It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea

HumanEventsOnline ^ | 3/13/06 | Mac Johnson

[raybbr]

I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.

Animosity, no. Uttter disdain, yes.

[Stellar Dendrite]

i didnt post it :)

[raybbr]

Odd that they would bitch about it, and think that that strong economy can be damaged by global trade.

Do we not have gloabal trade now? What is missing? The open borders and me walking around with foreigners' hands in my pockets? Will that be enough for you guys?

[TXBSAFH]

The chicoms as well should not be in that position. We need port security.

[the anti-liberal]

"It's Not Xenophobia, It's Xenonausea"

Version two: It's Not Homophobia, It's Homonausea

[TXBSAFH]

IMHO any nation that is realistically a potential threat like China, or any Arab nation should not have access to important part of our nations infrastructure, like ports.

[TXBSAFH]

I would go as far as out right hate.

[Reagan Man]

Meant to say, thanks for the ping. ;^)

[Dominic Harr]

IMHO any nation that is realistically a potential threat like China, or any Arab nation should not have access to important part of our nations infrastructure, like ports.

1. "Not have any access to our ports"? Not at all? Fair enough, but I do not agree with such a level of paranoia. Does this mean that you will push for legislation to this effect?

2. Do you acknowledge that the UAE is an *ally* of ours, not an adversary like China? Can you understand how this kind of comment, this 'any Arab nation' thing is what makes many of us think it's racism? "All Arabs are untrustworthy" is a racist comment.

P.S. -- Please note, I am not calling you names. I am pointing out that a comment you made is a racist statement, then asking you to defend that comment.

[Dominic Harr]

The chicoms as well should not be in that position. We need port security.

You have evidence that the Chicoms moving crates around has risked our port security?

I hadn't heard that anywhere . . . I'd love to hear your evidence.

[TXBSAFH]

Letting the the CHicom militaery have control of a prot treminal after they have treatened to nuke us and as they are planning war with us is insane.

[TXBSAFH]

Calling racist the last refuge of the weak mind. Why should we trust them after their close ties to Al Quaeda? And they have ties between teh ruling family and Bin Ladens organization. As I recall several members for their ruling family have had repeated meatings with them.

[La Enchiladita]

Delicious, isn't it?

[Old_Mil]

Bravo.

He who hath ears, let him hear: "Soon, Congress will consider a new illegal immigration bill. Failure to acknowledge the new mood in the country could break the Republican Party."

[Old_Mil]

Do we not have gloabal trade now? What is missing? The open borders and me walking around with foreigners' hands in my pockets? Will that be enough for you guys?

Slavery. That will reduce labor costs to zero and eliminate all sorts of irritating expenses like health care, matching 401k contributions, pension plans...

[La Enchiladita]

*This article is a masterpiece!*
I agree so I'm bumping it with my favorite excerpts:

…The disciples of “free” trade [eagerly] took to attacking the conservative base as a bunch of xenophobic ignoramuses storming the harmless castle Globalstein with torches and pitchforks. That sort of animosity couldn’t be over just one relatively minor business deal for Dubai. I’m sensing that the Beltway Boys and the Wall Street Wonks have been entertaining some animosity against Main Street and the Heartland for some time.

Whatever their motivation, they came across as nothing less than petty and absurd. The restructuring of the world economy and the American legal landscape by the proponents of free trade over the last two decades has been nothing short of a revolution—and it was all made possible, ultimately, by the votes of the fly-over country conservatives

…. Well, in my opinion this is sort of like an argument in a marriage. It may have started over a specific incident, but it’s really about something else and has been building for a long time.

This minor uprising was about a general feeling that, whatever merits free trade, open borders, and corporate globalism may have financially, they are often not good for the nation in many ways that fail to be accounted for in the theoretical models of economists. Free trade fails to take account of cultural consequences, and it places no value on concepts such as national loyalty. To the value-free traders, labor is simply a commodity, and people are interchangeable parts. And they are entirely correct—economically speaking. A widget is a widget, and the cheaper you can get them made, the better.

… But the problem is that all nations are more than just economic systems. They are each somebody’s home. And each has a culture, and a language, and a set of common ideals that they want protected—...

…. They are sick of being at war with foreign terrorists and simultaneously being economically and demographically bound more tightly to the nations producing these terrorists.

… If absolute globalization really is inevitable, it doesn’t need such a vociferous lobby. It will happen at its own organic pace....

And if it is not inevitable, then it needs to be justified beyond the boardroom and the lecture hall. It may not be something that everyone wants to pay the costs of, whatever benefits it may bring to our bank accounts and stock exchanges.

[La Enchiladita]

president@whitehouse.gov

[F16Fighter]

The more I read this essay by Mr.Johnson, the better it gets.

Outstanding post.

[La Enchiladita]

Conservatives are *suppose* to make decisions based on evidence.

And, the CFIUS is supposed to follow its own rules.

As well, the administration is supposed to give us a better case than "Trust me."

[A Jovial Cad]

Excellent article. The fact that the Frettin' FReepers^TM have tried to crap all over it in this thread only confirms its cogency.