Even K-Lo can’t stand Bush

Among the NRO-cons who are outraged at President Bush for his refusal to take seriously his duty to protect the U.S. from invasion—and even more for his cheap demonizing of those who expect him to take that duty seriously—is NRO editor Kathryn Jean Lopez. In a May 31 article her upset with Busheron comes through loud and clear:

On the day a deal between Senate leaders and the White House was announced, President Bush said that the bill will be without “animosity.” He aimed that at this Lopez—a critic. Supposedly, the attitude goes, if you’re not with Jorge Arbusto, you’re filled with anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant “animosity.” Earlier this week he dismissed all those who use the word “amnesty” in reference to the bill. “If you want to scare the American people, what you say is the bill’s an amnesty bill. That’s empty political rhetoric trying to frighten our citizens.”

As shocking as Bush’s demogaguery may be, there is no reason to be surprised at it. As I have pointed out over and over, Bush’s position on immigration has been consistent from the start. In an August 2000 speech candidate Bush laid out his view of the matter with unmistakeable clarity: that there are the good people, who “welcome” the transformation of America into a culturally Hispanic country, and there are the bad people, who “resent” it. That which leads to the displacement of America’s Anglo-European culture is good. That which that stands in the way of such displacement is evil. Open borders is good. Opposition to open borders is evil. Everything Bush has said on the immigration issue since that speech has been simply a repetition or elaboration of these basic leftist motifs. If the NRO-cons could understand this, they would see that Bush is not just someone who has let them down or betrayed them; they would see that he is and always has been a committed enemy of this country as a distinctive historical entity.

Here’s an excerpt from my article that quotes and discusses Bush’s seminal August 2000 speech:

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.

Also surprising is W.’s claim that Republicans have “made a choice to welcome the new America.” Did Republicans realize that by nominating W. they were not only committing themselves to a pro-multicultural candidate, but shutting down all debate on the issue?

(“My Bush epiphany,” WorldNetDaily, September 20, 2000.)

- end of initial entry -

Roger writes:

Yesterday I heard a professor from Hofstra University on the radio who said that what we most had to consider with this immigration bill is what is best for “humanity.” He then said that since we’re “a nation of immigrants” letting in all these immigrants will make us more of what we really are.

This is what passes for the intelligentsia in today’s world.

LA replies:

> He then said that since we’re “a nation of immigrants” letting in all these immigrants will make us more of what we really are.

But what he said is entirely correct and logical. He is doing something that I, as a critic of liberalism, am always doing: making the implicit reasoning of liberalism explicit, which is something liberals almost never do. So I’m impressed by him. If more liberals did this, we would be in much better shape because the real end of liberalism would be plainly seen by everyone instead of having to be teased out by our side.

Roger writes:

President Bush’s main political characteristic is now clearly more than hostility towards his own base. He obviously feels contempt for anyone who opposes this immigration bill which means that he feels contempt for the majority of the American people. And what this really means is that this president of the United States feels contempt for anyone who truly cares about the United States.

While he poses as the champion of democracy he shows utter contempt for the will of the people in this democracy. Apparently he believes that democracy is good for Moslems but not for Americans.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 31, 2007 09:34 PM | Send