Really terrible news

I was so stunned and disheartened by this news when I read about it a week ago that I relegated it to my subconscious and put off writing about it. But there’s no silver lining emerging here, and I can’t put off acknowledging it forever. On November 9, the Miami Herald reported:

Three leading GOP presidential candidates have agreed to participate in a Spanish-language debate previously canceled because only two other candidates signed up.

Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney agreed to participate in the Dec. 9 forum at the University of Miami. They join John McCain, Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter….

As in the Democratic debate, the candidates will be asked questions in Spanish and their responses will be translated into Spanish for viewers. The candidates will hear English translations of the questions through earphones.

Moreover, according to the November 10 Washington Times, it was Thompson, the only top-tier candidate who has taken meaningful positions on reducing legal immigration, who initiated the candidates’ turnabout:

The top Republican presidential candidates reversed course and have agreed to take part in a Spanish-language debate next month aimed at Hispanic voters, setting up an acrimonious clash over illegal aliens, an issue roiling the Republican primary.

Fred Thompson agreed Thursday to the debate, igniting a dash to sign up by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Sen. John McCain of Arizona already had accepted the debate, to be broadcast by Univision, the country’s largest Spanish-language television network.

The only candidate to refuse to participate is Tom Tancredo.

Normally I expect a lot of bad things to happen, as modern liberalism keeps building toward its ugly climax and, I believe, its ultimate demise. For the Republican candidates to agree to be in such a forum is something I would not have anticipated. Previously it was Jorge W. Busheron who had adopted Spanish—in Spanish-language political ads, in the Spanish version of his website, in Spanish-text versions of his speeches and so on. Busheron has always seemed unique in the degree of his Hispanophilia, which went hand-in-glove with his pronounced lack of love for the United States of America as a historic country. But the fact that Thompson, Romney, Hunter, McCain, and Paul and have all consented to be in this Spanish language debate is shocking. By participating in it they are declaring that people can participate fully in American politics and American society without recourse to the English language. They are saying that Spanish is a legitimate language for the conduct of our nation’s business They are saying that it is not necessary for immigrants and their descendants to learn English. They are really saying that there is no country here, there is only a collection of immigrant groups, and that whichever immigrant group is the most numerous, their culture and language shall become the language and culture of the United States.

In short, by agreeing to appear in this Spanish language debate, the candidates show a complete lack of national understanding and national values. How can we believe that any of these men, when faced with a choice between internationalism and America, will choose the latter?

We should write and call the candidates’ campaigns and urge them to withdraw from the program. But where’s the comfort? Even if we persuaded them to pull out, the fact would remain that they saw nothing wrong with this. Which means that from the point of view of standing for the American nation and culture, these men are lost. That one candidate in particular, who recently took a strong stand to stop the illegal immigration invasion and reduce legal immigration, now turns around and publicly legitimizes the language of the invaders, strongly suggests that his immigration reduction position is not something he really believes in, but is a ploy to appeal to a certain constituency.

Allan Wall, who told me about this news last week, writes at Vdare: “Good for Tom. At least one candidate understands what’s going on.” I would alter Mr. Wall’s wording: Only one candidate understands what’s going on.

- end of initial entry -

Steven Warshawsky writes:

I completely agree that this Spanish language debate is a travesty. But not a surprise. This is a perfect illustration of the idea, most recently popularized by Mark Steyn, that demography is destiny. A nation full of millions of Spanish speakers, inevitably, will become a Spanish-speaking nation. The amount of bilingualism in this country, both public (e.g., ballots and schools) and private (e.g., corporate America), has noticeably increased in the past twenty years, in lock-step with the booming increase in the size of the Hispanic population, legal and illegal. There is only one way to stop and reverse this trend: to shut off immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries. Is this going to happen any time soon? Highly unlikely. Especially if Tom Tancredo (whom I truly respect) is the best candidate that the traditionalist right has to offer on the national political stage. Tancredo does not have a snowball’s chance in hell to win the Republican nomination, let alone defeat Hillary in the general election. Where are the traditionalist candidates with intellect, charisma, and political muscle? If there remains a popular constituency for traditionalist policies in this country (and there appears to be one, based on the the immigration debate last spring), why have no leaders—or third parties—emerged to shape this constituency into a political force?

Roy Beck writes:

I saw your well-written and strongly argued post on this. You make a good case for how troubling this is.

But I don’t think participation negates other immigration stands.

I don’t imagine us pushing anybody as the perfect or even great immigration candidate once Tom exits. But we will always be interested in who is better than everybody else.

LA replies:

That’s a good reply. It doesn’t alter my own feelings, but it’s as good an answer as could be made.

Clem P. writes:

I agree this is NOT good news. It is antithetical to fighting PC and gives credence to the proposition nation idea. It helps to undermine unity and shows that “votes” no matter where they come from are the main attraction not principals.

I too disagree with Mr Beck when he says: “But I don’t think participation negates other immigration stands.”

I think it certainly does because it shows a certain double mindedness on the issue.

LA replies:

“Double-mindedness”—that conveys very well the state of a Thompson.

