Former Bush speechwriter attacks right-wing nativism:
Former Bush speechwriter attacks right-wing nativism:
In today’s Washington Post, Michael Gerson, formerly a speechwriter to President Bush, criticizes conservatives for “letting fear rule” in the immigration debate:
But the real passion in this debate is not political, it is cultural — a fear that American identity is being diluted by Latino migration. Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, whom Tancredo calls an intellectual mentor, presents the highbrow version. Huntington argues that Mexican migration is a threat to American unity and to the “core” of our cultural identity. “America,” he says, “was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century.”
There are many problems with this argument, not least of which is that about a fifth of Hispanics in America are Protestants, mostly evangelical Pentecostals and Baptists. Almost all of Bush’s political gains among Hispanics have come from this group, which gave him 44 percent of their vote in 2000 and 56 percent in 2004. Hispanic Protestants tend to be conservative on social policy. And many conservatives, I’d be willing to bet, would feel more cultural affinity with Hispanic Baptists in their church pews than they would with Huntington’s colleagues in the Harvard faculty lounge.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Exactly.
Tancredo and Huntington’s arguments are disingenuous at best. This is more a class issue than a race or ethnicity issue, IMHO.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:40 amThis is a WASP country, and don’t you forget it. Bad enough they let those dang Irish Katlicks in, and see how badly that turned out!
May 25th, 2007 at 10:41 amThe real issue is that people come here illegally and they have little or no skill, so all they do is expand the lower class and drive down wages for American workers. Not to mention they have been crippling our hospitals with their free healthcare that tax paying citizens don’t receive.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:44 amTancredo and Huntington’s arguments are disingenuous at best. This is more a class issue than a race or ethnicity issue, IMHO.
Comment by Zooey
I don’t buy it, Zooey. Much of what fuels the emotional impact of the immigration issue is a fear that the country is getting too dark. Sometimes it’s hedged around with other issues, but we occasionally see it expressed as blatantly as Tancredo and Huntington.
The roots of in-migration from Latin America, though, that’s all about economics and about the longstanding relationship between American business and the southern oligarchies.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:44 amGerson is an unrepentant Neocon.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:45 amYeah, gummitch, and don’t forget the Germans and Italians too…
May 25th, 2007 at 10:47 amThe immigration bill is a travesty. If people don’t understand it now, their children and grandchildren will pay the price: work hours will increase, wages will decrease, and pensions and benefits will be a thing of the past. Gerson and Reid and all the neocons and neoliberals can distract and spin and spin and distract, but we won’t have the same standard of living if this bill passes.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:50 amI can’t tell you how many VIVA BUSH bumper stickers I saw before the last election. I couldn’t understand why, and still now I question why latinos are conservitive.
May 25th, 2007 at 10:53 amWell, if we are a Protestant society Gerson will be sure to go after the five Catholics on the Supreme Court, no?
May 25th, 2007 at 11:00 amMichael Gerson is an odious human being.
We need to remember that America has just as much “Roger Williams” as it does “Cotton Mather” in its tradition, thankfully. Luckily, it was the Roger William’s perspective which made it into the Constitution.
Secular government is a treasure to celebrate, both for the devout and the non-religious. It enables the religious freedom which is a true core to the American Experience. Those who would squash it would be wise to remember that they may not always be a member of a politically dominant religious group.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:03 amSorry, but his statements can’t be taken seriously. He’s giving a shout-out to big business, that’s the message here.
There’s nothing to worry about with the Immigration issue, move along….
“Bad enough they let those dang Irish Katlicks in” – Comment by Gummitch
Nevermind, this vicious rhetoric pretty much affirmed why there’s “right-wing” hard-line opposition to this amnesty bill. You almost had me, but never mind. No wonder there’s much actual unsettlement – it’s actually JUSTIFIED. You don’t expect us to believe that you’re poor victims, do you?
May 25th, 2007 at 11:13 amComment by midwestblue
That couldn’t have been stated better. That’s the outlook, truly, if this bill passes.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:14 amFear is their staple. How will they survive without their fear and derision diet?
Two decades of Xenophobe, bigotry, and misogny has come home to roost. GOP in a civil war.
Bigots vs Greed Corporatists tearing at eachothers flesh. We finally see the true face of the compassionate conservatism and zealot religious right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/21/AR2006042101593. html
HOW THE GOP LOST THEIR WAY
The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party’s conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider — and in some cases cheer — the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.
