Out of touch

(See a reader’s insightful comment explaining why Perry is out of touch: he is a Texas nationalist.)

Stephen T. writes:

I had great hopes for Perry but he looks so out of touch I actually feel sorry for him. He’s been living in a bubble in Austin so long, he doesn’t realize that his Bush-esque “good-hearted immigrants” attitude toward illegal aliens is so 2001. It basically locks him into the bygone era of a decade ago, like a first generation iPod. His unmanned-drones border-enforcement blast from the past, a throwback to the days when that technology was still new and voters were still wowed by it, is so worn out that not even Janet Napolitano mentions it anymore. (Mexicans love to hear it, though, because it’s code for: “Come quickly. You won’t get caught.”) I’m convinced that the primary reason the odious Mike Huckabee did not enter the presidential race was a no-doubt dismal realization that, while he was busy singing Mexican folk songs and making teary tributes to the superiority of Mestizo family values, the clock was ticking on all that and the mood of the country has moved on and left him behind. Gov. Perry apparently didn’t get the memo.

LA replies:
Let us remember that being out of touch with larger national issues has been Perry’s modus operandi all along. It’s even his explicit ideological stance, connected with his states’ rights and Tenth Amendment rhetoric. He’s been governor of the second largest state for over ten years, yet, oddly for a big-state governor, has never spoken out on national issues, was never even seen outside Texas. No one knew what he looked like, what he sounded like, until he became a presidential candidate. He made it abundantly clear, even in recent statements coming in the months before his candidacy, that Texas was his sole concern and focus, not America. So he enters the presidential race with the distinct disadvantage of not having a feel for what’s going on in the country as a whole, particularly with regard to conservatives’ views of the illegal immigration issue. Is he even aware of what happened to the 2006 and 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Reform bills, and how conservative voters now instantly see through politicians’ reassuring phrases that they will stop illegal immigration, even as they support legalization of illegals and subsidization of illegals? Seemingly not, because those were national issues. Out of touch, indeed.
- end of initial entry -


A. Lee writes:

The best way to understand Gov. Perry is as a Texas nationalist. He is a fierce advocate for reducing the size of the federal government (for example, in Social Security, and Medicare), because that would increase Texan autonomy. Within Texas, he has a fairly expansive notion of government, as seen by the HPV vaccine, and the expansion of the Texan government under his leadership. This is how his seemingly contradictory stances on government power can be resolved. He wants to shrink the federal constraints on Texas, while growing the power of Texas state.

This also explains his stance on immigration. Texan history, folklore, and even food culture are far more intertwined with Mexico than the rest of the United States. In the mind of Perry, and of many other Texans, they have far greater affinity and even kinship with Mexico than with New England elites. As a Texan nationalist, Perry is not threatened by Mexican influence, because it helps increase the cultural distance between the U.S. and Texas. The Texan Republic was carved out of New Spain, and served as a buffer state between Mexico and the U.S., but after incorporation into the Union, Texas has gradually drifted closer to the cultural mores of the United States. Texan nationalists see this new wave of Mexican immigration as not a threat, but a restoration of the original Texan culture.

Perry cannot be President of the United States. His vision for the United States cannot be separated from his Texan nationalism, and I believe most Americans and certainly most VFR readers cannot agree with his vision. It is a pity, because he is in many ways a cultural conservative, with strong views on the death penalty and abortion. But his cultural allegiance is not to the U.S., but to Texas.

LA replies:

This is an excellent comment. The idea of Texas nationalism as you describe it here is new to me, and it explains a lot. It brings together, under a single concept, various familiar facts about Texas which have not been so related together before.

Karl D. writes:

I think Steven T. has it down. Perry’s line that people who are against tuition for illegals are “heartless” has blown him out of the water for me. That one line revealed to me that he is and will continue to play out of the liberal rulebook. Especially on the topic of immigration. If I didn’t know any better I would say that he threw that one out specifically for liberals. More “Compassionate Conservatism”? Is he for real?

