.

Saying that things are a mess is a cliche and a bore when you can't say how to fix them, but that's about where I am right now.

madmax said...

"Saying that things are a mess is a cliche and a bore when you can't say how to fix them, but that's about where I am right now."

You know, that's exactly where I am. Immigration is one of those topics that since its a derivative issue and itself based on many other things, there are so many other issues in philosophy and politics that take precedence. As a result, a full comprehensive view of it is not immediately apparent. Its good to know I'm not the only one who is muddled on that subject.

I also liked your latest post on oil especially the tribute to the oil drillers and the Ellis Wyatts of the world.

Ted Amadeus said...

Open immigration would not be an issue if we got rid of the welfare state. Kennedy was a fanatical champion of both. I might be able to relish in his departure if it were not for the way he went, and the likely probability he will be replaced with worse, coming from "TAX-achusetts". To this day, I still wonder why - since the femiNazis are so gaga over dinky dollar coins with womens' pictures on them - there's not a Mary Jo Kopechne dollar, to commemorate the woman who single-handedly saved America from a "Red" Kennedy presidency?