The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400778.html
May 25th, 2007 at 11:16 amThis whole “fear of immigration” and the resultant polarized debate apparently disguises at least two underlying causes. First, outsourcing of jobs, both manufacturing and service, to countries that pay their workers far less, including Mexico. This obviously creates more profit for American companies that establish this practice. Secondly, NAFTA has been a disaster for both people in the U.S. and in Mexico. Despite all the rosy promises of how great NAFTA would be, and the resultant job creation, it’s been the opposite. People coming over the southern border, illegally, has increased enormously over the past decade. Reason? No jobs, and those who used to be engaged in farming are also unemployed, thanks to our “cheaper” tomatoes and other food products that we flood Mexico with tariff-free. There has been an increase of 20-30% crossing the border illegally over the past 10 years.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:54 amNot to mention that of Europeans the Spanish settled here first, in Florida and in New Mexico. And French soon after. And those Protestants Huntingtonm loves so much were the ones who brought the African slaves to America including the Caribbean.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pmComment by Mimi Katz
But now it’s about retaining control of a developed nation, which returning WWII fighters – mostly European-American’s – brought into focus. Reading off the immigration doctrine of 200+ years of who “settled here first” is not relevant today. Immigration in a developed country must be orderly and structured.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pmhow ironical is it that a bush speech writer would call someone else “lowbrow”. Man it doesn’t get any more ironically than that.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm.
Huntington’s colleagues(and likely Huntington himself) are direct descendants of the Know-Nothing society that hung out the “No Irish Need Apply” signs of the mid-18th century. We stepped on their heads then, and booted them out of power…long past time for the same thing to happen to these clowns.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:37 pmComment by Tim
Your comments are pretty much the reason why anti-immigrant sentiment exists in this country. You’ve forfeited your right to complain about future concerns from “right-wingers.” Their complaining is justified, in response to bigoted and racist, genocidal comments like yours. “booting out the Irish” Singling out someone for their race, huh?
Make some other plans for yourself, please.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:56 pmJeez, the real problem isn’t culture or color, it’s WAGES and JOBS.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pmBush is all about amnesty and “guest worker” programs (amnesty) etc. Illegals love Bush.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:03 pmComment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 25, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Hey, chowderhead…you obviously don’t get it…I’m proudly of Irish descent, and clearly recognize that my ancestors had to overcome anti-immigrant sentiment to achieve a place in this country. Those sentiments in the 1840’s involved shootings, church and convent burnings and various othe kind ministrations from Huntington’s ancestors(real and spiritual). We learned then that the appropriate response to the Nativist “right- wing” of the time was to run them out of power…it’s still the appropriate response, and it’s not bigoted, racist or genocidal. It just recognizes the truth…right-wing, anti-immigrant sentiment is a disease, not a political position.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pmComment by Tim
Of course it’s bigoted. You’re not making plans to run some other developed country out of power, are you? Just America, I see.
As I’ve stated here and on other posts, you can’t answer questions of immigration today using standards of 200+ years ago that look childish today. I recognize other continents to be “nativist,” and I see nothing wrong with that. Your “run them out of power,” right-wing-limited dissent is not the solution with immigration troubles. When you try to tell a strong majority that you plan to “run them out of power,” of course they are going to be up in arms. That’s a pretty natural response that any country would have. I mean, the post WWII era solidified that old-time immigration history is obsolete. You have a new set of priorities and challenges today.
In today’s terms, Mexico, for example, has a responsibility to create its own jobs there and reduce its poverty, because we can’t support everybody here. It’s just not going to work. You already seeing those negative effects amplified in the southwest – water shortages, increase polution, tons of gang activity, you name it. Liberals have a thing for environmental policies, don’t they? Well, hoards of immigration absolutely conflicts with that.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pmIt’s great to see ThinkProgress finally waking up and supporting Our Leader and his proxies, especially when those proxies have been sent out to support plans designed to make money for Our Leader’s BigBusiness Buddies. Glad to see you finally come around!
Of course, if TP wanted to actually analyze this situation, they might conclude that whatever little argument in the piece is one for immigration in general, not massive illegal immigration and not massive immigration from one country.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:57 pmOf course it’s bigoted. You’re not making plans to run some other developed country out of power, are you? Just America, I see.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 25, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Once again, Chowderhead, you miss (or mis-state) the point. This is not about plans to run America out of power. Left to their own devices, the anti-immigrant right will do just that. They’re not a “strong majority”, they’re a declinging, ignorant minority, who make this country less powerful and less influential and less true to itself every time they speak. Long past time to identify that right-wing viewpoint for what it is…a fevered disease, not “a new set of priorities”.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:07 pmComment by Tim
Once again, douchebag, you’re mincing my words. Left to their own devices, the anti-white left-wing will run American out of power. The left has a nasty vision of immigration, nothing better than you allege of the right, so they aren’t innocent. If the right is doing it for cheap labor, the left is doing it for votes. Based on any problems of a “right-wing” political party, you can’t indicate that America is a “ignorant, declining minority.” There are countries much more corrupt than America that truly don’t give a crap about their own people. Go chase them off. Eliminating the “right-wing” to make a one-party system isn’t going to help this country in the long run.
