One of the many things that I miss about Obama was that he did a lovely job of making me feel authentically patriotic. I have always been someone is a little uncomfortable with flag waving but also truly wish health, happiness, safety, and peace for all my fellow citizens. I also do believe you can show love for your country by pushing it to improve. But there were speeches when Obama reminded me of the fact that America created Country and Gospel and R&B and Rock. That we have a long history of struggle to be ever more democratic and inclusive and just and we can proudly celebrate that history. I remember being shocked when my daughter was seven and said where she most wanted to for our next vacation was Alabama. That isn't a state I had ever had much desire to see because I had a lot of negative associations with it. I asked her why and she said it was because so many Great Americans were from Alabama: Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and Helen Keller. It was where MLK had done some of his most important work and so many had bravely marched for the Vote after Bloody Sunday in Selma. She figured only a great state could raise so many great leaders and people. I realized that part of why I didn't see Alabama like that was because, at some level, I had accepted the big lie that American History was the same as white history and so who Alabama was meant who white Alabama was. We took the trip when she was 8 years old. We did a self-guided Civil Rights tour of six days in Montgomery, Selma, and Birmingham with two days in Atlanta before we flew home. It was one of the best trips of my life. The EJI museum and lynching memorial were among the best museums and moving public art I have experienced anywhere. We met some of the original Bloody Sunday marchers in Selma when we unexpectedly showed up the Voting Rights Museum during Joan Biaz's induction in their Civil Rights Hall of Fame. We got to listen to his A Knock at Midnight Speech at the very table he wrote it in the kitchen of his parsonage. And, yes, we spit on the statute of Jefferson Davis on the steps of the capital but I consider that a patriotic act too. We also stopped by the memorial marker for Viola Liuzzo, the white civil rights worker killed for her participation in the Selma March. It was hard to contrast the ugliness of our past with the best of our past all packed into one small space. Both are America. I think the Left conceeds too much to the Right when we act like Bull Connor is who America is or was any more that John Lewis was. We are a comparatively racially tolerant country with a long way to go. But that arch toward justice was bent that way by the lives and deaths of countless Americans. I can be patriotic about that tradition and find it an inspiration to still fight for the work left to be done.
The problem that the right faces is that their ideas keep losing - even among Republicans, as we just saw in Kansas. Liberal policies are popular. Which means the only way to stop them is with brute force and power and the subversion of democratic processes.
When Progressives cite Sweden as an example of modernity, it is clear that they have never been there. It is one of the most class-conscious and stratified societies in Europe. And of course, racial anxiety is a big component of their self-delusional liberalism.
So Progressives can have Sweden and Populists can have Hungary as examples. I happen to think that neither place has much to inform us in the United States.
What struck me about Tucker Carlson's piece is the allegation of interference in Hungary's election. Is our government involved in that? Is our Government in bed with anti-Semite political movements abroud? Or only in Hungary?
Wow! This is one of my favorite articles of yours. This is the most commonsense take on: contemporary America really is the best place to live and work and raise a family in the world...America today is better than its ever been. I wish a political party would just run on that!!! The writing in the "maybe don't line up behind a huge scumbag" section is the best take on DJT I've heard in a long time -- it doesn't condescend on Conservative values or people. It just simply says -- look at this dude, how does he represent you and what you stand for!!!! I wish every right and left commentator would get behind everything you said in that section. Keep it coming, I love SlowBoring.
One of the things about being in a country where you aren't a native speaker is you can't really pick up on nuance. You become immune to microaggressions. It is really quite calming and peaceful.
A) Many Japanese people do not perceive gaijin as a slur. People would say it totally neutrally, Oh Mr Gaijin, with no clear malice intended.
B) Patronizing comments about how good you are at chopsticks/Japanese/whatever are micro aggressions under any normal classification. They were also annoying.
One point Matt makes that hasn’t been addressed is the notion that “Progressives should embrace Patriotism.” What the heck does that mean in practice beyond wearing more flag lapel pins?
My own sense is that it would be politic for more real or would-be progressive leaders to stop hanging out on Cape Cod and start spending more time in Kerrville with Matt.
"What the heck does that mean in practice beyond wearing more flag lapel pins?"
Be more positive about the USA as it currently is. Viewed in context, it really is quite good. Say good things about the USA rather than just hating on it.
