The scare quotes around "far right" are properly placed. Yet another point in favor of Caplan in his debate against Hanania's absurd case arguing for the integrity of the media. If one can't show a position to be held by fewer than 10% of the relevant population then to characterize it as far, extreme, etc. is intentionally manipulative misrepresentation. And when it's 40%+ it's just obscene and perverse. "Far right" is not shorthand for the far right in the Harvard School of Sociology.
Razib attributes too much agency to cognitively impaired Biden. True, he never was very bright, but his current condition is pathetic. I saw a series of video clips of him speaking some 8 to 10 years ago, and difference is like night and day. Rather than it being a matter of his selection of advisors, he has simply carried over the old Obama crew of mediocrities, and their failings are more manifest now that they no longer have a skilled politician between them and the public - or as Biden once described Obama, "“first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
I just watch the man in public appearances, Stu- he isn't making any decisions and no one in his administration would be foolish enough to let him- and I write this as someone who believes they are truly foolish people.
I expect like a lot of elderly people with decline he has good days and bad days. But my experience is he is probably a little fearful and eager to please those he perceives as helping him or being kind to him, if he is not the mean kind of old person. His deferring to young people is not hard for me to imagine at all. And I can’t imagine there were going to be many good choices for his staff even had he been able to make them.
For instance, my father - who seldom noticed me or was curt or scornful of anything I said before we subsided into a natural-to-us mutual silence 30-odd years ago - now seems to regard me as the oracle of Delphi on all subjects. Not because I’m his daughter - my brothers are not so deferred to - but because I am chief among the Helpers.
Biden has a lifelong speech disorder that makes it difficult to evaluate his mental abilities, much less his cognitive decline, which I nonetheless suspect is more than minor. Either way, I don't see any way this tells us who is making inner circle staffing decisions.
I am a libertarian because when we, the people, formed a government to protect our rights, we had to give the government a monopoly on coercion. This was necessary but dangerous. Dangerous because unless we put and maintained strict limits on the power and growth of the government, it would lead to serfdom. Unfortunately, it is well on its way.
My philosophical reason to be conservative is that I believe healthy civilization requires personal accountability and conservatism supports personal accountability more than alternative ideologies.
"and abused his parole power to usher in nearly 1.3 million illegal migrants in 2023 alone. The number of undetained illegal migrants living in the US has thereby ballooned under Biden: from 3.7 million in 2021 to 6.2 million in 2023, according to ICE."
I'm genuinely curious about the lack of discussion among Americans - at least those who wander around these parts - regarding one obvious explanation for the U.S. government's apparent incompetence at securing its southern border.
China's population is 4X that of the United States, and the only way the U.S. is going to narrow that gap - there's no chance of closing it - is by allowing millions of new immigrants, legal and illegal, every year. If you are high enough in the American political hierarchy, you probably don't care about some old man who feels like a foreigner in his own country lots of times. But you definitely care about great power politics.
My explanation is purely speculative and it rests on the assumption that American authorities are actually allowing current levels of illegal immigration deliberately.
I cannot think of anyone who would benefit personally. There may be a net benefit in the aggregate but that would be a kind of comedy of the commons outcome
That's how a lot of elites in the US feel because they don't acknowledge genetics.
Once you acknowledge genetics, most potential immigrants are net drains rather than net assets.
I doubt that your average American has read The Bell Curve, but they sort of instinctually recognize that these third world immigrants are making things worse.
I read The Bell Curve and thought it was sound. I remembered one editorial part I thought was off-track but when I later went back to look for it I couldn't find it. Maybe it was there, maybe not. Regardless, I find your race-based conclusions repugnant and not at all in the spirit of Murray's work.
That said, it's worth saying that I know of no evidence that the people who come to the US illegally are "inferior stock," even if the people from where they came are, on which I espouse no opinion. The act of coming here marks them as very different (as a group) from those who stayed behind.
Besides the fact that net contribution results from things other than just genetics, I've seen statistics that illegal and legal Chinese, Indian, Arab/Muslim (I forget which), and even black immigrants have higher incomes than natives. Hispanic immigrants don't but catch up after two generations. Do you dispute that and what is the basis for your conclusion?
Actually Murray condemned Latin American immigration in The Bell Curve and called for more limited immigration. He state flat out he thought it would turn us into a Latin American country.
His stance on immigration softened in the 90s and 00s, but he became anti-immigration again after 2016.
