Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Response to the Maryland Rape Case Is a Stain on the Right
We are all, justly, very sensitive to and sick of charges of “racism” being thrown around promiscuously at the right for any and every deviation from leftist orthodoxy. But just as we say to Muslims about terrorism, our ability to object with credibility depends on a willingness to police our own.
Our media, including many of our Ricochet luminaries are failing in that task right now by joining in the hysteria over the undoubtedly horrific rape of a 9th grade girl in Rockville, Maryland.
For the benefit of anyone who doesn’t know the story, it is fairly straightforward. The victim was allegedly forced into a boys bathroom at her school and brutally raped by two older boys/men. Reports I’ve seen state that one was 17 and the other 18.
So far we have a horrible, but local, crime. It has become a cause celeb because at least one (and perhaps both, reports I’ve seen vary) of the alleged perpetrators was in the United States illegally.
To get the obvious caveats out of the way: 1) this should never have happened and the victim deserves our sympathy and support; and 2) if found guilty the perpetrators should have the book thrown at them and if they ever get out of prison should be launched back to wherever they came from by catapult, preferably after being doused in gasoline and set ablaze.
My point isn’t about the victim or the perpetrators in this case, it is about (some of our) eagerness to make this case about something more than the victim and the perpetrators.
Racism is a species of what we used to call “prejudice” – the “prejudging” or having a negative presumption about an entire class of persons based on the behavior or attributes of a few members of that class. The two have become somewhat conflated in the public discourse for two reasons I think. First of all, back in the day racism to a significant degree took the form of widely held negative stereotypes about black Americans (e.g. all blacks are criminals), and second, frankly, the “racism” charge has been thrown around so much by the left at this point that it’s sort of taken over the field. It’s made it difficult to recall that it is really pre-judgment that is wrong – the tarring all members of a class/race/etc. with the negative attributes or acts of a few. The fact that some of the most problematic pre-judgment was at one time against blacks is historically contingent. That just happened to be the form in which the underlying pathology of prejudice most obviously presented itself.
My understanding of the position of the right has been that, while we object to the overuse of the charge of racism, we have accepted the quite reasonable view that prejudice is in fact wrong and that individuals should be judged on their individual merits.
That notion comports so perfectly with other ideas important to the right, such as equality before the law, self reliance and individual responsibility, and respect for legal process.
Yet for some reason, in the current environment, it’s become acceptable for even usually very sober and responsible voices on the right to take this case and treat it as representative of every illegal immigrant in America. That is pre-judging of the worst sort. Whether it is racially motivated or not is irrelevant.
In an effort to police our own we need to remember that facts still matter. Not everything needs to be a meme. Here the facts are as follows:
- Two men (allegedly) committed a heinous crime.
- At least one of them was an illegal immigrant.
- But the illegal immigrant population did not commit a heinous crime.
A couple of other facts worth remembering are that a) most illegal immigrants never commit a crime save crossing the border illegally, and b) illegal immigrants are in fact incarcerated at a much lower rate than native born Americans.
I know the major media, which is in the business of selling hysteria, will not keep these facts in mind, but among ourselves it would be nice if we could discuss this subject with some precision and remember what we’re actually talking about. It would be even nicer if our mandarins here at Ricochet with a louder bully pulpit than we puny mortals would take heed as well.
Published in Domestic Policy, Immigration
I think we already covered this in a very heated thread started by Mona Charon that had to be closed to further comments.
If the goal is to change policy, then using sensational stories (that happen to be true, even better), to move public opinion in your direction is called politics. It is dirty. If that presents a problem for someone, maybe politics is not for them. No amount of wishing it were not so, will change matters. One story, blown out of proportion can change the world.
I saw the Cato Institute paper when trying to check out the mangled statistics that Ms. Charen had presented.
The authors take pains to explain how difficult it is to collect complete data. This is in part because Leftists in government want it to be difficult.
By focusing on incarceration rates, a large number of criminal illegal aliens are all brushed off. Those are the ones that got deported or who fled the country or who plea-bargained down or who are still in hiding or who are being shielded in Leftist sanctuaries or whose crimes were never reported because they were against other illegal immigrants.
Since Leftists primarily argue on emotional grounds, why should conservatives be precluded from carrying an argument out on their turf ?
It’s also dishonest.
Arent we all better off if our public discourse and our public policy are based on honesty and a sober rational discussion of facts, rather than dishonesty and scaremongering?
Intentionally promoting sensationalism to get your way carries other costs too. Among other things it harms social cohesion. And dishonesty begets dishonesty.
Ms. Charen’s post:
http://ricochet.com/418173/emotionalism-except-not/
That sounds wonderful but the last 40 years shows it does not work. Public policy is fueled by outrage. The Left and their SJW have shaped public policy by using this tool and the right has been above it, and has lost. The truth is if you want to shape public policy then the Right needs to weaponize their SJW and fight back instead of just rolling over and taking it over and over and over again.
I can question the government’s policies that led it to collect people at the boarder and ‘settle’ them across the country instead of deporting them and requiring them to apply for immigration legally. I can question the wisdom of putting 18 year old recent illegal immigrants, about whom we know nothing, in school with 14 year olds.
