Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Soul-Searching from Democrats on Immigration
File this jointly under “Better Late Than Never” and “We Told You So.” Liberal columnist Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, has written a piece suggesting that the Democratic party needs to re-learn old lessons about the perception of immigration in America, to acknowledge that immigration does actually have costs, that those costs are disproportionately borne by one of their historic constituencies, and cultural assimilation (the old “melting pot”) is a vital component of a comprehensive immigration platform. He even says, effectively, that the liberal abandonment of principles it claimed to hold merely a decade ago was a key factor in the victory of Donald Trump. One wonders whether anyone on his side will heed his advice.
In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
So begins Beinart’s delving into what the Democrat party espoused 10 years ago. He recounts the rapid shift in rhetoric, and how it was in no small part fueled both by lobbying from the tech sector and by a myth that Latin-American immigration especially would produce a demographic wave that would obviate any white resistance to change. He’s mildly critical of the lobbying (he seems to favor the results but consider the effort tainted by “big business”) but very critical of the underlying assumptions of the demographic argument on the grounds that it entirely missed how it put poor whites (a group he considers a historic Democrat constituency) directly in competition for wages and government assistance with the immigrants. He is also critical of the Democrats’ abandonment of immigration enforcement for fueling the perception that all Latin immigrants must certainly be illegal. At several points Beinart queries why the Democrats abandoned enforcement both in rhetoric and in practice.
Where Beinart is most solid, though, is in his criticism of the Democrat multiculturalism obsession. By repeatedly downplaying assimilation by and of immigrants, by ignoring how slowly current immigrants are learning English (and thus also ignoring the importance of even having a main language), and by consistently browbeating native-born Americans with the “otherness” of immigrants, Beinart is one of the few liberal columnists who acknowledges that has both stoked the nativism liberals irrationally fear, but served as a barrier to immigrants and the native-born coming to terms with each other. He calls for a return to the melting-pot, and a return to rhetoric that emphasizes the commonalities we all share as human beings living in America.
In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Earlier in the piece, in the buildup to his main argument on assimilation, he makes a surprising point (emphasis mine):
[S]tudies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Greater diversity reduces the bonds of trust even within groups, not just between? This is hardly surprising to me as I’ve long argued that the diversity flail so often wielded by the Left is predicated on the very notion of creating distinct groups and driving wedges between them.
Beinart, however, does have several key weaknesses in his work. For one, he entirely attributes immigration perception problems to whites, as if black Americans do not have their own issues with immigration, and that their acquiescence to continued high immigration is to be taken for granted. This is a glaring void in his piece. Secondly, he treats immigration as a moral issue, particularly family reunification, a policy that is widely known to have been extensively abused and gamed. It seems as though Beinart thinks that America has a moral obligation to accept all comers, and he uses that belief to take a variety of cheap pot-shots at Trump, calling his policies “brutal” at one point without actually discussing them. Beinart must take his readers’ proclivities for granted. Finally he of course shows the usual liberal tendency to suggest economic redistributionist solutions to the costs of immigration, though to be fair he admits such solutions leave much wanting.
But again, where Beinart is absolutely correct is on the issue of assimilation:
Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Whether the Left will pay any attention to this is doubtful, at least in the short term. Judging by the way they have ignored Camile Paglia’s similar warnings vis. Men and Women, I suspect they will continue to devour their own rather than question their core assumptions of human nature. But it is encouraging that at least some on the Left are starting to notice that years of divisive diversity rhetoric and policy are actually making things worse for all parties, not better. It’s not like we haven’t tried to tell them this too.
Published in Immigration
I read the Atlantic article and while I was aware of most of the facts it cited, it really demonstrated in stark terms that the Democrats have evolved into a big mess of contradictions. The college/youth faction is making everything even worse for them by protesting the existence of white people and the Bill of Rights, and their leadership is elderly and increasingly bewildered. Their public intellectual class is marginalized by them. I am unaware of any effective Democratic leadership. They are utterly without solutions they can agree on or effectively promote to address the problems confronting us. Where does it go from here?
This is Democratic politics 101. Do what you must to get votes. If it causes a problem, don’t worry, you can get votes for fixing that problem later. This phenomenon cemented my party affiliation in the late ’80’s when I realized that Democrats were campaigning on fixing the problems they created in the ’70’s.
Since conservatives don’t know how to take good advantage of these weaknesses, my bet would be the White House.
This is so true! Humans are a tribal people. We started off with loyalty to our family, then to our clan, then to our locality, then to our state, then to our region, and finally to our country. In this country, we had to develop greater mobility and fight a devastating civil war before we started thinking of ourselves as Americans first (rather than Georgians, or New Yorkers, etc.). We’ve had to endure years of racial and political strife before we generally came to believe that we are all Americans – regardless of race, creed, or color. Now the Left has decided that this was all wrong – that we are all different and that we should revert to tribal loyalties first. This is madness! Those of us who can see clearly understand where all this is headed and we despair; the Left sees only the opportunity to gather all these disparate tribes together under a giant COEXIST banner and have them forget their loyalty to America (in favor of being a “citizen of the world”), while they reliably vote for bigger (Democrat-led) government.