LA replies:

It’s as if, when he made the “heartless” comment, he forgot who his audience was. He got confused for a moment and thought he was still at the Aspen Institute, remarking how he had no problema with New York State’s institutionalization of homosexual “marriage.”

John McNeil writes:

I also found A. Lee’s comment to be insightful. It illuminates much about white Texans’ relaxed attitude towards Mexican immigration.

But why do Texans think Mexican influence will help restore the “original” Texan culture? From what I’ve read about Texan history, the original Texans were Anglo settlers who did not assimilate well into Mexican society, which is why they rebelled in the first place and joined the USA only a few years later. I don’t see how Mexican influence is going to restore the Texas Republic. If anything, they’re spitting on the graves of their rebel ancestors. Why would the original Texans have rebelled against Mexico if they had such affinity with it?

I understand why they want to put distance between Washington DC and Austin, but that doesn’t mean they have to die off and get replaced by Mexican immigrants. Southern nationalists (neo-Confederates) certainly want to break away from federal yoke, but they don’t see Third World immigration as the way to do it, nor do they deny that their culture is Anglo-American in original. The cognitive dissonance coming from these Texan nationalists baffles me.

LA replies:

The Texas connection with Mexico in the 1830s and the connection today are two very different things. So maybe it would be easier to understand the idea of Texas nationalism if we put aside the 1830s and focus on Texas nationalism in its current incarnation, as an expression of the more recent history and culture of Texas. This was a Texas with a dominant Anglo population and a minority of Mexican Americans, mainly occupying servile positions. As Howard Sutherland has often pointed out, the Bushes had a patriarchal relationship with their Chicano employees and family retainers. They cared for them, and that personal relationship became the template through which they understood Mexicans and Mexican immigrants generally. They were incapable of grasping that Mexican immigrants might be a problem for Texas and the U.S., because in their minds they translated all Mexicans into the Mexicans they personally knew—loyal, warmhearted, unthreatening family retainers (just as Jews, for example, tend to translate all immigrants, no matter how incompatible with and harmful to the U.S., into their own grandparents and so are incapable of grasping that immigration might be a problem). Further, according to the New York Times recent story on Rick Perry’s life in his home town of Paint Creek (which I inadvertently sounded too dismissive of in my brief introduction to it), Perry’s farming family, though not of the same socio-economic class as the Bushes, nevertheless had an analogous relationship with their Mexican employees, whom they saw as family.

The conclusion is that many Anglo Texans have these deep and enduring personal relationships with Mexicans, relationships which to a significant extent form their world view and identity. This is a part of the Texas culture, that Texas culture which, as we see so clearly in the case of Perry, consciously and somewhat disdainfully stands apart from the rest of America and feels closer to Mexico than to the rest of America. This is what explains the odd combination of Texan cowboy braggadocio with Texan gooey compassion for brown Mestizos. Though there are historical continuities between the original and the contemporary stages of Texas nationalism, we don’t need to go back to the 1830s, when Anglo Texans rebelled against Mexico, to understand Texas nationalism. It is the contemporary form of Texas nationalism which is of concern to us today, and which should make U.S. voters wary of any Texan presidential candidate wearing his love of Mexicans on his sleeve.

Gintas writes:

Maybe like BRA, there should be a MRT: Mexican Run Texas.

Aaron S. writes:

For a window into this mindset, see John Sayles’ egregious 1996 film “Lone Star.”

It propagandizes rather fully and effectively for the idea that Texas is in its essence a fusion of Anglo and Mexican influences.

LA replies:

And, I’m sure, has at its center a sexual affair between an Anglo man and a Mexican woman.

(I was going to say “love affair,” but that term seems terribly out of date.)

David Levin writes:

My response to the comments which were excellent.