BTW- I did question this at the time – and I remember saying that putting older, teenaged unaccompanied minors in school as freshman would be a problem.
But using the most egregious cases to bolster an argument that is grounded in a sober rational discussion of facts is called “dishonesty and scaremongering” ?
It may amount to “promoting sensationalism” but that is the world we live in. Have you quit watching broadcast media ?
I have seen no dishonesty. Illegal immigrants do commit crimes.
Illegal immigrants were ignored, coddled, celebrated and promoted by Team Obama and a host of Leftists who continue to pour hundreds of heart-tugging emotionally-laden “human interest” stories that make illegal immigrants out to be the salvation of all that is good in America. Every newspaper is running stories about the struggles of laudable illegal immigrant cases. NPR seems to be running one every hour. It is going to take some serious counter-programming to fight this battle.
I was completely unaware of Mona’s post (believe it or not, I’m not on this site 24/7 nor do I read everything posted).
I concede though that mine is little more than a less erudite rehash of it. That was not my intention, but facts is facts.
Feel free to disregard.
Cato, there is no escaping the fact that if we policed illegal immigration harder, resulting in fewer illegal immigrants in the country, then crime by illegal immigrants would be reduced. Not as a percentage of illegal immigrants perhaps, but definitely by sheer numbers. I have not read the Mona Charon thread referenced above. I do not recall, however, in other threads, posts and comments I have read that anyone has said every illegal immigrant is a rapist, murderer, drunk driver or thief. By virtue of breaking immigration law, every illegal immigrant is a criminal, though. I have no problem with highlighting the fact that this crime was committed by an illegal immigrant, and if we policed illegal immigration harder that it is unlikely this unfortunate girl would have been raped. I have no problem with highlighting the fact that if we policed illegal immigration harder that Kate Steinle would likely still be alive because she was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Loss of jobs and creating a permanent underclass are not the only problems caused by illegal immigration.
The pro-amnesty side has, for years and years, used emotional arguments and sad cases to sell their turn-a-blind-eye illegal immigration system and amnesty schemes. Funny that their favorite tool is so disgusting to them when the other side makes use of it!
What is dishonest about pointing out that if this illegal alien had been deported when arrested last year, he would not have been here to rape this girl?
I think he means ‘inconvenient’
Objection!
If someone says “if the law had been enforced, and this person illegally in the country had been deported, then this crime never could have happened”, that is NOT akin to saying ‘all illegals are guilty of this crime’ or any such.
Further, if Montgomery County, MD did not have a standard practice of placing illegal immigrants at ages 17 and 18 ( and above) who are poorly educated in to public school grades which have students normally 14 years old, this crime would never have happened. (That is NOT saying that every 18 year old illegal is a rapist! )
Why is it so hard to accept that there are valid reasons to enforce existing laws, and to not do so needlessly endangers citizens?
I agree with you that with social media and the heightened sensitivities these days, everyone plays judge and jury within days of an incident. Then it sparks riots, protests, fuels distrust and both sides are guilty of it. We are losing our grip on what it means to be civil and allow justice to play out. Sometimes what seems obvious is not always the truth. It is a dreadful crime, but trying to spin it one way or another at this early stage does no good.
Politics is not about honesty, it is about changing minds. There is almost no decision of import that people make based on “honest, sober, rational discussion of the facts”. That is now how people operate, from buying cereal to buying a home to buying into a candidate (voting).
There has never been, and never will be, a rational State, as long as Homo sapiens is the species in question.
You know the Left says the same thing about you guys, right?
Our government is mismanaging immigration in this country. I think they’re doing on purpose to benefit powerful interests. But whether its on purpose, or just negligence, people are rightfully angry about this – it causes a lot of problems for us. We have a right to an orderly and legal immigration system.
This anger is here and it is real. If the government doesn’t start acting responsibly (responsible to the law and to the citizens), then some emotional case really will blow this whole country wide open. There are consequences to the poor management of a critical problem!
How to change minds transcends what you want to change minds too. The tools are the same, the means are the same, the ends are not. You may not like those facts, but they are the facts.
So because people aren’t perfectly rational all the time, it’s acceptable to prey upon them to accomplish political ends?
I’d suggested rereading what I said in context. Thank you.
I am not making a moral statement, but a factual one. I did say politics is dirty above. We live in a fallen world. Again, if people don’t want to get dirty, then politics is not for them.
Agree with you 100%. The fact is, however, that the only reason we are hearing about this specific case is because of the illegal immigrant aspect.
Yeah, but they started it and I do not want them to finish it. I want us to finish it.
I agree with you that it’s dirty.
Do you agree with me that it is dishonest?
Really? Because they say that you guys started it.
Yep.
The OP has a fairly straight-forward explanation of racism, as played historically, then segues into the specific case leaving logic behind. The connection being made to these crime perpetrators by those on the right now being criticized here, as well as by Mona Charen in her article, has nothing to do with the word immigrant but is totally connected to the word illegal.
If our laws were enforced as written neither of these articles would be published.
Thank you for making civil society just a little bit more impossible.