"Hispanic immigrants don't but catch up after two generations"
False. Hispanic incomes do increase after the first generation but third generation Hispanics have incomes far below whites. This despite tending to live in much higher COL areas with higher prevailing wage rates.
By contrast social indicators other then income actually get worse for Hispanics after the first generation (crime, divorce, etc all increase).
In general I think Murray's aw shucks quakerism is fine for writing books, but someone that was actually running a state based on genetics would be more like Lee Kuan Yew.
I don't remember Murray condemning Latin American immigration. Maybe so but I would need to read what he wrote, not your interpretation. Surely you acknowledge that Murray has been misinterpreted by quite a few people in the past.
It' worth noting that genetics alone does not determine if a group will be a net drain or positive.
On page 549 of his policy recommendations he writes this:
"The other demographic factor we discussed in Chapter 15 was im- migration and the evidence that recent waves of immigrants are, on the average, less successful and less able, than earlier waves. There is no reason to assume that the hazards associated with low cognitive ability in America are somehow circumvented by having heen born abroad or having parents or grandparents who were. A n immigrant pop- ulation with low cognitive ability will-again, on the average-have trouble not only in finding good work but have trouble in school, at home, and with the law.
This is not the place, nor are we the people, to try to rewrite immi- gration law. But we believe that the main purpose of immigration law should be to serve America's interests. It should be among the goals of public policy to shift the flow of immigrants away from those admitted under the nepotistic rules (which broadly encourage the reunification of relatives) and toward those admitted under competency rules, already established in immigration law-not to the total exclusion of nepotis- tic and humanitarian criteria but a shift. Perhaps our central thought about immigration is that present policy assumes an indifference to the individual characteristics of immigrants that no society can indefinitely maintain without danger."
---
There is another part where he forecasts that American Conservatism will turn in Latin American Conservatism if immigration continues, but I can't find it easily. He's basically predicting Trump all the way back then.
Ok, so what I see there is that, all other things equal, high IQ is better than low. Sure. It also suggests something akin to low IQ immigration has risks. Again, ok. What I don't see is it saying, much less presenting evidence, that our current immigration will turn us into anything like a Latin American country.
To me, it seems like you are misinterpreting Murray in a way very similar to liberals who hate him, only you like/agree with what you see in that misinterpretation.
1. China's population is actually expected to cut itself in half over the next 50-70 years. So the great power politics is quite different than you think.
2. Arnold has often mentioned Marc Andreesens' maxim that "The most serious problem in an organization is the one that cannot be discussed". Immigration is that problem in the US (and in Western Europe). There are several reasons for this that cut across ideological, financial, and class lines. I'd note, for example, that even this statement you are quoting by Arnold is a buried lede in a post on another topic? I won't speculate as to the reasons, but I will say that open discussion of such points will quickly get you labeled as one of the 60% of Americans who are now "right wing extremists". Amongst economists and libertarians, it's like letting out a loud fart and at a funeral and then chuckling about it.
1.- I'm not sure "we'll become a second order world power, but we might make a comeback in 50-70 years" is an acceptable proposition for those worried about China. Also, American fertility is way lower than replacement currently. If immigration were to stop now, it shouldn't take more than 30 years (?) for U.S. population to start declining.
2.- I agree with you. But, luckily for me, I'm not American (I recently moved to Spain, but I'm still practicing on how to piss off the locals. Regionalism, pensions and minimum wage seem to get me in enough trouble already, so I'm avoiding the immigration subject for now).
I don't follow what you're saying with respect to China. Too much generalization. When do we become a second order power? When does China? Why would immigration totally stop? Each of these kinds of assumptions could play out in a hundred different ways.
As someone who's "worried about China" and also "worried about the US", many of them would be "acceptable" to me.
When do we become a second order power? => When China reaches a Taiwan-like or Hong Kong-like per capita income. More so when India reaches a Mauritius-like per capita income.
Why would immigration totally stop? => I was just trying to illustrate my point that American fertility is very low now. Not as low as Chinese fertility, but low enough that the U.S. population would also decrease if it weren't for immigration.
Each of these kinds of assumptions could play out in a hundred different ways. =>True. Maybe America will create a strong alliance of like-minded countries (UK, ANZAC) that will allow it to counterweight China's and India's demographic advantage.
So better is the enemy of good [enough]? That's a worthy consideration I hadn't exactly considered, even if arguing for less illegal and more legal in no way conflicts with that idea.