"Biden loves hokey patriotism. Harris, when asked about Tim Scott’s contention that America is not a racist country, gave an answer that sounds to me like she wanted to give a smart answer to the question. But she shouldn’t be trying to give smart answers to questions, she should be trying to appeal to swing voters, and the correct answer is 'this is the greatest country on earth — period.'"
I feel compelled to add a few historical notes beyond the Men from Mars reference that derived from the fact that a whole bunch of really brilliant people with the same funny Hungarian accent turned up on America's doorstep. But they weren't the only ones. You probably heard of Enrico Fermi who's wife was Jewish but probably not Stanislaw Ulam (Polish Immigrant) and I could name quite a few more. Now you could say that these people came to America has Paul Simon had it, in the age's most uncertain hour to sing an American tune. And it is not untrue that these men were essential to the development of nuclear weapons. It would be tragic if that were thought to be their primary contributions to science. That is not true.
Now I suppose I could have studied philosophy on the basis of IQ. But per the IQ chart Matthew provided Materials Science was the engineering specialty for me. And I can assure you that anyone who studies that subject will find same physicists laid the groundwork for solid state physics (plus other guys like Peirles and Nabarro) that led directly to Andy Grove. And of course some nifty things like aeronautics. And that is where their greatest gifts were bestowed on America.
I find it interesting that these conservatives (?) when reaching for foreign models for the United States land on Hungary and Salazar's Portugal; I expect that Poland will not be far behind.
What they *don't* do is highlight a more appropriate model for their preferred ethno-nationalism in an already large diverse nation: Modi and India.
I think we can guess why they don't go to India to pay obeisance: not enough white people there.
You think that could really be the only reason? GDP per capita is $2,000 in India, less than 1/30th of the USA. "The US should be as much like India as possible" is a rare take indeed, and not only among white ethno-nationalists.
I agree with the general thrust of this piece, in that Hungarian populist nationalism is not any kind of path the US should follow.
But I was also rolling my eyes a bit as I think you're taking this much more seriously than it deserves. There is basically zero danger of Tucker Carlson or the tiny minority of people who watch his show of bringing about whatever Hungarian policies or cultural norms they may claim to want.
I get that Tucker (and Fox and talk radio) are politically useful to liberals and progressives who want to paint the entire right or "conservatives" with as broad a brush as possible. In that respect, it is very much like AOC and "the squad," who aren't really that important either, but are the focus for right-wing obsessions and broad-brush painting of Democrats and the left generally. Cory Bush's recent stupidity, for example, only matters in the context of giving the NRCC content for campaign ads - it's irrelevant for anything that actually matters. I look at Tucker going to Hungary in much the same way.
In short, I don't think it's a coincidence that 95% of what I read about AOC and the "squad" comes from right-wing voices and 95% of what I read about Carlson and the evils of Fox comes from left-wing voices. It's probably asking too much, but it would be nice if you stayed completely away from this dynamic.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Tucker et al as a fringe, unimportant fragment who need only be ignored. He's the tip of a bigger iceberg that makes up much of ordinary discourse, below liberal radar.
AM radio in particular, with all its far-less-famous crazies, rules rural American political discourse like a king, especially among senior citizens. I've seen its effect in person, at length. The Internet, as it penetrates into more of the country, has empowered even crazier people to spread ideas far and wide, away from the easily-upset eyes of liberals who would rather talk about health care or roads or what-not. In a way, Carlson and his famous craziness helps those people do their work, by drawing all the fire and attention to himself.
Liberals (and moderates, for that matter) in the urban majority of America dismiss the sheer size of this fringe, because we don't see it. We don't spend much time marinating in rural/exurban America, and even if we do, we don't mainline the majority culture there. We think if we ignore it, it doesn't exist, and its promulgaters will be "starved of oxygen". (Obama was especially convinced of this, and I get a strong sense he has changed his tune.)
No, Tucker and his allies won't literally spread Hungarian nationalism here. But if given the chance to build a thug-state built on fear, cronyism, and extra-legal state violence, they absolutely will. When the most powerful people in that party are its biggest supporters of "Hungarian" (or more literally, authoritarian) plans for the rest of us, take it seriously.
I get where you are coming from, but I think the left's focus on Carlson and the fringe right actually gives them more power, more credibility, and a higher profile than would otherwise be the case. The result is that their views are more exposed and acceptable to more mainstream people on the right who instinctively push back against any criticism from the left. So, to the extent that more reasonable people on the right witness the left using this fringe to paint the entire right with a broad brush, it's not effective in terms of actually moderating the right or diminishing the influence of the fringe.
