I believe the new Huntington book, “Who Are We,” not yet out but already widely reviewed, will prove an important turning point. It seems to me that once the intellectual community, stultified though it be, begins to slowly draw conclusions from 9/11, multiculturalism in all its manifestations will go into sharp decline. I believe that a renewed focus on our cultural identity and the important values it sustains is the beginning of a process that will gradually unravel the progressivism that has reigned for over 100 years, which is ultimately based on nihilism and self - loathing. Once a process changes from fashionable wholesale condemnation of our culture, to seeking out what is positive and worth enhancing, the game is up for the left, which is sustained on seeing the world in negative terms, as in deepest essence a structure of oppression and exploitation.

I was not pleased by the tone of Solomon’s questions, which included the worst sort of insinuation, “when did you stop beating your wife,” implicit insults, and ad hominem attacks. Noteworthy was the raising of hostile stereotypes of “WASPs” irrelevant to the problem under discussion and of a type that would probably be considered “racist” if they were mentioned about any other group.

It has to be good for restrictionism; to have a scholar of renown bestow more intellectual respectability on these concerns: regarding immigration, multiculturalism and decolonizationism. It will likely break the ice for others, which is important in that ordinary people can’t be expected to project the long-term effects of national policy, or not in a learned way. If intellectuals try to hide the consequences of disastrous appeasements and tribute-paying to foreigners, how will the electorate develop a capacity to respond? The Times’ interviewer is brazenly prejudiced, yet Huntington is imperturbable in making his points; he is not swayed by evaluative intimidation. His thought experiment on the necessity of a particular population (for this society to develop) is notable historical reasoning.

The lady got her final question backwards: “How can you reconcile being a Democrat with your views on immigration and assimilation? “

His answer: “Actually, both parties are divided on immigration.”

Oh, right. Maybe the rank-and-file. But name a single prominent Democrat, other than the imprisoned James Traficant, who is on our side. Restrictionist Democrats could share a phone booth with the party’s pro-life caucus.

In my view, Mr. Huntington has committed the heresy of assigning a social and cultural identity to our people. Since this is part of the classical definition of a “nation” it would seem faultless. Unless of course you believe that we are only united by the old creed. To those, his implied thesis sets off fire alarms!

If America is in fact “a nation,” it has a particular people who have an actual social,cultural and historical identity. In that case, they also have a right to preserve it as a nation of such a people.

On the other hand, the empire and neo-cons submit that the actual inhabitants of the land make no difference of significance to it’s identity, as long as they all somehow vaguely affirm, the “creed.”

This is why Huntington’s position is a challenge that they cannot let stand. It is fine to have all the individual identity, diversity and enrichment, bla, bla, bla, you want. But try alleging that the people have a right to preserve a common historical social and cultural identity. Not only that, but allage that thier govenment has an obligation to preserve it for them!
That position is intolerable to those which spread a doctrine of universal identity at the costs of the destruction of existing national identities.
As a bit of an aside, I think that Bush believes that since his mission is to make the world “free,” he can do this by allowing the third world to invade our land, (ah ha, playing right into his hands!). Somewhere after passing over the border, they will encounter the mysterious “creed-rays” and will become magically transormed into a state of being “free’ by the time they reach Houston. In Iraq the transformation process works a litle different: It has to be by home delivery.