I just listened to an old podcast with Sowell. One of the topics was, "and then what?" Seems relevant. What outcome do we expect letting this many illegal immigrants in each year? As long as we are asking questions, is this the right number? Biden has sent a very large number back. Should he stop that? Alternatively, even if illegal immigration is "good," should the number be something smaller?
Something I like to think about sometimes when looking at a successful person is looking at their pathway to success and asking if the same is currently possible today. Looking at the economics profession and the University of Chicago with Steven Levitt's self described journey without mathematics in undergrad and his subsequent issues with James Heckman, a nobel prize winner who Tyler Cowen dubbed the Bill Laimbeer of economics, I wonder whether either of these John Bates Clark medal winners would make it into academia today.
"The inside-the-Beltway “centrists” and their equivalent in other countries just cannot seem to be able to connect the dots between this and the rise of the “far right.” "
Since that link is to his substack "home," and not an article, I don't know even know where to start to find what he says about centrists and immigration.
Now I'm the one who isn't clear. I don't know that either of them has addressed that question. However, I thought it was the sort of thing their thinking might be helpful for trying to answer. I was thinking if you were interested, you could poke around in their archives and see if you found anything useful.
Sure. And I could poke around Google or ask AI. Since Kling made the statement, I was hoping he could explain or maybe it was obvious to someone else who could also explain.
AK’s statement doesn’t work for me. True, I don’t think of myself as a libertarian, though I personally have a problem with authority (purely an issue of temperament). If given a choice, I would prefer liberty to tyranny, sure. But that rarely seems to be what libertarians are fighting for. It’s not clear who they are fighting actually. They seem to be fighting everything - that is to say: all social norms.
Bear in mind there is a difference between libertarians and Libertarians, the latter usually referring to the party which is… kind of all over the place. Little l libertarians tend to be less “down with all norms “ and more “stop arbitrary government power”.
One of the nice things about being a libertarian (and often a conservative) is that your reasons don't have to agree with everyone else's.
In fact, I'd say that's broad evidence of the correctness of libertarian and conservative ideology. Just like a bridge built a thousand years ago in Britain looked much like a bridge built a thousand years ago in China. People independently arrive at principles that work.
That seems less so amongst "progressives". Maybe it's uncharitable but they seem much more willing to expel people for having the wrong reasons or motivations for doing things.
I asked my companion, as a road trip game, to offer his statement in 30 seconds:
“My answer is along Darwinian lines. I am a conservative because I believe that traditions reflect social norms and customs that have been tested overtime; and that are more likely to persist (be successful) than opposing policies or social relationships invented by rationalists.”
In trying to be succinct this leaves out something we further believe, that radicals are haters, who mislead people about the nature of the good.
This sounds like an ad hominem, though, so too hard to formulate in a car game perhaps.
I understand the US version of choosing the wrong immigrants, but not the UK/Canada problem. I do get t hat UK does not do a good job with assimilation, but I though Canada was more like the US.
"I am conservative because I believe that social change is better when it is gradual, tentative, experimental, and voluntary than when it is imposed by a radical vanguard.."
That's pretty much what I mean by Centrist, though my margins on numbers of immigrants, amount of deficit reduction and global scope of taxation of net CO2 emissions are pretty large
The scare quotes around "far right" are properly placed. Yet another point in favor of Caplan in his debate against Hanania's absurd case arguing for the integrity of the media. If one can't show a position to be held by fewer than 10% of the relevant population then to characterize it as far, extreme, etc. is intentionally manipulative misrepresentation. And when it's 40%+ it's just obscene and perverse. "Far right" is not shorthand for the far right in the Harvard School of Sociology.
Razib attributes too much agency to cognitively impaired Biden. True, he never was very bright, but his current condition is pathetic. I saw a series of video clips of him speaking some 8 to 10 years ago, and difference is like night and day. Rather than it being a matter of his selection of advisors, he has simply carried over the old Obama crew of mediocrities, and their failings are more manifest now that they no longer have a skilled politician between them and the public - or as Biden once described Obama, "“first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
No, they brought in a lot of nutty Elizabeth Warren groupies. If only they had stuck with the Obama group 100%
He got the Obama 3rd and 4th-stringers, the ones at the end of the bench who never get into a serioys game. Except now they do.
It is worth noting that Biden has continually declined to take the MOCA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Cognitive_Assessment
I don't know who is choosing Biden's advisers but it clearly isn't Biden.
