Michael Gerson – 5/25/07

This page was last updated on May 28, 2007.

Erasing America?; Michael Gerson; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 25, 2007.

According to the PG, “Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter for President Bush, is a columnist for the Washington Post.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject column.

“In 1882, Congress passed and President Chester Arthur signed ‘The Chinese Exclusion Act.’ Today we don’t name laws as bluntly as we used to. But anti-immigrant sentiments are very much alive, this time expressed in opposition to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.”

[RWC] Accusing people who oppose illegal immigration of being “anti-immigrant” is a tired tactic. This is the same tactic used regarding other issues like so-called affirmative action/diversity (government-sanctioned discrimination), embryonic stem cell research, et cetera. If you oppose these programs, you’re labeled as anti-minority, anti-woman, or anti-stem cell research.

The first paragraph begins the process of implying that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is anti-Mexican. Further into the piece, Mr. Gerson blurs any distinction between illegal immigrants and Latino American citizens.

“For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is ‘going to erase America’ -- an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy’s considerable powers. Another laments that ‘white America is in flight’ -- and presumably not just to Jackson Hole and Nantucket for the summer.”

[RWC] I don’t like salsa on my apple pie anymore than I like ketchup, mustard, relish, or sauerkraut on my apple pie. I do like salsa on my hotdogs. Since I don’t like sauerkraut on my fajitas, does that make me anti-German?

At least Mr. Gerson identified the problem, illegal immigrants.

It’s too bad Mr. Gerson didn’t identify the “conservative commentators” he quoted.

“At one level, any immigration debate concerns a raw political calculation: Who ends up with more voters? Conservative critics of the Senate bill argue that since most Latinos identify themselves as Democrats, a larger pool of American Latinos will mean that Republicans are voted into irrelevance. Most Republican political strategists respond: That is closer than you think. Given current demographic realities, Republicans cannot rely on their white base alone. If a Republican presidential candidate doesn’t get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn’t stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.

“Breaking 40 percent is possible for Republicans. President Bush did it in 2004. Republican momentum among Hispanic voters has been strong in the last decade -- until Rep. Tom Tancredo and his allies began their conflict with the fastest growing group of the electorate.

“Conceding Latinos to the Democrats in perpetuity is a stunning failure of political confidence. If the Republican Party cannot find ways to appeal to natural entrepreneurs with strong family values who are focused on education and social mobility, then the GOP is already dead.”

[RWC] It’s not an issue of “conceding to the Democrats” anymore than Republicans conceded blacks to the Democrats. A Democrat/liberal tactic is to group people, convince them they are disadvantaged, and then promise special treatment to those groups. Usually, that special treatment involves “free stuff” paid for by taxpayers. Grouping people is not a part of conservative principles so “all” we have to offer is freedom and opportunity.

Latinos are “natural entrepreneurs?” The implication is people of some other ethnic and/or racial backgrounds are not “natural entrepreneurs.”

[RWC] This is where Mr. Gerson blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal Hispanic immigrants whose goal is to become an American.

“But the real passion in this debate is not political, it is cultural -- a fear that American identity is being diluted by Latino migration.

“Mr. Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear. Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University, whom Mr. Tancredo calls an intellectual mentor, presents the highbrow version. Mr. 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.’”

[RWC] Note the drive-by attack on Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Gerson presents no citations to support his assertion that “Mr. Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear.” An inquiring mind should ask “why?”

“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 President 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 Mr. Huntington’s colleagues in the Harvard faculty lounge.”

[RWC] This is where Mr. Gerson blurs the distinction between illegal immigrants and legal Hispanic immigrants whose goal is to become an American.

Most illegal immigrants are here because Mexico is an economic wasteland compared to the U.S. That’s why the vast majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are undereducated (not even an high school diploma), uneducated, and can’t read, write, or speak English. In some cases, the illegal aliens aren’t even literate (read and write) in their native language. The reason we have so many bilingual signs, et cetera is not because of legal Mexican immigrants. It’s because of illegals who are here simply for a job and who couldn’t care less about becoming Americans.

“Yet these are precisely the people that Tancredo Republicans are alienating. Not all Hispanics view immigration favorably, but 100 percent resent being targets of suspicion. When I talked this week with the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez Jr., a prominent Hispanic evangelical, he said of congressional Republicans: ‘This is a party closing its door to us, hijacked by extremists.’”

[RWC] I guess this means when Americans opposed terrorist activity in Ireland, we made all the Irish “targets of suspicion.” What BS!

When did believing existing immigration laws should be enforced become an “extremist” position?

“‘All I hear,’ he told me, ‘from conservative leaders I work with, very socially conservative people, is, ‘‘I can’t continue to vote for a party that is exposing threads of bigotry and racism.’’”

[RWC] Again the piece refers to alleged quotes from alleged conservatives but doesn’t attribute them to specific individuals. When you don’t name names, there’s no way to validate the comments. Convenient, isn’t it?

“Conservatives need to be reminded that Latinos -- Protestant and Catholic -- are, in some ways, different from the mainstream culture. Higher percentages attend church regularly. Higher percentages of Latino immigrants are married; lower percentages are divorced. ‘The elephant in the room,’ says Rev. Rodriguez, ‘is the Latinoization of America. What are the results? America will be a more religious nation. America will continue to be a nation that promotes family values. Wow, that really turns American culture upside down.’

“For Rev. Rodriguez and others, religion adds an element beyond politics and culture to the immigration debate. The Christian faith teaches that our common humanity is more important than our nationality. That all of us, ultimately, are strangers in this world and brothers to the bone; and all in need of amnesty. This belief does not dictate certain policies in a piece of legislation, but it does forbid rage and national chauvinism. And this is worth a reminder as well.”

[RWC] Did you note Mr. Simpson didn’t list specific provisions for violating the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act and how each was violated by anyone?

Finally, Mr. Simpson failed to note Mr. Fitzgerald knew the “leaker” was Mr. Armitage the day he took over the investigation. You see, from news reports from August/September 2006 we learned Mr. Armitage in 2003 told the FBI he was the “leaker” after he read a second Novak column about the Wilson affair and realized he (Armitage) was Mr. Novak’s source. This all happened before Mr. Fitzgerald took over. As a result, based on what we know now, no crime took place before the investigation began. Mr. Libby was not charged with leaking Mrs. Wilson’s name. The question I have is, since Mr. Fitzgerald knew the identity of the “leaker” from the beginning, why did he pursue a lengthy and costly investigation, and now prosecution?