MacIntyre: Whoops! A moderate notices replacement migration

While the events unfolding in the conflict between Hamas and Israel are horrific, they have provided some critical moments of startling clarity as many liberals say the quiet parts out loud. Dan Carlin, the host of the popular “Hardcore History” podcast, is a self-described libertarian who came down with a nasty case of Trump derangement syndrome after the election of the 45th president. He now dutifully parrots mainstream media talking points about the ominous brand of authoritarianism that the former reality television host represents.

Ironically, Carlin recently took to X (formerly Twitter) to highlight the dangers of replacement-level immigration while outlining the rationale for Israel’s approach to border security, explaining that the Jewish population would be subject to “conquest via democracy” if they changed their current policy. The historian is correct about this political reality but would be aghast if the same plain truth issued from the mouth of a MAGA supporter.

Many moderate liberals have been surprised to see a flood of criticism aimed at Israel by leftists in the week after the initial Hamas attacks. Progressives have labeled the nation as a colonial power and apartheid state bent on oppressing beleaguered minorities. The more radical elements of the left have taken narratives that they regularly level at Western nations and enthusiastically applied them to the conflict in the Middle East. This puts moderates like Carlin in the awkward position of attempting to validate progressive concerns while still making an argument for Israel’s right to protect its own existence.

In one exchange on X, Carlin attempted to answer a fan who asked why Israel should not be made to end its status as an ethno-religious state and create one unified nation that embraces plurality and equal rights for all. The podcaster explained: “Ok, if they go that route then they quickly lose control of their own country via birthrates and the ballot box. Can you see why they might not be too enthusiastic about what to them looks like conquest via democracy?”

The only thing more stunning than the clarity of Carlin’s response is his ability to keep it in a hermetically sealed compartment where it cannot possibly interrupt his anti-Trump bromides. Every word of that statement is undeniably true, but Carlin would quickly cut it down as nativist and xenophobic if he heard it in a soundbite from, say, Tucker Carlson.

In theory, representative government allows the populace to select at least a portion of their leadership and have an influence on the direction policy will take. The debate over whether this actually occurs is a complex one that I have contributed to at length, but there is not space to recapitulate it here. While the people may never truly be sovereign, the act of voting is most certainly a sacred democratic ritual that confers legitimacy upon the government that will rule in the name of the polis. This ritual is not given meaning because some random collection of individuals who happened to be standing inside an arbitrary set of geographic boundaries cast a ballot. The symbolic power of the vote emanates from the fact that a specific set of people, citizens with a legitimate claim to speak on half of the nation, lend their voices to the political will that will shape society going forward.

Right-wing pundits such as Tucker Carlson who have had the courage to speak on the dangers of replacement-level immigration have been called the standard list of progressive slurs for daring to state the obvious. Carlson has been regularly slammed by leftists for perpetuating the “Great Replacement conspiracy theory” from his sizable and influential platform, but he has only restated the obvious truth that Carlin noted in relation to Israel. The results of an election are legitimate only insofar as they represent the will of the citizenry, those who are tied deeply to the country and have skin in the game. If Israelis were to transform their nation suddenly by taking in the entirety of the Palestinian people, it would completely alter that society within a generation.

The Israelis and Palestinians are radically different people, and even if they did not have generations of hostility between them, there is no shared identity or moral vision that could bind them together. A sudden influx of Palestinians equipped with the franchise would remake the electoral landscape, and the demographic shift from birth rates would quickly make Israelis a minority inside their own country, with all the diminished political representation that implies. Carlin can easily see the disastrous outcome that this policy would have for the Israeli population, but he, like many moderates, would balk at the same logic being applied to what is happening to nations in Europe or the United States.

While progressives scream at any conservative who notices the leftist plan to gain permanent electoral dominance through immigration, they have not been shy about openly announcing it themselves. Democrat politicians and pundits regularly brag about the inevitable demise of the Republican Party due to demographic shifts in the United States. For the left, open borders are not a crisis but an electoral strategy designed to slowly erode any domestic political opposition. Conservatives who notice the obvious trend are denounced as xenophobic conspiracy-mongers, but Democrats are allowed to openly celebrate the success of their polices. Author Michael Anton calls this dialectic phenomenon the “celebration parallax,” and it is remarkably effective at silencing opposition while allowing leftists to advance their agenda out in the open.

Why is it so easy for a centrist like Carlin to recognize “conquest by democracy” in Israel but deny it in Europe or the United States? The podcaster understands that the question is not what is happening, but who it is happening to.

Trump supporters have been coded as domestic enemies by the regime, while Israel has not, though the increasing weight given to radical leftist narratives around decolonization may eventually shift that dynamic. The interest is not in intellectual consistency or compelling argument through force of reason, but compliance to power through public repetition of the approved talking points.

Representative government and mass immigration are a recipe for disaster. A nation is not an economic zone or an arbitrary set of lines on a map, but a people with a shared set of values, traditions, and history. This is as true for the United States as it is for England, France, Israel, or Japan.

A nation can absorb a certain number of patriotic immigrants and integrate them over time without changing the character of the society, but the choice to do so should always belong to the citizens of that nation. It should never be mandated by cynical political actors seeking power.

In a democracy, a feckless ruling class can always attempt to hold on to power by replacing the current population with a more compliant one. It should be just as acceptable to notice the disastrous nature of this policy for the United States as it is for Israel.