Rick Perry flunks the National Question, says James Fulford at Vdare

Here is the concluding part of the article:

See [Perry’s] speech to a border summit held August 22, 2001, including the governors of at least two Mexican border states, in which he proposed, among other things, bi-national health insurance because “the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region.” [LA replies: Actually I don’t need to read more. Someone who says that “the Mexican and U.S. sides of the border compose one region, and we must address health care problems throughout that region,” has already declared himself to be indistinguishable from George W. (“Family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande” Bush.]

On education, Perry also said, as Tom Tancredo reminded us recently

“As a compassionate state, we know that for our children to succeed, they must not only be healthy, but educated. The future leaders of our two nations are learning their fractions and their ABC’s in classrooms all along this border. Immigrants from around the world are being taught in Texas classrooms, and our history is rich with examples of new citizens who have made great contributions. We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, “we don’t care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.” And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That’s why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.”[Gov. Rick Perry’s Remarks to the Border Summit Wednesday, August 22, 2001]

And as the Manchester Union-Leader wrote recently:

In 2001, Perry signed into law the first state “DREAM Act,” which allows children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state universities as long as they graduated from a Texas high school and are working toward attaining citizenship.

Although criticized for it by some conservatives and some elements of the Tea Party, Perry stands by it, while opposing such a law on the federal level.

“To punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about,” he said.[Perry gives first NH interview, By John DiStaso, July 24, 2011]

Young Texans? Would that be “young Mexicans”?

And what’s the point of giving them a college education at taxpayer expense when it’s illegal for them to work anywhere in America?

So, as I say, there are a lot of people think that Perry could be the Second Coming of George W. Bush:

Rick Perry For President? We Don’t Need Another George W. Bush By Chuck Baldwin

Rick Perry-Another Texas Governor for Amnesty by Washington Watcher

A Texas Reader Says Gov. Rick Perry Is Cut From The Same Cloth As His Predecessor September 17, 2007

A Texan Reminds Us Not To Get Too Enthusiastic About Governor Rick Perry August 08, 2008

A Pennsylvania Reader Predicts Four More Years Of Obama If GOP Can’t Do Better Than Rick Perry

That would be bad for America, as it’s been bad for Texas.

However, it’s a mistake to assume that Texans, or Americans, are beaten. (A mistake made by, among others, General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.)

Peter Brimelow responded to that claim by Rice University demographer Steve Murdock’s claim that it’s “basically over” by saying “It’s Basically Over For Anglos” In Texas. Or Have They Not Yet Begun To Fight?

The Republican nomination battle isn’t anywhere near “basically over”.

And neither is America.

[end of Fulford article]

- end of initial entry -

David B. writes:

Has anyone besides me noticed that the worst candidate on the National Question wins the GOP nomination every four years? The Stupid (“I didn’t know McCain was for amnesty”) Republican primary voters see to that. In 2008, someone wrote at Vdare that Republicans never cast their votes on the immigration issue.

Sophia A. writes:

I KNEW that Rick Perry would flunk the national question. I am no clairvoyant. I just know a lot of Texas Republicans and they are hopeless. They basically opened the floodgates of illegal immigration and held them open because they need cheap gardeners and maids. I have spoken with many of these people and their hedonistic selfish pig-headed brainlessness is breathtaking. They cannot see beyond their noses. If Rick Perry is the nominee, I’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate. As a NY State voter is almost doesn’t matter anyway but I have to live with my conscience.

LA replies:

Well, let’s again remember the question of George W. Bush and Hispanics, which years ago we discussed at length at this site, with native Texan Howard Sutherland offering key insights into the psychology of upper class Texans like the Bushes. The Bushes just love Mexicans, they see them as loyal family retainers, in a kind of patriarchal, feudal relationship. They don’t see or are indifferent to the total effect of Hispanic immigration on Texas and on the country as a whole. Maybe something like that is true, with variations, of successful and well-to-do Texans generally.

Daniel S. writes:

In addition to political elitism there is another force which drives Perry’s support for open borders and amnesty. Perry is tapped deeply into the world of evangelical Christianity. Whatever one may think of evangelical Christianity, one cannot ignore that even “conservative” evangelicals are at the forefront of enabling, if not outright spreading, liberalism and egalitarianism. Writer James Kirkpatrick observes at Alternative Right:

Liberals are, of course, being overly paranoid when they imagine conservative Christians as a threat to the hegemony of the Zeitgeist. There were comically large majorities to bring back school prayer under Reagan and similar majorities under George Bush to ban gay marriage and in both cases, the conservative leadership did nothing. Even as leftists howl about creeping theocracy, a casual glance at pop culture or the emerging views of younger evangelicals suggest they have nothing to fear and everything to gain.

Those believing Christian churches that are left take their faith seriously, but it is an abstract, deracinated creed. It is not rooted in any people but is actively opposed to any kind of identification with any national tradition, except “America” as a vehicle for transmuting these abstract ideas and Israel because it’s “Chosen.”

Many conservative Christians, or at least their leadership, are more than willing to serve as useful idiots for the left on issues such as immigration, with the left strangely silent about the breakdown of the wall between Church and state. There is also an element of a battered wife type syndrome among the Christian right, as they seek to compensate by being politically incorrect on gays by being über-politically correct on race and apologizing for slavery and segregation, campaigning to bring in non-Whites from around the world, and making sure taxpayers fund the population growth of Haiti and Somalia. Patriotic pastors such as Chuck Baldwin may speak to an older and more authentic tradition of American evangelism, but they are being streamrolled by the aggressively multicultural megachurches.

How many of the supposed bigoted and right-wing evangelical leaders have ever spoken out against mass immigration or multiculturalism? How many of them, despite decrying the Islamic religion as evil, have never said a word about halting Muslim immigration to the West?