And I think this same dynamic plays out with people like AOC who is much less important than, for instance, John Hickenlooper, yet has a much higher public profile thanks in large part to her constantly being the subject of right-wing criticism. Is the right's criticism damaging her, her brand of politics, and decreasing her influence? I think the answer is pretty clearly the opposite. The right has strengthened AOC and the squad in the Democratic coalition.
For sure--There's no way the left's retweeting of "Carlson clips" are diminishing his influence on the right or moderating them. Nor is Fox's constant hateweek-highlighting of AOC diminishing hers. I agree with that.
But I don't think that should be (or, realistically, is) the goal. We're all too familiar with the power of reverse psychology in children to believe otherwise.
The goal, rather, both in the case of AOC for the right and Carlson for the left, is to make sure we're not flying blind to what the enemy is thinking. Anyone who had a cursory familiarity with AM talk radio understood the likelihood of a.) Trump being nominated in 2016, b.) the mainstream GOP electorate falling in line behind him, and c.) The real potential for open corruption and passive-aggressive state violence becoming the norm throughout red America and, potentially, the nation.
My contention is that both center and left America got surprised by all of that because we didn't want to see it, and dismissed it as "insignificant". Carlson will have a large audience whether or not liberal America retweets him. Rush Limbaugh's myriads of clones and thugs behind microphones will have a large audience whether we ignore them or not. (Frankly, much of the complacent do-nothing nonsense we see from certain filibuster-loving senators, and to a lesser extent, from Congressional leadership, stems from their refusal to see it.)
I believe the idea that exposing them, mocking them, and shining a spotlight on them does not "give them oxygen"--they already have it, and will continue to have it. Their bubble is too large, even if it is relatively "sealed".
Unsealing it, though, means they can't spout their message to their millions in darkness. They have to do so openly, outside the bubble. I believe that, more than simple ignominy, will defeat them.
"The goal, rather, both in the case of AOC for the right and Carlson for the left, is to make sure we're not flying blind to what the enemy is thinking."
I think the problem is the opposite of that - there is so much focus on the fringe right now and it's sucking up all the oxygen in the room and more important stories, events and voices get lost in the noise.
There is something you should probably resist when it comes to immigration policy. And I accuse Matthew of no malice here because he obviously does understand this. When it comes to the idea of selecting immigrants to harvest the best and brightest of other countries you should probably not make that an insurmountable barrier to immigration. You never really know who is going to be a star as an immigrant or in any future generation.
The British seem determined to be really stupid about this. Begone you Polish Plumbers we want only the best and brightest to build Great Britain. Hold up your hand, figuratively speaking, if you think the nativists who made Brexit such a "success" are going to be assuaged by the new immigrants being limited to people who are better educated and will surely earn more money than they do? I think not. Looked at from the outside? Why would you want to emigrate to Britain where you are likely to encounter a whole lot of intense dislike regardless of your resume. Why not go to the US or Canada or somewhere else where you are less likely to be treated as an unwanted second class citizen?
I am perfectly aware that my own country, Canada, uses a points system to select for normal immigration channels. But the good bit is the relatively rarer bit of generous refugee immigration of which I heartily approve.
The Canadian points system is very idiosyncratic and interesting. They want plumbers. They want accountants. They dont want lawyers or liberal arts grads without practical skills. It might be because 1/3 of all Canadian MPs have business or consulting backgrounds.
You obviously missed the part about the generous refugee allowances. We just picked up a whole lot of Syrian refugees. Our gain. Your anti-Muslim loss.
The problem with the conservatives isn't that they have different values than the progressives, it's that they literally think the progressive values are evil and that no one should be allowed to live by them, or defend them, or even consider seriously the possibility that they might make some kind of sense. Come to think of it, the problem with progressives is the exact same thing in reverse.