I have no idea if you are correct but wonder how you reached that conclusion.
I just watch the man in public appearances, Stu- he isn't making any decisions and no one in his administration would be foolish enough to let him- and I write this as someone who believes they are truly foolish people.
I expect like a lot of elderly people with decline he has good days and bad days. But my experience is he is probably a little fearful and eager to please those he perceives as helping him or being kind to him, if he is not the mean kind of old person. His deferring to young people is not hard for me to imagine at all. And I can’t imagine there were going to be many good choices for his staff even had he been able to make them.
For instance, my father - who seldom noticed me or was curt or scornful of anything I said before we subsided into a natural-to-us mutual silence 30-odd years ago - now seems to regard me as the oracle of Delphi on all subjects. Not because I’m his daughter - my brothers are not so deferred to - but because I am chief among the Helpers.
Biden has a lifelong speech disorder that makes it difficult to evaluate his mental abilities, much less his cognitive decline, which I nonetheless suspect is more than minor. Either way, I don't see any way this tells us who is making inner circle staffing decisions.
I guess you either believe your lying eyes or you don't- it is of no matter to me.
Exactly. If I don't trust my own eyes and ears, it's for damn sure I'm not going to believe yours.
If we don't have better evidence, our eyes and ears will frequently lead us to wrong conclusions.
I am a libertarian because when we, the people, formed a government to protect our rights, we had to give the government a monopoly on coercion. This was necessary but dangerous. Dangerous because unless we put and maintained strict limits on the power and growth of the government, it would lead to serfdom. Unfortunately, it is well on its way.
My philosophical reason to be conservative is that I believe healthy civilization requires personal accountability and conservatism supports personal accountability more than alternative ideologies.
"and abused his parole power to usher in nearly 1.3 million illegal migrants in 2023 alone. The number of undetained illegal migrants living in the US has thereby ballooned under Biden: from 3.7 million in 2021 to 6.2 million in 2023, according to ICE."
I'm genuinely curious about the lack of discussion among Americans - at least those who wander around these parts - regarding one obvious explanation for the U.S. government's apparent incompetence at securing its southern border.
China's population is 4X that of the United States, and the only way the U.S. is going to narrow that gap - there's no chance of closing it - is by allowing millions of new immigrants, legal and illegal, every year. If you are high enough in the American political hierarchy, you probably don't care about some old man who feels like a foreigner in his own country lots of times. But you definitely care about great power politics.
But why illegal? I think we can get plenty of immigrants and still be pretty selective.
The cynical answer would be that it's just easier than trying to convince the American public of allowing three million legal immigrants per year.
But no one wants 3 million undocumented immigrants each year or wants to persuade anyone else to want them. ??
My explanation is purely speculative and it rests on the assumption that American authorities are actually allowing current levels of illegal immigration deliberately.
I cannot think of anyone who would benefit personally. There may be a net benefit in the aggregate but that would be a kind of comedy of the commons outcome
That's how a lot of elites in the US feel because they don't acknowledge genetics.
Once you acknowledge genetics, most potential immigrants are net drains rather than net assets.
I doubt that your average American has read The Bell Curve, but they sort of instinctually recognize that these third world immigrants are making things worse.
I read The Bell Curve and thought it was sound. I remembered one editorial part I thought was off-track but when I later went back to look for it I couldn't find it. Maybe it was there, maybe not. Regardless, I find your race-based conclusions repugnant and not at all in the spirit of Murray's work.
That said, it's worth saying that I know of no evidence that the people who come to the US illegally are "inferior stock," even if the people from where they came are, on which I espouse no opinion. The act of coming here marks them as very different (as a group) from those who stayed behind.
Besides the fact that net contribution results from things other than just genetics, I've seen statistics that illegal and legal Chinese, Indian, Arab/Muslim (I forget which), and even black immigrants have higher incomes than natives. Hispanic immigrants don't but catch up after two generations. Do you dispute that and what is the basis for your conclusion?
Actually Murray condemned Latin American immigration in The Bell Curve and called for more limited immigration. He state flat out he thought it would turn us into a Latin American country.
His stance on immigration softened in the 90s and 00s, but he became anti-immigration again after 2016.