“RINO Rick” has been a puppet of the Chamber of Horrors for many years. He’s the best friend illegals in Texas have had since G.W. Bush was governor. He hasn’t done ONE thing to stop the invasion into Texas from Mexico which most experts know is far lower than the invasion along the Arizona-Mexico Border. What he HAS done is “pass the buck,” telling reporters things like, “That’s the feds’ job, not Texas.’ ” He’s given Amnesty to illegal alien teens and young adults (2001 DREAM Act). From a purely law and order point of view, Perry is a disaster. Thank goodness for the law and order patriots who have booed him at speeches and let it be known in other ways (columns, talk shows) that he isn’t going to get our votes!

Watching Republicans scurry now to Romney and Paul is heartwarming to this independent conservative, not because I want one of them to win but because it’s fairly clear now that Perry is “damaged goods” and can’t win the nomination. Keeping “RINO Rick” out of The White House was key.

Now we can try convince Romney to start talking tough about the 40 to 50 million illegals in the U.S., about attrition through enforcement, about the eight million illegals having taken American jobs, something none of the candidates want to discuss. I can only hope that he’s jettisoned Mike Pence’s “touchback scheme” he was so high on in 2007 and 2008. [LA replies: I think that was: illegals have to go home briefly, and then we’ll let them enter legally. Great solution from the conservative giant Mike Pence.]

Last night was a key debate as I believe it spelled the end of two candidates’ campaigns (though both will likely continue on though they have no chance)—Perry’s and Bachmann’s. Bachmann didn’t have any intensity and seemed to be happy “being a wallflower” for the most part. Perry stumbled and looked like a stuffed shirt, a forgettable performance.

Conservatives will soon have to ask themselves the question they seem to do every four years: Do I get behind a RINO (another “lesser of two evils” situation), do I vote third party or do I write in another candidate of my choosing?

Some are predicting Ron Paul will bolt when he sees he cannot possibly win the nomination and will run as a Libertarian. If he does, he’ll be considered “a spoiler candidate.” He’s almost certainly going to get a higher percentage of votes this time around.

Ferg writes:

I flinched the day Perry came into the race. Savior on a White Horse.

Here’s what we need to do. First we close the border. Then we send back the ones who are here. Then we put a moratorium on all immigration. Then we evaluate. No other course will save European America. Perry is a Trojan horse. Better four more years of Obama. At least we can fight against him.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

You wrote about the film Lone Star:

“And, I’m sure, has as its center a sexual affair between an Anglo man and a Mexican woman.”

You are right!

I watched Lone Star recently, since I thought it would be interesting to see what contemporary Westerns are like (the film was made in 1996). Lone Star is creepier than an affair between a Mexican and an Anglo. It is actually an affair between half-siblings. The town sheriff had an affair with a Mexican woman, who consequently had his daughter. This daughter, and the sheriff’s son have an affair when they’re adults, without realizing their relationship. Later on, when they find out they’re half-siblings, they still continued with the incestuous relationship.

What this says about contemporary Mexican-Texan/American relations, I don’t know.

Aaron S. writes:

You wrote:

And, I’m sure, has at its center a sexual affair between an Anglo man and a Mexican woman.

(I was going to say “love affair,” but that term seems terribly out of date.)

Indeed, and I’ll refrain from using the word “spoiler” for something already so degraded that no “spoiling” can take place, but the affair turns out to be between a heretofore unbeknownst half-brother-and-sister. You see, they were already “related.” Ahh, the symbolic power of multiple transgressions.

Paul K. writes:

A. Lee’s comment helps explain Perry’s proposal that Social Security be handed over to the states, a plan that seems bizarre to me for the reasons that Romney laid out. It would make sense only to a man who sees his state as a sort of nation unto itself.

I hate to defend Romney because there is much about him that concerns me, but I wonder if he might be less dangerous than Perry in the same way that Bill Clinton was less dangerous than George W. Bush or Barack Obama. Though Clinton is a liberal, he is also a pragmatist who was unwilling to pursue grossly unpopular policies. Romney might be a similar type. True believers like Bush and Obama strike me as more dangerous, because they’re willing to push unpopular policies whatever the political cost. That Perry defiantly defends his pro-illegal immigration stance suggests that he falls into the true believer camp. [LA replies: There is something to this argument about Romney being less bad because he’s not a true believer.]