I remain firmly convinced that all this Social Justice Warrior/Socialism nonsense is a result of the cruddy economy since 2000.
If the Republicans in Congress can get off their hindquarters and get some bills through to Trumps desk that get the economy growing > 3% for a few consecutive quarters, a lot of this will pass into history.
If they don’t, we’re screwed and will get swept out of office in 2018 and 2020.
“If you’re healthy enough to riot, you’re healthy enough to work.”
Putnams study should be required reading for everyone.
In my MBA program at a top program they stated upfront that too much diversity collapses the trust and leads to institutional infighting and an inability to work towards common goals or even the ability to define the common goal.
Some diversity is an unalloyed good. the limited and controlled conflict yields new ideas, and reveals blind spots. These are good things.
These insights appear to apply to larger cooperatives as well.
I think what we have here is “Soul-Searching from One Democrat”
Not sure it’s a movement yet.
Exactly. I am ready for Dr. King’s vision to finally be real: A world where the content of one’s character is what not matters, and not the color of one’s skin. But in that world, the professional race-baiters on the Left would be out of a job. So I’m not holding my breath.
Send this article to a John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Jeff Flake, Paul Ryan and the conservative elites who protect them year after year.
(Shhhh, everyone keep it down)
Yes, Democratic friends. You’re doing GREAT! Keep moving in the same direction.
Right. He didn’t say anything about Blacks because they still get their votes.
That would imply Democrats actually have a soul. I haven’t seen a lot of evidence to support that for several decades at least.
Yes, yes, just push harder….
You reminded me of a shop safety poster in my highschool woodshop class. The poster showed 3 guys hanging off a long wrench attempting to loosen a bolt. A 4th guy is about to join them. The caption was “Just one more jerk”
I think that most Democrats genuinely care about the problem of poverty. So do most Republicans.
We disagree about the causes of poverty, the best policies to address the problem, and the feasibility of the elimination of poverty.
It’s been my observation that most democrats care most about being seen to care about the problem of poverty. Whether a policy actually accomplishes anything productive is secondary to it being implemented so the democrats can pretend to have “done something.”
“Something must be done! This is something. Therefore, this must be done!!!11!”
And here’s ten examples to prove it.
I’ve noticed a huge number of comments about Republican gerrymandering causing Democrat losses. Is this new? How have Republicans managed to orchestrate that in random districts across the country?
Like so many things, gerrymandering is only bad when the republicans can be said to gain from it. When democrats win in a heavily-gerrymandered district, the practice is a necessary bulwark against GOP tyranny.
Further, I remember republicans constantly grousing about gerrymandering back in the ’90s. Democrats had been in charge for every modern round of redistricting up until 2000, so they were happy and the GOP was convinced it gave the dems an unfair advantage.
If the tea party hadn’t swept the GOP back into congress in 2010, the democrats would have been in charge of the latest round of redistricting. The Overreach — it burns!
I especially enjoy it when they complain about gerrymandering in statewide races for Governor or Senator.
Congress doesn’t lay out districts – State Legislators do.
Doh!! You’re right, of course. Need to engage brain more before typing!
Um, well… Look – my natural impulse is to simply agree with you. I mean, obviously we all just want what is best for our fellow man, right?
But how anyone who cares about poor people can support policies that result in more poor people is beyond me. Wherever progressive policies are implemented, widespread poverty results. Whether it’s California or Central America. Plus, the progressives claim to hate the rich. It’s difficult to cure poverty without allowing people to get rich. If progressives dislike poverty, they should openly admire wealth.
I hear your point. I would like to agree. But I just don’t understand…
Dr. B, it doesn’t have to make sense–to them. This is the progressive agenda, that’s been around for over 100 years. It is utopian, idealistic and if it hasn’t worked yet, they just need to work harder, have more funds, get more people to support them, and so on. Tracking results is meaningless to them. So I understand what Arizona Patriot is saying. They’re just deluded in how they see and solve the problem.
Don’t forget the most important thing they need: more power to force society to their will.
Depends on if you’re talking about Democrat voters or Democrat politicians. Politicians only care about the poor when the poor are useful to them. Look at how quickly they abandoned their concern for the working class when they found a more promising route to power, IE environmentalism and/or identity politics.
Speaking of the sincere left (IE not the ones I addressed in my previous comment,) I think it’s a case of not understanding that doing nothing is often better than doing the wrong thing. Doing something is always better than doing nothing, so it doesn’t matter if it’s not working, at least they’re doing something.