Several interesting points are being raised here:
- Rebekah Entralgo is insinuating that a historical fact raised by Mr. Miller was done so because it was a “white supremacist talking point”. But, she provides no evidence that that Mr. Miller KNEW that that historical fact was a “white supremacist talking point”. Without that information, Ms. Entralgo engages in slander, not journalism. (Not that that’s new news, to anyone who pays attention to anyone working for “ThinkProgress.”)
- It is insinuated by the “left” (whatever the hell THAT is these days) that the inscription under discussion ought to be some sort of inviolable governing principle which the USA cannot ever abridge, a “value” of the USA. Yet, if you ask the same people about the Constitution of the United States of America, they will tell you that it’s an antiquated document that should no longer hold the power of Law, and thus “originalists” like Mr. Gorsuch should be opposed. This is, at best, rank hypocrisy.
- Anyone with breath in their body should realize that an ideal (in said inscription) that was entirely apropos to a developing nation that was in desperate need for physical laborers may not still apply centuries later, when said country is now a developed nation with a surplus of physical labor. The inscription, IOW, should not be a suicide pact on american labor.
I could go on, but this is a target-rich environment. It would be like running up the score at the end of the football game.