,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Several journalists writing about the National Conservatism Conference have relied on @zackbeauchamp's reporting below, which accuses Amy Wax, one of the speakers, of making "an outright argument for white supremancy." In fact she made no such argument. vox.com/2019/7/17/2069…
In particular, journalists (and now student activists at Wax's home institution, Penn) have been quoting Beauchamp to the effect that Wax "explicitly advocated... 'the position,' as she put it, 'that our country will be better off with more whites and fewer nonwhites.'"
Zack misunderstood this passage from Wax's paper, and Wax did not say what he claims she said. Wax advocated an immigration policy that favors immigrants with cultural affinities to the U.S. She emphasized that the position she was defending "doesn't rely on race at all."
Wax does, however, think that the obstacles to implementing such a policy are "formidible." In listing the obstacles, she says that "the most important reason" such policy alternatives "remain underexplored" is that First World countries "remain mostly white for now."
This means a cultural affinity-based immigration policy will "for now," "in effect," correlate with race--"that is the result, anyway." Wax presents this correlation of cultural affinity with race not as an advantage, but as an obstacle that may make the best policy impossible.
Specifically, Wax did not propose racial tests for immigration, and did not say that her own position is that America "will be better off with more whites and fewer non-whites." @zackbeauchamp pulled these words out of context, and apparently misunderstood Wax's argument.
I don't personally have a position on Wax's proposals. But the views she presented at the National Conservatism Conference are legitimate and should be heard and debated. They do not constitute a "gotcha" that proves Wax is white supremacist, as Beauchamp suggests.
Nor do Wax's comments prove that the National Conservatism Conference is crypto-racist as others have been quick to infer. It just proves that we were doing our job: Inviting out-of-the-box thinkers who are willing to take risks and say new things.
Let me emphasize this: The National Conservatism Conferences will be worthless if they aren't a forum for thinkers to takes risks and say new things. This means we will make mistakes--creative people simply say outlandish things much more often than dogmatists following a script.
Even those who disagree with the substance of national conservatism ought to be able to understand this. A conference with 50 speakers will always produce some gaffes and poor formulations. A project trying to encourage new thinking and creativity will produce even more of these.
But so what? That tells you nothing at all about the quality of our work. The culture of "gotcha" quotes and "gotcha" journalism diverts attention from the real issues: Is national conservatism coming together as a cohesive movement? Are its ideas any good? Do they have a chance?