This is the exact feeling I have after I hang out with my progressive friends. I have the exact opposite feeling after hanging out with my conservative friends. :/
One of the many things that I miss about Obama was that he did a lovely job of making me feel authentically patriotic. I have always been someone is a little uncomfortable with flag waving but also truly wish health, happiness, safety, and peace for all my fellow citizens. I also do believe you can show love for your country by pushing it to improve. But there were speeches when Obama reminded me of the fact that America created Country and Gospel and R&B and Rock. That we have a long history of struggle to be ever more democratic and inclusive and just and we can proudly celebrate that history. I remember being shocked when my daughter was seven and said where she most wanted to for our next vacation was Alabama. That isn't a state I had ever had much desire to see because I had a lot of negative associations with it. I asked her why and she said it was because so many Great Americans were from Alabama: Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and Helen Keller. It was where MLK had done some of his most important work and so many had bravely marched for the Vote after Bloody Sunday in Selma. She figured only a great state could raise so many great leaders and people. I realized that part of why I didn't see Alabama like that was because, at some level, I had accepted the big lie that American History was the same as white history and so who Alabama was meant who white Alabama was. We took the trip when she was 8 years old. We did a self-guided Civil Rights tour of six days in Montgomery, Selma, and Birmingham with two days in Atlanta before we flew home. It was one of the best trips of my life. The EJI museum and lynching memorial were among the best museums and moving public art I have experienced anywhere. We met some of the original Bloody Sunday marchers in Selma when we unexpectedly showed up the Voting Rights Museum during Joan Biaz's induction in their Civil Rights Hall of Fame. We got to listen to his A Knock at Midnight Speech at the very table he wrote it in the kitchen of his parsonage. And, yes, we spit on the statute of Jefferson Davis on the steps of the capital but I consider that a patriotic act too. We also stopped by the memorial marker for Viola Liuzzo, the white civil rights worker killed for her participation in the Selma March. It was hard to contrast the ugliness of our past with the best of our past all packed into one small space. Both are America. I think the Left conceeds too much to the Right when we act like Bull Connor is who America is or was any more that John Lewis was. We are a comparatively racially tolerant country with a long way to go. But that arch toward justice was bent that way by the lives and deaths of countless Americans. I can be patriotic about that tradition and find it an inspiration to still fight for the work left to be done.
The problem that the right faces is that their ideas keep losing - even among Republicans, as we just saw in Kansas. Liberal policies are popular. Which means the only way to stop them is with brute force and power and the subversion of democratic processes.
Some conclusions. False premise.
When Progressives cite Sweden as an example of modernity, it is clear that they have never been there. It is one of the most class-conscious and stratified societies in Europe. And of course, racial anxiety is a big component of their self-delusional liberalism.
So Progressives can have Sweden and Populists can have Hungary as examples. I happen to think that neither place has much to inform us in the United States.
What struck me about Tucker Carlson's piece is the allegation of interference in Hungary's election. Is our government involved in that? Is our Government in bed with anti-Semite political movements abroud? Or only in Hungary?
Wow! This is one of my favorite articles of yours. This is the most commonsense take on: contemporary America really is the best place to live and work and raise a family in the world...America today is better than its ever been. I wish a political party would just run on that!!! The writing in the "maybe don't line up behind a huge scumbag" section is the best take on DJT I've heard in a long time -- it doesn't condescend on Conservative values or people. It just simply says -- look at this dude, how does he represent you and what you stand for!!!! I wish every right and left commentator would get behind everything you said in that section. Keep it coming, I love SlowBoring.
One of the best progressive arguments for patriotism I have seen is the by constitutional scholar Akhil Amar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3XKx8e1ZU0
Y’all should read Why Nationalism by Yael Tamir.
One of the things about being in a country where you aren't a native speaker is you can't really pick up on nuance. You become immune to microaggressions. It is really quite calming and peaceful.
This was not my experience of people casually calling me a gaijin.
A straight slur is a macroaggression, I'm not crazy here.
A) Many Japanese people do not perceive gaijin as a slur. People would say it totally neutrally, Oh Mr Gaijin, with no clear malice intended.
B) Patronizing comments about how good you are at chopsticks/Japanese/whatever are micro aggressions under any normal classification. They were also annoying.
Hungary has universal health care paid for by taxes! https://www.internationalstudentinsurance.com/hungary-student-insurance/healthcare-system-in-hungary.php
America is already great. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtBNUGxtdSU
Matt ends with…
And the people who think it would be better to live in a country where that kind of thing never happens — a country like Hungary — are nuts! TRUE.
And the people who think we do live in a country where that kind of thing never happens — the United States — are also nuts.
One point Matt makes that hasn’t been addressed is the notion that “Progressives should embrace Patriotism.” What the heck does that mean in practice beyond wearing more flag lapel pins?
My own sense is that it would be politic for more real or would-be progressive leaders to stop hanging out on Cape Cod and start spending more time in Kerrville with Matt.
"What the heck does that mean in practice beyond wearing more flag lapel pins?"
Be more positive about the USA as it currently is. Viewed in context, it really is quite good. Say good things about the USA rather than just hating on it.
