Why the only alternative to Bush’s immigration policy is resentment

Alan Levine writes:

I had noted the mention, in your comments about Bush and the CIA, of Bush’s statement in 2000 that the only reason people might object to the U.S. becoming a Spanish-speaking country was “resentment,” but for some reason did not react immediately. I thought about it later, however, and got angrier and angrier. In fact, it spoiled my dinner. Somehow, before reading your piece today, that particular outrageous statement had escaped my notice. Exactly when and where did Bush say this? I would like to see the whole quote and context, if possible.

The reader is referring to my September 2000 article, “My Bush Epiphany,” which I’ve cited many times and also linked in that blog article. Bush didn’t literally say “the only reason people have to oppose this is resentment,” but it is a accurate characterization of what he said. Here’s the relevant passage from my article in which I quote and comment on his speech, with the part about resentment bolded:

On the matter of national identity, W. delivered in Miami on Aug. 25 a major address on U.S.-Latin American relations, in which he unveiled a startling—at least for a Republican—view of America. We should pay close attention to his words:

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We’re a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey … and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change—some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

Let us be clear that W. is not (as Republican politicians including Reagan have done for decades) celebrating immigrants from diverse backgrounds on the assumption that they are becoming part of our culture and way of life. On the contrary, he is applauding the expansion and the increasingly dominant role of the Hispanic culture and the Spanish language in this country. He is explicitly welcoming the very things that are making America less and less like its historical self and more and more like Latin America.

To repeat, this is not the usual establishment conservative line of “immigration with assimilation.” This is multiculturalism, the view of America as a collection of unassimilated yet “equal” cultures in which our former national culture will be progressively downgraded and marginalized.

I’ve read that Bush quote many times, but as I read it over again now, I see something about it that I’ve never noticed before. Note that Bush doesn’t say, “Some people have worried about this, some people have thought this would lead to a loss of American identity, some people have had reasonable concerns whether these people would assimilate sufficiently to preserve a common American culture.” No, he says, “Others have resented it.” In Bush’s view, resentment of the Hispanicization of America is the only possible alternative to praising it.

But what I see now is, how could the alternative to praise be other than resentment, given Bush’s substantive position? Bush is no longer advocating the assimilation of Hispanic immigrants into America, but the surrender of America to the immigrants’ cultures. From that point of view, what could an “anti” voice consist of, except for opposition to, and thus resentment of, this good thing of Hispanization?

This shows the radicalism of Bush. As long as one is appealing to the ideal of assimilation into a common American culture, as GOP politicians did prior to the advent of Bush, there is still at least the appearance of an American common ground, so that an immigration supporter could argue, “Some people are worried that the immigrants won’t assimilate, but I’m more hopeful than that, I think that they will assimilate and that America will remain a unified country.” Such a speaker is appealing to an American criterion. But since Bush has explicitly foregone assimilation, and thus foregone any American criterion, what common, good-faith ground for debate and disagreement is there? Either you accept the Hispanization of America that he’s pushing, or you oppose it, which means you’re resentful.

Furthermore, in Bush’s last quoted sentence, “By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America,” he is announcing that all debate on this topic in the Republican party is hereinafter shut down. The GOP has chosen the Hispanization of America (or so Bush peremptorily declares, since in fact the issue was never debated), and any opposition to that policy is now classified as resentment and will not be allowed.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 07, 2005 06:31 PM | Send