Just to clarify one point. Legitimizing foreign languages is not the proposition nation idea, but multiculturalism. The proponents of the proposition nation idea, mainly the neocons, have been since the early ’90s the most vocal critics of multiculturalism. But in reality, the proposition nation, by defining our country as an idea and so emptying it of its cultural identity, creates a void into which other cultures can move. And that is what is happening now. And when it happens, the neocons never protest it. Suddenly the proposition nation morphs into an acceptance of diversity.

So I’m reversing what I initially said. The proposition nation may seem like the opposite of multiculturalism, but in reality it is the path to it.

Kevin V. writes:

You write: “Normally I expect a lot of bad things to happen, as modern liberalism keeps building toward its ugly climax and, I believe, its ultimate demise. For the Republican candidates to agree to be in such a forum is something I would not have anticipated.”

Why not? Surely you noticed (and I know you did because you obviously watch UK politics as closely as I do) that when Muslim “Britons” raised objections to the writing of Salman Rushdie the level of any given MP’s sympathy to those complaints—whether Labour or Conservative—were more or less directly related to the number of Muslim electors in their constituencies? What is special about Republicans in that regard?

In a democracy, votes mean power. If some portion of the votes can be delivered via Univision and in speaking Spanish, that is what will happen. Just as some Michigan members of Congress now have Arabic websites and attend Muslim political organization events.

Capital and modern democracy are amoral. Both will go where the return is.

Which is why my 12-pack of Coke is now in Quebec-like bilingual packaging, and why our current “leadership” poses for the (white, as you will notice) anchor of Univision.

btw, have you ever watched their news? While Americans are watching Paris Hilton or some new toxic mold stories, the Univision news is sharply political, all la Raza, all the time.

LA replies:

I’m surprised because they haven’t done this before, and the reason they haven’t done it before was that it would appear to be and would be an act of pure minority pandering surpassing any previous boundary in this area, and would offend many Republicans and make the candidates look bad. For Democrats to appear at such a forum is normal for them, as it’s a forum openly designed to downgrade the American culture and nation. For Republican candidates, who in various ways favor “assimilation” and “defending our common language,” to appear at an all-Spanish language forum is deeply shocking and surprising.

Allan Wall writes:

A few more comments on that Republican Spanish debate.

It is sponsored by Univision Spanish network, which is a major media force in the Hispanization of America.

If it’s like the Democrats’ debate, it’ll be hosted by Jorge Ramos, a Mexican citizen, an open promoter of Hispanics taking over this country. Ramos has openly said they are taking it over. He’s not really into reconquista, which would be too limited. Ramos says Hispanics will simply become the majority and take over the whole country. Why settle for the Southwest when you can have it all ?

Would Mexico allow an American journalist to promote Americanism in Mexico, sit in judgment on Mexican presidential candidates, to lecture Mexican politicians as he lectures American politicians ?

By the way, when I wrote “At least one candidate understands what’s going on” I didn’t mean “Tancredo understands and maybe others do too,” I meant “Tancredo understands and that’s the only good news in the situation” or as you said “only Tancredo understands.” [LA replies: Got it.]

It is indeed a bleak development. But, in other areas, things may be looking up. For example, the amnesties were stopped, in New York the license thing was stopped, other candidates are at least pretending to care.

Still, that debate is a nadir,

Mark Jaws writes:

As a hard-line fellow who is a proponent for a traditionalist enclave nation, I like the idea of the Republican presidential candidates hablando en espanol during their debate, and being put on the spot to tell la gente latina WHETHER they, the candidates, are for open borders and shamnesty OR re-instating American principles and rule of law. It will provide us, the hard core traditionalist base of the Republican party, with an opportunity to separate the wheat (Tancredo) from the chaff (McCain and the rest), and realize how silly it is for us traditionalists to continue to support the GOP.

Personally, I have abandoned the Republicans since they have forsaken their white base voters and launched a quixotic expedition in search of Hispanic voters in the legendary cities of El Diablo. Given the well established demographic data on Hispanics, even a high school student would know that a group with a collective IQ of 90 along with a 50 percent high school drop rate is never going to vote for the GOP. The Republicans are worse than fools—they are cowards, and not worthy of our votes. I have joined the Constitution Party.

Matt Bracken writes:

Great post, even if it is so disheartening.

“They are really saying that there is no country here, there is only a collection of immigrant groups, and that whichever immigrant group is the most numerous, their culture and language shall become the language and culture of the United States.”

There is a word that covers this situation: surrender. Even our “stalwart” Republicans are proving by this shameful appearance that they are happy to pander to any cultural or linguistic group that promises a few votes. In the end there is no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, because in the end, all of them will approve some new iterations of amnesty lite, to go with all of the rolling amnesties that have been continuing at least since 1986. This country is truly becoming Amexica, when even the Republican candidates behave so cravenly. We are well on our way to Teddy Roosevelt’s “polyglot boarding house.” My second novel doesn’t seem so outlandish now, does it?

[Matt Bracken is the author of Domestic Enemies, an exciting adventure novel set in a balkanized America in the not distant future.]

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 16, 2007 09:16 AM | Send