MY gave an example a few days ago:
https://www.slowboring.com/p/kamala-harris-should-try-to-be-really
"Biden loves hokey patriotism. Harris, when asked about Tim Scott’s contention that America is not a racist country, gave an answer that sounds to me like she wanted to give a smart answer to the question. But she shouldn’t be trying to give smart answers to questions, she should be trying to appeal to swing voters, and the correct answer is 'this is the greatest country on earth — period.'"
I feel compelled to add a few historical notes beyond the Men from Mars reference that derived from the fact that a whole bunch of really brilliant people with the same funny Hungarian accent turned up on America's doorstep. But they weren't the only ones. You probably heard of Enrico Fermi who's wife was Jewish but probably not Stanislaw Ulam (Polish Immigrant) and I could name quite a few more. Now you could say that these people came to America has Paul Simon had it, in the age's most uncertain hour to sing an American tune. And it is not untrue that these men were essential to the development of nuclear weapons. It would be tragic if that were thought to be their primary contributions to science. That is not true.
Now I suppose I could have studied philosophy on the basis of IQ. But per the IQ chart Matthew provided Materials Science was the engineering specialty for me. And I can assure you that anyone who studies that subject will find same physicists laid the groundwork for solid state physics (plus other guys like Peirles and Nabarro) that led directly to Andy Grove. And of course some nifty things like aeronautics. And that is where their greatest gifts were bestowed on America.
I find it interesting that these conservatives (?) when reaching for foreign models for the United States land on Hungary and Salazar's Portugal; I expect that Poland will not be far behind.
What they *don't* do is highlight a more appropriate model for their preferred ethno-nationalism in an already large diverse nation: Modi and India.
I think we can guess why they don't go to India to pay obeisance: not enough white people there.
You think that could really be the only reason? GDP per capita is $2,000 in India, less than 1/30th of the USA. "The US should be as much like India as possible" is a rare take indeed, and not only among white ethno-nationalists.
I agree with the general thrust of this piece, in that Hungarian populist nationalism is not any kind of path the US should follow.
But I was also rolling my eyes a bit as I think you're taking this much more seriously than it deserves. There is basically zero danger of Tucker Carlson or the tiny minority of people who watch his show of bringing about whatever Hungarian policies or cultural norms they may claim to want.
I get that Tucker (and Fox and talk radio) are politically useful to liberals and progressives who want to paint the entire right or "conservatives" with as broad a brush as possible. In that respect, it is very much like AOC and "the squad," who aren't really that important either, but are the focus for right-wing obsessions and broad-brush painting of Democrats and the left generally. Cory Bush's recent stupidity, for example, only matters in the context of giving the NRCC content for campaign ads - it's irrelevant for anything that actually matters. I look at Tucker going to Hungary in much the same way.
In short, I don't think it's a coincidence that 95% of what I read about AOC and the "squad" comes from right-wing voices and 95% of what I read about Carlson and the evils of Fox comes from left-wing voices. It's probably asking too much, but it would be nice if you stayed completely away from this dynamic.
I sort of agree with you, but I'm also sort of afraid that the 2028 election will be Tucker Carlson vs AOC.
I'm afraid of that too and think we are heading in that direction. Doesn't help that our primary system is broken.
If it weren't for a relative handful of moderate black voters, we probably would have had it last year with a Trump-Sanders contest.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Tucker et al as a fringe, unimportant fragment who need only be ignored. He's the tip of a bigger iceberg that makes up much of ordinary discourse, below liberal radar.
AM radio in particular, with all its far-less-famous crazies, rules rural American political discourse like a king, especially among senior citizens. I've seen its effect in person, at length. The Internet, as it penetrates into more of the country, has empowered even crazier people to spread ideas far and wide, away from the easily-upset eyes of liberals who would rather talk about health care or roads or what-not. In a way, Carlson and his famous craziness helps those people do their work, by drawing all the fire and attention to himself.
Liberals (and moderates, for that matter) in the urban majority of America dismiss the sheer size of this fringe, because we don't see it. We don't spend much time marinating in rural/exurban America, and even if we do, we don't mainline the majority culture there. We think if we ignore it, it doesn't exist, and its promulgaters will be "starved of oxygen". (Obama was especially convinced of this, and I get a strong sense he has changed his tune.)
No, Tucker and his allies won't literally spread Hungarian nationalism here. But if given the chance to build a thug-state built on fear, cronyism, and extra-legal state violence, they absolutely will. When the most powerful people in that party are its biggest supporters of "Hungarian" (or more literally, authoritarian) plans for the rest of us, take it seriously.