"Hispanic immigrants don't but catch up after two generations"
False. Hispanic incomes do increase after the first generation but third generation Hispanics have incomes far below whites. This despite tending to live in much higher COL areas with higher prevailing wage rates.
https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/2012-profile-f9.jpg
By contrast social indicators other then income actually get worse for Hispanics after the first generation (crime, divorce, etc all increase).
In general I think Murray's aw shucks quakerism is fine for writing books, but someone that was actually running a state based on genetics would be more like Lee Kuan Yew.
The link doesn't work.
I don't remember Murray condemning Latin American immigration. Maybe so but I would need to read what he wrote, not your interpretation. Surely you acknowledge that Murray has been misinterpreted by quite a few people in the past.
It' worth noting that genetics alone does not determine if a group will be a net drain or positive.
Chapter 15 discusses immigration.
---
On page 549 of his policy recommendations he writes this:
"The other demographic factor we discussed in Chapter 15 was im- migration and the evidence that recent waves of immigrants are, on the average, less successful and less able, than earlier waves. There is no reason to assume that the hazards associated with low cognitive ability in America are somehow circumvented by having heen born abroad or having parents or grandparents who were. A n immigrant pop- ulation with low cognitive ability will-again, on the average-have trouble not only in finding good work but have trouble in school, at home, and with the law.
This is not the place, nor are we the people, to try to rewrite immi- gration law. But we believe that the main purpose of immigration law should be to serve America's interests. It should be among the goals of public policy to shift the flow of immigrants away from those admitted under the nepotistic rules (which broadly encourage the reunification of relatives) and toward those admitted under competency rules, already established in immigration law-not to the total exclusion of nepotis- tic and humanitarian criteria but a shift. Perhaps our central thought about immigration is that present policy assumes an indifference to the individual characteristics of immigrants that no society can indefinitely maintain without danger."
---
There is another part where he forecasts that American Conservatism will turn in Latin American Conservatism if immigration continues, but I can't find it easily. He's basically predicting Trump all the way back then.
Ok, so what I see there is that, all other things equal, high IQ is better than low. Sure. It also suggests something akin to low IQ immigration has risks. Again, ok. What I don't see is it saying, much less presenting evidence, that our current immigration will turn us into anything like a Latin American country.
To me, it seems like you are misinterpreting Murray in a way very similar to liberals who hate him, only you like/agree with what you see in that misinterpretation.
1. China's population is actually expected to cut itself in half over the next 50-70 years. So the great power politics is quite different than you think.
2. Arnold has often mentioned Marc Andreesens' maxim that "The most serious problem in an organization is the one that cannot be discussed". Immigration is that problem in the US (and in Western Europe). There are several reasons for this that cut across ideological, financial, and class lines. I'd note, for example, that even this statement you are quoting by Arnold is a buried lede in a post on another topic? I won't speculate as to the reasons, but I will say that open discussion of such points will quickly get you labeled as one of the 60% of Americans who are now "right wing extremists". Amongst economists and libertarians, it's like letting out a loud fart and at a funeral and then chuckling about it.
1.- I'm not sure "we'll become a second order world power, but we might make a comeback in 50-70 years" is an acceptable proposition for those worried about China. Also, American fertility is way lower than replacement currently. If immigration were to stop now, it shouldn't take more than 30 years (?) for U.S. population to start declining.
2.- I agree with you. But, luckily for me, I'm not American (I recently moved to Spain, but I'm still practicing on how to piss off the locals. Regionalism, pensions and minimum wage seem to get me in enough trouble already, so I'm avoiding the immigration subject for now).
I don't follow what you're saying with respect to China. Too much generalization. When do we become a second order power? When does China? Why would immigration totally stop? Each of these kinds of assumptions could play out in a hundred different ways.
As someone who's "worried about China" and also "worried about the US", many of them would be "acceptable" to me.
When do we become a second order power? => When China reaches a Taiwan-like or Hong Kong-like per capita income. More so when India reaches a Mauritius-like per capita income.
Why would immigration totally stop? => I was just trying to illustrate my point that American fertility is very low now. Not as low as Chinese fertility, but low enough that the U.S. population would also decrease if it weren't for immigration.
Each of these kinds of assumptions could play out in a hundred different ways. =>True. Maybe America will create a strong alliance of like-minded countries (UK, ANZAC) that will allow it to counterweight China's and India's demographic advantage.
I think you're giving the American leadership class a lot more credit than it deserves.
Maybe. Maybe, it's just sheer incompetence on their part.
I guess the way I would put it is that I view them as much more motivated by self-interest than the national interest.