I may sound defeatist in expressing qualified support for a non-conservative Republican when there are more conservative candidates running, but I’m not seeing any of the latter gaining traction. I’ve been disappointed by Bachmann so far.

LA writes:

Frank Luntz had a focus group watch the debate last night and he discussed it tonight on Hannity. He said that in 15 years he had never seen a focus group switch this dramatically on a candidate. Many of them had supported Perry coming into the debate. Now they were all against him—virulently and articulately. These people were all highly tuned in, and their unanimous comments against Perry and the fire with which they delivered them were remarkable to see.

He had committed many sins in their eyes, but by far the worst was the business about calling Republicans “heartless” if they didn’t support in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

Then Luntz, ever the mechanic of the mind, undercut his own message about this being biggest shift against a candidate he had ever seen, by saying that Perry despite his supporters’ turning against him was still the front runner, and that he could fix his problems by doing A, B, and C. The problem, said Luntz, was not his support for in-state tuition, but the insulting way he had expressed it. He just needed to change his delivery.

September 24

LA to Howard Sutherland:

So far you’ve said nothing about Perry and Mexicans, unlike your many remarks in past years about Bush and Mexicans.

Is that because Bush comes from a class you feel you understand, and Perry doesn’t?

Howard Sutherland replies:

You’re right, and you may be right about part of the reason. I don’t know anyone who knows Perry and I really don’t know much about him, and hadn’t made a point of following his performance as governor. It had not occurred to me that he was a likely national contender; I thought if anything Perry is “too Texas.” Silly me. Also, there isn’t the curious carpetbagger aspect in Perry’s story that to me is one of the interesting aspects of the Bush family history.

In any case, I have thought of Perry as effectively a continuation of GW Bush, but without the same emotional attachment to Mexicans. Am I right about the first part and wrong about the second?

His adamant refusal to reconsider supporting a “DREAM” Act for illegal aliens in Texas ensures that there is no way I could support him. As does his snide Democrat-like dismissal of those who oppose these giveaways to illegal aliens as heartless. But didn’t Perry start as a Democrat in the first place?

If people like Bush and Perry are the best Texas can offer the national political scene, I think other Americans need to ask Texas politicians just to stay home. And since Texas is incomparably the greatest of states, those pols should be very happy to do so! HRS

Howard Sutherland writes:

This is a great thread. One of your most thought-provoking about this presidential rat race so far. Like you, I had told myself I wouldn’t pay attention to any of it until 2012, but I haven’t been able to do that. Texas just isn’t like the other 49, and the reasons why are important when considering a candidate from Texas. A. Lee’s comments on Rick Perry as a Texan nationalist are insightful, especially this:

This also explains his stance on immigration. Texan history, folklore, and even food culture are far more intertwined with Mexico than the rest of the United States. In the mind of Perry, and of many other Texans, they have far greater affinity and even kinship with Mexico than with New England elites. As a Texan nationalist, Perry is not threatened by Mexican influence, because it helps increase the cultural distance between the U.S. and Texas. The Texan Republic was carved out of New Spain, and served as a buffer state between Mexico and the U.S., but after incorporation into the Union, Texas has gradually drifted closer to the cultural mores of the United States. Texan nationalists see this new wave of Mexican immigration as not a threat, but a restoration of the original Texan culture.

