Steve Sailer’s essay on the Los Angeles election caused quite a stir in the blogosphere, and even some ripples in orthodox media (they’re so slow!) Enough that our old friend Roger Hernandez has been motivated to parcel together a few insults in a column that has surfaced in a few newspapers around the country.
Hernandez’ column advances no discernible arguments against Steve’s contention that the Hispanic vote remains decisively Democratic.
It tries to imply the recent slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote is important, while simply not meeting Steve’s point that, set against the better Presidential election performance of the Republicans since Clinton timed out, the change is not out of the range of GOP Hispanic share performances, which run the gamut from awful to catastrophic.
What strikes me about Hernandez’ column, though, is the implicit assumption that being arrogant constitutes argument. For instance the much- published Roger D. McGrath is sneered at because he is
described as ‘a retired history professor,’
is dismissed as follows:
I did not read McGrath’s entire piece. Halfway into the third paragraph I came across, ‘To continue reading the complete article, place an online order for a PDF version of the June 13th issue of The New American.’
I clicked. The price, $1.95. Did not order. Awfully expensive for intellectual garbage.
How does Hernandez know that without having read it?
When I was being educated in England, admittedly long ago but even then deeply leftist, dealing with an argument by refusing to read it would have been treated with derision.
Perhaps, at some fundamental level, the harvest of this intellectual integrity is why we see huge volumes of non-native English speakers wanting to spend their working lives in the Anglosphere, and not the reverse.
[Comment to Roger Hernandez.]