This argument boils down to the classic CityWide Change Bank moto “we lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume."
https://youtu.be/KodqIPMbyUg?si=x1M9eIMGoP4JlsaN
So better is the enemy of good [enough]? That's a worthy consideration I hadn't exactly considered, even if arguing for less illegal and more legal in no way conflicts with that idea.
I just listened to an old podcast with Sowell. One of the topics was, "and then what?" Seems relevant. What outcome do we expect letting this many illegal immigrants in each year? As long as we are asking questions, is this the right number? Biden has sent a very large number back. Should he stop that? Alternatively, even if illegal immigration is "good," should the number be something smaller?
On Weird Nerds:
Something I like to think about sometimes when looking at a successful person is looking at their pathway to success and asking if the same is currently possible today. Looking at the economics profession and the University of Chicago with Steven Levitt's self described journey without mathematics in undergrad and his subsequent issues with James Heckman, a nobel prize winner who Tyler Cowen dubbed the Bill Laimbeer of economics, I wonder whether either of these John Bates Clark medal winners would make it into academia today.
Yes, that seems like a correct diagnosis of Biden.
"For some of us, sucking up takes a lot of work. It goes too much against our nature."
I strongly identify with this yet I often wonder to what extent it is a copout.
"The inside-the-Beltway “centrists” and their equivalent in other countries just cannot seem to be able to connect the dots between this and the rise of the “far right.” "
Why do you think centrists don't see this?
Or Lorenzo Warby? https://substack.com/home/post/p-143295625
I didn't read it but he doesn't use the word centrist or immigra. Can you he more specific?
That's a good question for <a href=https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/> Steve Stewart-Williams</a>.
Perhaps the simple cynical answer is correct, "because they don't want to." Which just pushes the question back to, "Why don't they want to?"
Since that link is to his substack "home," and not an article, I don't know even know where to start to find what he says about centrists and immigration.
Now I'm the one who isn't clear. I don't know that either of them has addressed that question. However, I thought it was the sort of thing their thinking might be helpful for trying to answer. I was thinking if you were interested, you could poke around in their archives and see if you found anything useful.
Sure. And I could poke around Google or ask AI. Since Kling made the statement, I was hoping he could explain or maybe it was obvious to someone else who could also explain.
Sorry I wasn't clear. How do you know they don't see this?
" If a fraction of those millions turns up for asylum hearings, I’ll be gob-smacked."
Lol. I wonder he's numerate. Maybe be he shouldn't have been admitted to college.
AK’s statement doesn’t work for me. True, I don’t think of myself as a libertarian, though I personally have a problem with authority (purely an issue of temperament). If given a choice, I would prefer liberty to tyranny, sure. But that rarely seems to be what libertarians are fighting for. It’s not clear who they are fighting actually. They seem to be fighting everything - that is to say: all social norms.
Bear in mind there is a difference between libertarians and Libertarians, the latter usually referring to the party which is… kind of all over the place. Little l libertarians tend to be less “down with all norms “ and more “stop arbitrary government power”.
One of the nice things about being a libertarian (and often a conservative) is that your reasons don't have to agree with everyone else's.
In fact, I'd say that's broad evidence of the correctness of libertarian and conservative ideology. Just like a bridge built a thousand years ago in Britain looked much like a bridge built a thousand years ago in China. People independently arrive at principles that work.
That seems less so amongst "progressives". Maybe it's uncharitable but they seem much more willing to expel people for having the wrong reasons or motivations for doing things.
I asked my companion, as a road trip game, to offer his statement in 30 seconds:
“My answer is along Darwinian lines. I am a conservative because I believe that traditions reflect social norms and customs that have been tested overtime; and that are more likely to persist (be successful) than opposing policies or social relationships invented by rationalists.”
In trying to be succinct this leaves out something we further believe, that radicals are haters, who mislead people about the nature of the good.
This sounds like an ad hominem, though, so too hard to formulate in a car game perhaps.
I understand the US version of choosing the wrong immigrants, but not the UK/Canada problem. I do get t hat UK does not do a good job with assimilation, but I though Canada was more like the US.
"I am conservative because I believe that social change is better when it is gradual, tentative, experimental, and voluntary than when it is imposed by a radical vanguard.."
That's pretty much what I mean by Centrist, though my margins on numbers of immigrants, amount of deficit reduction and global scope of taxation of net CO2 emissions are pretty large