I get where you are coming from, but I think the left's focus on Carlson and the fringe right actually gives them more power, more credibility, and a higher profile than would otherwise be the case. The result is that their views are more exposed and acceptable to more mainstream people on the right who instinctively push back against any criticism from the left. So, to the extent that more reasonable people on the right witness the left using this fringe to paint the entire right with a broad brush, it's not effective in terms of actually moderating the right or diminishing the influence of the fringe.
And I think this same dynamic plays out with people like AOC who is much less important than, for instance, John Hickenlooper, yet has a much higher public profile thanks in large part to her constantly being the subject of right-wing criticism. Is the right's criticism damaging her, her brand of politics, and decreasing her influence? I think the answer is pretty clearly the opposite. The right has strengthened AOC and the squad in the Democratic coalition.
For sure--There's no way the left's retweeting of "Carlson clips" are diminishing his influence on the right or moderating them. Nor is Fox's constant hateweek-highlighting of AOC diminishing hers. I agree with that.
But I don't think that should be (or, realistically, is) the goal. We're all too familiar with the power of reverse psychology in children to believe otherwise.
The goal, rather, both in the case of AOC for the right and Carlson for the left, is to make sure we're not flying blind to what the enemy is thinking. Anyone who had a cursory familiarity with AM talk radio understood the likelihood of a.) Trump being nominated in 2016, b.) the mainstream GOP electorate falling in line behind him, and c.) The real potential for open corruption and passive-aggressive state violence becoming the norm throughout red America and, potentially, the nation.
My contention is that both center and left America got surprised by all of that because we didn't want to see it, and dismissed it as "insignificant". Carlson will have a large audience whether or not liberal America retweets him. Rush Limbaugh's myriads of clones and thugs behind microphones will have a large audience whether we ignore them or not. (Frankly, much of the complacent do-nothing nonsense we see from certain filibuster-loving senators, and to a lesser extent, from Congressional leadership, stems from their refusal to see it.)
I believe the idea that exposing them, mocking them, and shining a spotlight on them does not "give them oxygen"--they already have it, and will continue to have it. Their bubble is too large, even if it is relatively "sealed".
Unsealing it, though, means they can't spout their message to their millions in darkness. They have to do so openly, outside the bubble. I believe that, more than simple ignominy, will defeat them.
"The goal, rather, both in the case of AOC for the right and Carlson for the left, is to make sure we're not flying blind to what the enemy is thinking."
I think the problem is the opposite of that - there is so much focus on the fringe right now and it's sucking up all the oxygen in the room and more important stories, events and voices get lost in the noise.
There is something you should probably resist when it comes to immigration policy. And I accuse Matthew of no malice here because he obviously does understand this. When it comes to the idea of selecting immigrants to harvest the best and brightest of other countries you should probably not make that an insurmountable barrier to immigration. You never really know who is going to be a star as an immigrant or in any future generation.
The British seem determined to be really stupid about this. Begone you Polish Plumbers we want only the best and brightest to build Great Britain. Hold up your hand, figuratively speaking, if you think the nativists who made Brexit such a "success" are going to be assuaged by the new immigrants being limited to people who are better educated and will surely earn more money than they do? I think not. Looked at from the outside? Why would you want to emigrate to Britain where you are likely to encounter a whole lot of intense dislike regardless of your resume. Why not go to the US or Canada or somewhere else where you are less likely to be treated as an unwanted second class citizen?
I am perfectly aware that my own country, Canada, uses a points system to select for normal immigration channels. But the good bit is the relatively rarer bit of generous refugee immigration of which I heartily approve.
The Canadian points system is very idiosyncratic and interesting. They want plumbers. They want accountants. They dont want lawyers or liberal arts grads without practical skills. It might be because 1/3 of all Canadian MPs have business or consulting backgrounds.
You obviously missed the part about the generous refugee allowances. We just picked up a whole lot of Syrian refugees. Our gain. Your anti-Muslim loss.
The problem with the conservatives isn't that they have different values than the progressives, it's that they literally think the progressive values are evil and that no one should be allowed to live by them, or defend them, or even consider seriously the possibility that they might make some kind of sense. Come to think of it, the problem with progressives is the exact same thing in reverse.
This is the exact feeling I have after I hang out with my progressive friends. I have the exact opposite feeling after hanging out with my conservative friends. :/