Aeschylus, the father of Greek tragedy, is credited with the
quote, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” This maxim can also be applied to
political advocacy, and no offender is worse than Victor Davis Hanson.
Last night Mr. Hanson appeared on the Fox Network’s Laura
Ingraham show claiming that California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom and L.A. Mayor,
Karen Bass are Neo-Confederates in a tortured attempt to draw a parallel between
the rioting in L.A. and the Civil War. This is a ridiculous claim he regularly
makes when discussing the sanctuary policies of California and L.A. This nonsense
has the unfortunate effect of distorting history and undermining the political
point he was trying to make.
To the degree Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass make an argument in support of their incompetent handling, or non-handling, of illegal immigration it appears to be based in a perverted humanitarianism grounded in an open borders ideology. None of their statements refer in any way to secession, states rights, or even nullification (Nullification predates the Civil War but is associated with the South due to the Southern statemen such as Thomas Jefferson, James Maddison, And John C. Calhoun that advocated the idea). Consequently, it’s patently inaccurate to draw comparisons between Newsom and Bass with the Confederacy. The only thing accomplished with such unnecessarily incendiary claims is to spread historical ignorance and undermine genuine criticism of the incompetent performance of Newsom and Bass. Mr. Hanson has sacrificed historical accuracy in an attempt to score a cheap political point. (Cross posted on my Facebook page)
5 comments:
VDH is also not my very favorite commentator. I usually mention him to take issue with one of his extended metaphors, just as you have done here.
This one bothers you, I understand, because you do not like to see the Confederates placed in the role of Designated Bad Guys. You're right that Nullification was originally a Northern issue in its first formulation; you could go on and point out that it is actually a defensible idea, especially it was in the early days of the Republic when the lines weren't clear. And you are right that Newsom/Bass haven't articulated any of the same ideas -- indeed, they've been very careful not to articulate their ideological basis for these actions at all. What they claim they believe is that decent people should be free and respected, and if they happen to wish to move to America to better their families, why shouldn't we welcome them? Attempts by a heavy-handed Federal government to remove them through force and violence are oppressive, etc.
However, there is a point of commonality to these conflicts: both are/were being led by Democrats who want to ensure privileged access to a servant class that lacks legal protections. This was much more explicitly stated in the Civil War and the runup to it, when the principle was defended that "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." (Dred Scott, opinion of Chief Justice Taney). Actually that last line underlines another point of commonality, which was that it was pretended then as now that this was being done for the benefit of the legally defenseless workers.
Here the lack of legal protections is being accomplished by the fact that the (tens of?) millions of servants have been brought in illegally and cannot, therefore, appeal to the courts without endangering themselves. They are not chattel, but they are being paid wages well below what Americans would be paid, at once letting the rich in California benefit from cheap labor and driving down the wages (and therefore the power, including political power) of blue collar and even middle class Americans there.
Likewise Nullification is a de facto issue, because the 'sanctuary cities' are claiming the right to nullify Federal law. I still think that there's a defense to be made for Nullification, though they don't make it; they just argue that it is Justice to do this thing that, by the way, also allows them cheap labor and increased political power.
So I think the analogy isn't wholly inapt, although it needs to be sophisticated to be valid.
I am afraid the commonalities you mention do not exist. First of all, nullification as set forth in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions is a method to ensure constitutional legitimacy. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were clear violations of the text of the Constitution, and therefore void from the beginning. Consequently, states were duty bound not to observe such unconstitutional acts. John C. Calhoun even proposed a process by which other states had to be consulted before another state could nullify a federal law. The sanctuary city/state people like Newsome and Bass aren't even remotely recommending anything similar. Their position, to the extent they explain it, is nothing more than willfully ignoring the law based on humanitarian grounds. They don't even mention the Constitution. One should not conflate the concept of nullification with lawlessness.
Your argument about Democrats arguing in defense of their access to cheap labor is also misplaced. To the extent the sanctuary city/state crowd refer to the cheap labor provided by illegal immigrants, it is done to scare the populace with higher costs for consumer goods and inflation. It is not done to defend any property rights they think they have in such labor, like the planter class of the Antebellum South argued. Quite the contrary, sanctuary politicians are making their arguments to appeal to a minority demographic they believe is an important part of their political coalition. That was clearly not the motivation of the Southern planter Democrats.
Consequently, the entire analogy is strained to the point of ridiculousness and completely distracts from a serious issue. Not all lawlessness, incompetence, and crass political pandering have a parallel with the Confederacy of the South.
I sympathize. It's not just VDH, though: Whoppi Goldberg was asking "what happened to states rights?" after the Guard was federalized, and today the NYT has a "Heritage not Insurrection" post about the use of the Mexican flag.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/08/us/mexican-flag-protest-los-angeles.html
There is a big difference in the arguments they're prepared to field, but a lot of that is that the celebrities and politicians on their side are unprincipled people who aren't being honest in any case.
"This one bothers you, I understand, because you do not like to see the Confederates placed in the role of Designated Bad Guys. "
If he's pointing out their hypocrisy, is he not right to use *their* givens?
I should have been clearer- is VDH not right to use their givens to show their hypocrisy?
Post a Comment