Another baby step by the boys at NR

The editors of National Review write:

We believe that assimilation will proceed faster and better, and both established residents and newcomers will be happier, if the current level of immigration, legal and illegal combined, is reduced.

As far as I can remember, this modest statement represents the first time since 1997 that the editors of NR have even alluded to the desirability of reducing legal immigration. So NR is finally moving in the direction of (not moving to) the position it had before NR’s previous editor John O’Sullivan, who had taken a strong immigration restrictionist line, was dismissed by William Buckley in 1997. Under O’Sullivan’s successor, Richard Lowry, NR became stone-cold silent about immigration for years. After 9/11 it took decent positions on controlling illegal immigration, while still remaining mute on legal immigration, except for periodically publishing useful, moderate reform articles by Mark Krikorian (who assiduously avoids the issues of national identity, culture, and assimilation). And now, nine years after the coup, NR is finally talking—albeit in a very low-key manner—about cutting back on legal immigration, and, moreover, about doing so for the purpose of preserving American culture, or, at least, for the purpose of making people happier.

This shows the costs to conservatism, to the cause of immigration control, and to America, of Buckley’s treasonous act in 1997 when he fired O’Sullivan, removed Peter Brimelow from the board of senior editors, and hired the then 29-year-old Lowry as editor on the apparent understanding that NR would henceforth have nothing to say about the most fateful issue facing the country. All the previous hard-gained understandings of the immigration problem were cast aside, and NR has had to start learning about immigration again from scratch.

- end of initial entry -

Alan Levine writes:

Why has Buckley behaved the way he has for the last 15 years or so? I have heard horrendous rumors about the man, but have never seen any hard explanation.

LA replies:

Why not? :-)

The prevailing order of our society is liberalism. Unless a person is consciously committed to non-liberal principles, allegiances, and sensibilities, he will inevitably tend to become more and more liberal over time.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 10, 2006 11:46 AM | Send