08/23/2006
Eric Pfeiffer has a story about the new book in the Washington Times today. It’s balanced with a qote from Daniel Griswold of Cato.[Buchanan warns of flood of illegals ]On of the things he says is this:
Many of Mr. Buchanan’s critics view his immigration rhetoric as counterproductive.
That would be people like Jonah Goldberg, (here) and Ramesh Ponnuru. (here)
These are people who, if you ask them, years from now "What did you do in the culture war?" will be saying "I kept my head down." Buchanan doesn’t think like that. It’s not his style. Nor is ours, of course. This is Peter Brimelow’s theory:
THERE are basically two views about how you can influence public debate. The Thin End of the Wedge Theory, favored by gentle souls like James W. Michaels and John OSullivan, respectively my editors at Forbes and NATIONAL REVIEW, is that while emphasizing how much agreement there is between you and everyone else, you politely but firmly insinuate modifications into the discussion, all of such an eminently sensible character that no one can possibly (or, at least, reasonably) object. Over time, you turn people around.
In contrast, theres the Thick End Theory. You pick up the wedge by its thin end and pound the opposition with the thick end, as hard as possible. Then you stand back and see what happens.
VDARE — Alien Nation: Round 2
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.