Curb Neoconservative Warmongering—By Destroying US? Umm, No Thanks!
Print Friendly and PDF

Scott McConnell, a founding editor of, has a piece in The American Conservative explaining why immigration may bring down the American empire. [Immigrants Against Empire, November 20, 2012] He cites a Reuters-Ipsos poll that showed ethnic minorities were less likely to support intervention in Iran and more likely to support cutting defense spending than white Americans.

Just as importantly to McConnell, these minorities overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama. And Obama has been less interventionist than his Republican opponents. So, McConnell reasons, by electing Barack Obama and presumably future Democratic presidents, non-whites will keep America out of war!

This is not the first time that McConnell has made this argument. He mentioned it as an aside in his review of Mark Krikorian’s The New Case against Immigration, and in more depth in a 2009 article for World Affairs Magazine. [Not So Huddled Masses: Multiculturalism and Foreign Policy] Yet with Main Stream Media gloating that Barack Obama won reelection because of demographic changes in this country, the argument has some new salience.

McConnell recounts the immigration wars of the 1990s, blaming William F. Buckley’s firing of National Review Editor John O’Sullivan and the purging of Peter Brimelow, now’s editor, on neoconservative lobbying. And he notes that many hawkish neoconservatives were on the Open Borders side, while many of the immigration patriots were noninterventionist.

McConnell therefore sees an ironic unintended consequence:

By “inviting the world” the neoconservatives and Wall Street Journal Republicans undermined the demographic and electoral basis for its preferred, hawkish, foreign policy. Or to put it differently, the paleoconservative immigration restrictionists, losers in the last generation’s immigration battles, may receive as a valuable consolation prize an electorate far less inclined to support imperial and hegemonic wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.[Links added by]

He concludes:

In the end, this result is one which will lead many dissident conservatives to make their peace with multiculturalism.

In terms of short-term electoral politics, McConnell has a point, sort of. While Obama has been far from an antiwar paragon, he certainly has been less interventionist than Romney and McCain. (Indeed, Romney’s arrogant treatment of Ron Paul at the Republican National Convention may well have cost him the election—his margin of defeat was less than Paul’s primary vote in five key states. See The Ron Paul Effect: How the GOP Threw the Election By Disenfranchising Ron Paul Supporters, by Hamdan Azhar, PolicyMic, November 6, 2012 ) I myself believe it is less likely that we will go to war with Iran under Obama than we would with McCain.

But, even if foreign policy were the only issue that mattered, the idea that flooding our country with non-white immigrants would lead us to a sane foreign policy is still questionable.

Many Hispanics and African Americans oppose war not because they are peace-loving, but because they simply do not identify with America. They see the military and wars as an extension of the nation. (Conversely, many misguided but patriotic white Americans support the military and foreign intervention for the very same reason).

This fact is not lost on the neoconservatives. Thus, while most conservatives were fretting over Obama’s inauguration in 2008, David Horowitz celebrated with glee:

But today celebrating their new president are millions of Americans who never would have dreamed of celebrating their president before. Millions of Americans—visible in all their racial and ethnic variety at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday—have begun to feel a patriotic stirring because they see in this First Family a reflection of themselves.

Horowitz gloated that these new patriots would be more willing to support foreign intervention:

When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now.,

[How Conservatives Should Celebrate the Inauguration, ByDavid Horowitz FrontPageMag, January 20 2009]

I should note that Horowitz eventually lost his faith in Obama. Where he once accused conservatives of having “Obama Derangement Syndrome”, he later called Obama a “Machiavellian con-man” and “born and bred Marxist radical” who “has been schooled in his antagonism to Israel not only by such Palestinian Israel-haters as Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, but by Jewish leftists as well.” [Obama’s Position on Israel, FrontPageMag, March 6, 2012]

Being a neoconservative means never having to say you’re sorry.

However, while McConnell may be right that America will become less interventionist as whites become a minority, it’s not for the reason he posits. It’s because, once whites realize the government and, by extension, the military no longer represents them, they may well become less hawkish.

But is that possibility really worth losing a country for?

One of the most memorable lines to emerge from the Vietnam War was: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” It may be apocryphal, but it nonetheless epitomizes the liberal interventionist mindset of invading a country and killing the inhabitants of a country For Their Own Good.

And of course the village never really gets saved.

Similarly, destroying America’s historic majority to save it from voting for hawkish Republicans will not leave dissident conservatives—at least this one—at peace with multiculturalism.

Charles Bloch (email him) considers himself an unhyphenated American.

Print Friendly and PDF