Reply #47: OK, remember here that I'm an ignorant foreigner! [View All]

I'm reasonably knowledgeable (I'd say) about American politicians, but much less so about media people, at least those who are not also featured in the British and easily-British-accessible media. I have just about heard of Paul Krugman, and am not sure what his exact positions are. I have come across some statements by Lou Dobbs, but have never watched him, don't know what he looks like, and have had little exposure to the majority of his views.

Also, our immigration situation is very different from yours. We *do* have illegal immigrants, and there *have* been exploitation scandals, but we don't have your huge open border, and most of our 'immigrants' and their descendents are Indian or Pakistani; Afro-Caribbean; together with some white immigrants: e.g. Irish, Jews, and more recently East Europaeans.

In the UK, there *is* a lot of demonization of immigrants as such, and politicians and, even more, tabloid journalists have a tendency to whip it up. It is closely linked to racial, and also religious, prejudice (many 'immigrants' and their descendants are Muslims).

I don't favour any encouragement of illegal immigration, but I also don't favour the use of immigrants as scapegoats. This is a problem in the UK, and may not be to the same extent in the USA - I gather that other forms of racism are more dominant there.

My original comment - on the fact that having friends relatives who are immigrants or belong to a particular ethnic group does not necessarily absolve one from the charge of prejudice - was really mainly based on our experience of Michael Howard, the former leader of the Tory party, and main rival to Tony Blair in the 2005 election in case you've ever wondered how the Poodle managed to win such a big majority. Despite being the son of immigrants, he used the anti-immigrant card - very unsuccessfully, I'm happy to say (there was evidence that it actually put voters off) - in the 2005 election. I probably dislike him all the more because his immigrant background is similar to my own - both of us are descended from East Europaean Jewish immigrants to Britain - so I felt to some degree personally betrayed!


ETA: I only partly agree with your statement:

'The fallacy of smearing the messenger instead of arguing the message is invalid, whether the messenger is smeared because of race or because of (alleged) racism.'

I would totally agree that the fact that someone is believed to be personally racist, or to have made racist statements in private should not interfere with the validity of their message (any more than e.g. their having a criminal conviction). However, if people are using a message, even one that's based on fact, to support a *publicly* racist campaign, then, while it doesn't change the facts, I think it does affect the validity of the message.

Again, I don't know whether Dobbs, any of his guests, Krugman, etc. are doing so; but it's something that can happen, and needs to be watched for. E.g. to give an example from my personal political situation in the UK: I am less pro-federal-Europe than many British liberals, and do consider that there is some validity in all the charges of excessive and damaging bureaucracy; but I find myself having to be careful to avoid getting in with groups who use this message to spread xenophobia and right-wing Toryism - of which there are plenty in the UK.