I never indicated that this country’s priorities are defined by the right or any political party for that matter. In a post-9/11 world, you can’t just let everybody cross your borders. If this country is politically to the right, that doesn’t signal the need to show disrespect to its demographics. Nothing right off the bat needs to be altered.
My previous arguments stand.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:30 pmMy previous arguments stand.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 25, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Nah…your previous arguments slouch, at best. And please, try your best not to mis-state my points. I don’t think, and never said, that America is an ignorant, declining minority. I DO think that the right wing is ignorant, declining and alarmist, and that this country’s priorities have been defined by the right for far too long. And there is no point to your discussion of “…countries more corrupt than America.” Neither you nor I are responsible for any other country…the only job within our competence is to make America run correctly.
The right wing has manifestly failed at that task and the sooner the great majority of the public see that failure, the sooner the right will be returned to a status appropriate to its real minority position.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:53 pmI find Huntington’s argument that “America was created as a Protestant society just as and for some of the same reasons Pakistan and Israel were created as Muslim and Jewish societies in the 20th century†to be incredibly naive (if not just plain stupid) to come from a Harvard professor. (The guy really is a Harvard professor? Really? Oy.)
May 25th, 2007 at 3:16 pmPakistan was “created” to be Muslim, in the same way that India was “created” to be Hindu. Also, the partitioning of India which led to the religious divisions had TWO Muslim states–one in the West, one in the East; the Eastern state chose to unite with the Western state (only to secede a quarter century later as “Bangladesh” following years of economic neglect). So, Professor, how does *this* little fact mesh with your theory? What “Catholic society” was America partitioned away from? (As I recall, when the Jamestown and Plymouth settlements were established, England was a Protestant nation; when the US gained its independece, England was a Protestant nation.)
As for Israel, you might want to do a bit more detailed research into that country’s history. The Jewish State was created by the United Nations as an EQUAL to the Arab State with both States being formed from the singular British Mandated Palestine. I would also point out that there was Jewish terrorist activity which led to the British turning Palestine over to the UN to resolve since the British High Commissioner was one of the VICTIMS of this terrorist activity. The problem was that the Arabs objected to the partitioning but were ignored; the partition would take place with or without them. Now, I’m not sure, but I don’t really see any similarity with America’s development. (Hint: Britain didn’t operate the American Colonies as a single entity; at the time of the American Revolution, the colonies that became the United States were all separate colonies–beholden to no authority other than the King and Parliament in London.) America wasn’t partitioned by an outside force into separate Protestant and Catholic regions.
The ONLY reason this country has such a large Protestant population (which, incidentally, means very little since there’s NO single Protestant church; there are dozens of different Protestant denominations, many of which have deep differences in their manners of worship) is that the American colonies founded by English settlers were founded by English Protestants (with the exception of Maryland, which was founded as an American colony haven for Catholics; the colony of Georgia began as a penal colony with little regard for denominational differences). In most of the original 13 states, the religious group which established the colony has been displaced by other religious groups (Massachusetts, established by the Puritans, is now nearly 40% Catholic–Catholics account for nearly 1/2 of all Christians in Massachusetts while Christians of all denominations make up about 80% of the total population).
Comment by Tim
You have your own interpretations. They are false.
ALL of my previous arguments stand. Left-wing ideology is not automatic fact, sorry.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:26 pmLeft-wing ideology is not automatic fact, sorry.
Comment by CompTROLLER V-1 — May 25, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Yeah, we know…”…the truth has a well-known liberal bias…”
May 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pmTancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear.
Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of that and other things.
And for all his anti-immigrant posturing, he could easily be the poster child for the non-Anglo immigrant assimilation into US culture. Without a doubt, the nuances of the the irony are lost on him.
May 26th, 2007 at 2:13 amThere IS a difference between LEGAL immigration and ILLEGAL immigration.
Developed nations cannot just open the border and allow anybody to come into the country without destabilizing wages and social services. It IS about money, because the Chamber of Commerce is the leading advocate of cheap illegal immigrant labor.
As a liberal, I think we should be more responsible to American citizens who have been displaced by globalization and economic disparity. Illegal immigration is driving down the wages of the working poor in this country. The left used to advocate for them, but it seems now that they are advocating for illegal immigrants. I don’t get it!
May 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am