Kirkpatrick concludes:

Rick Perry, even though he tried to back away at the last minute, has bought the loyalty of the Christian right for the cheap price of doing what any American political leader of any other generation would have taken as common sense. He can now use the foot soldiers of the Christian right as George W. Bush did—to carry out an agenda that will destroy his own followers for the benefit of the corporate elite and a GOP leadership that despises its own base. The only alternative—the only alternative right if you will—is an identitarian movement that places the concrete interests of specific ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic groupings first. Such a movement, by restoring pride in the West and its people, history and culture, will do more to restore the honored place of Christianity in public life than a thousand “Responses.”

One can hardly be surprised that Perry is weak, if not craven, on the National Question, as his evangelical beliefs have made him ill equipped to react otherwise. Most modern evangelicals, like the neoconservatives, live in a universe of pure abstraction, and as such cannot respond to reality on its own terms.

On the other hand, Perry is also an obvious globalist (whether that relates to his religious beliefs or not remains to be seen), and as such wants to see a borderless world of pure economic opportunity.

August 16

Sophia A. writes:

His supporters never fail to remind us (and his detractors grudgingly admit) that Perry has presided over huge jobs creation. I keep wondering how many of these jobs are for Americans, and how many for illegal aliens?

Alissa writes:

I don’t know why but perhaps a strand inherent in the nature of evangelicalism leads plenty towards tolerance of liberalism. This strand in evangelicalism seems to espouse individualism and materialism e.g. a person may step in an evangelical Church and feel little to nothing deep or of substance has been achieved either in the sermons or in the atmosphere. This website documents the heresies and blasphemers running amok in the Christian Church today. Without a doubt a couple of them are evangelicals.

LA replies:

That’s a big subject we’ve discussed in the past at length. Alan Roebuck has had a lot on this. See these entries. Thanks for reminding me that that I should link them.

Sophia A. writes:

I find your blog indispensable reading not just for your insights but for your readers’. (Did I put the apostrophe in the right place?) [LA replies: Yes.]

What Daniel S. wrote about evangelical Christians is so spot on. I know several off-the-grid hippies. And I have found that, although they may be politically left wing (although not always, you’d be surprised), their actual values are more in opposition to the zeitgeist than Evangelicals. Most of the Evangelicals I have known are very invested in the system as it is. Their conservatism consists of keeping up appearances, lest their investments decline. They tend to be simple-minded believers in progress and capitalism. They have no sense of the tragic, hence no understanding of conflict and tribalism.

LA replies:

This is a big subject we’ve discussed in the past at length. Alan Roebuck has had a lot on the liberal nature of today’s evangelicalism. See these entries.

Richard P. writes:

This discussion so far is missing the correct answer. Perry’s (and Bush’s) views on immigration have been attributed to liberalism, evangelicalism, even globalism. In fact, their views cannot be understood without also understanding some demographic and historical circumstances peculiar to Texas.

There’s been a large “Hispanic” population in Texas since the Spanish colony days. Many of them fought on the Texan side in the revolt against Mexico. They are commonly known as Tejanos, though for generations most natives used the term “Spanish”. (Likewise Texans descended from the American colonists were often called “Anglos”). For generations the Tejano population here mostly self-identified as white. Many still do, though mostly the older ones. They were counted as white in the census. Intermarriage between Spanish and Anglo Texans was very common, never producing even a whiff of the scandal that a black/white marriage would. Many Tejanos can’t even speak Spanish.

We’ve had migrants from northern Mexico who would come up in the summer and autumn to work in the fields for over a century. They were called migrantes or braceros (or less politely called wetbacks—even by Tejanos). Some would stay if they found full-time work or had relatives here. This led to a pattern of lax enforcement for many years followed by crackdowns and deportations. There was the mass Mexican Repatriation in the 1930’s, then a formalized bracero program in the 1940’s, and then Operation Wetback in the 1950’s, etc.

For most Texans immigration from Mexico was considered a problem, but a manageable one. Part of this benign attitude was because of the nature of the immigrants. Culturally, northern Mexicans seemed little different from Tejanos. They wore cowboy hats and drove pickup trucks. They had intact families. They didn’t cause much violent crime. Language was the big problem. They were considered important to the Texas economy. The sparsely populated rural areas that made up Texas farm economy just did not have a seasonal labor force who could handle the work. It wasn’t a question of “jobs Americans won’t do”. I worked in those same fields. The problem was that there just weren’t enough of us to do the job. It was a symbiotic relationship with (seemingly at the time) more positives than negatives.

Two things happened to change this. First, was that the Federal government added the “Hispanic” designation as an ethnicity. Over the last few decades many Tejanos began to think of themselves as separate—as Hispanic rather than white—once they began to see the benefits of doing so. Preferences in jobs, government contracts, and college admissions made this in their self-interest. Then came NAFTA. Not only did the flow of immigrants increase dramatically post-NAFTA, but the demographics changed as well. Suddenly we had a stream of immigrants from southern Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Instead of families from Coahuila who were coming for 4 months to work in the cotton fields, you now had large groups of young male Mayans from the south who were coming to hang sheet rock year round.

What you hear from Perry (and from Bush before him) is not the result of globalism or evangelism, nor because they felt kindly toward their immigrant servants. Instead it is Texans of a certain age who do not understand that circumstances have changed. They still think of immigration as it was three or four decades ago. They don’t understand that we are no longer talking about braceros who are heading back to Nuevo Leon in the winter. The nice “Spanish” family down the street no longer considers themselves white. Liberalism is a factor here, but not in the sense discussed. Liberalism has robbed them of the language and thought processes needed to distinguish between the braceros and Tejanos of their youth and the destructive flood we have today. That requires discrimination. And that is always bad.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 15, 2011 05:10 PM | Send