This is true, but incomplete. One problem Americans have, Texans especially, when they think about the roots and growth of Texas is a consistent over-estimation of just how Mexican early Texas actually was. It was not Mexican at all, as Spanish mission work in Texas began over 100 years before Mexican independence and what few settlers there were came directly from Spain and the Canary Islands, not from New Spain (renamed Mexico after independence; before independence “Mexico” referred to Mexico City and the valley in which it sits). Colonial Tejas was under the Viceroyalty of New Spain, to be sure, but was considered a very remote, hostile and unprofitable place indeed. Spaniards settled there only very late in New Spain’s history, and in negligible numbers. The overland journey from Mexico to San Antonio could take up to 90 days. Tejas was a very long way from Mexico! In the late 18th century, the Viceroy ordered an end to settlement in Tejas, as it was considered a complete dead-end. Some Spanish Tejanos did stay, but they were almost as different from Mexican mestizos as were the mostly American Southerner Texians who settled Texas after 1820 (and almost immediately outnumbered the Tejanos). Many Tejanos made common cause with the Texians against the Mexican government of Santa Anna. John McNeil must know a bit about this:

But why do Texans think Mexican influence will help restore the “original” Texan culture? From what I’ve read about Texan history, the original Texans were Anglo settlers who did not assimilate well into Mexican society, which is why they rebelled in the first place and joined the USA only a few years later. I don’t see how Mexican influence is going to restore the Texas Republic. If anything, they’re spitting on the graves of their rebel ancestors. Why would the original Texans have rebelled against Mexico if they had such affinity with it?

Unfortunately, Rick Perry doesn’t know this history any better than GW Bush, or if he does know it, he doesn’t care. He has bought the Tex-Mex mystique, in which its presumed close kinship with Mexico is part of what makes Texas so much more distinct and just all-around better than any of those 49 little states it shares the United States with. Texas’s current Mexican-ness is real enough, unfortunately, but it is a new phenomenon. I remember a conversation with one of my law professors, an eminent scholar of Texas history and Spanish Colonial law. Speaking in the mid-1980s, he gently pointed out to me that perhaps 5% of the Mexican-origin people in Texas at the time had roots in the state that went back much before 1970. That stopped me short, as I had been inclined to credit the Texas mystique myself! It motivated me to learn (really, un-learn and re-learn) some Texas and Mexican history. One thing I have learned is that in no way is the new wave of Mexican immigration a restoration of the original Texan culture. Quite the opposite. The original Texas culture is American, and specifically Southern.

Still, whether or not the Tex-Mex mystique is actually true, there are a lot of Texans—including prominent Republican politicians who pose and are accepted as conservative—who believe it. I like your summary of the problem:

The conclusion is that many Anglo Texans have these deep and enduring personal relationships with Mexicans, relationships which to a significant extent form their world view and identity. This is a part of the Texas culture, that Texas culture which, as we see so clearly in the case of Perry, consciously and somewhat disdainfully stands apart from the rest of America and feels closer to Mexico than to the rest of America. This is what explains the odd combination of Texan cowboy braggadocio with Texan gooey compassion for brown Mestizos. Though there are historical continuities between the original and the contemporary stages of Texas nationalism, we don’t need to go back to the 1830s, when Anglo Texans rebelled against Mexico, to understand Texas nationalism. It is the contemporary form of Texas nationalism which is of concern to us today, and which should make U.S. voters wary of any Texan presidential candidate wearing his love of Mexicans on his sleeve.

Especially I agree with what I emphasized. I would go further. Since we live in a time when mainstream political figures will not discuss ethnic issues honestly, I’m afraid we have to presume that any politician of any party who has reached statewide prominence in Texas is on the wrong side of the national question. Democrats are on the wrong side by definition, and when the Texas GOP keeps coming up with people like the Bushes and Perry, there truly isn’t a Lone Star dime’s worth of difference between ‘em. My hope is that our colloquy here has been overtaken by events, thanks to Perry’s latest debate performance.

September 26

Tex Atlanta writes:

Why would the American people fall for the same Texas trick and vote in GW Bush the Second (Rick Perry)? How many Texas scams do we fall for?

And here’s our President—Rick. Rick, Rick, Rick. Not Richard but Rick. The first President with a backyard BBQ name.

LA replies:

What about Jimmy Carter?


Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 23, 2011 01:46 PM | Send
    

Email entry

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):