Thread: Saving the GOP from Modern Know-Nothingism

Saving the GOP from Modern Know-Nothingism

By Alex Nowrasteh

This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2014.



Many in the GOP are jockeying for the soul of the party ahead of an anticipated 2014 midterm election victory. Social conservatives are eager to reassert their influence after repeated defeats over gay marriage. Fiscal conservatives make the case for a greater emphasis on runaway spending. And then there are the nativists, who contend that the future of the Republican Party lies in opposing immigration reform. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, for example, said last month that, “Immigration could be to 2016 what ObamaCare was to 2010.”


Not if history is any guide. Consider the experience of California and Texas.


When George W. Bush was governor of Texas from 1995-2000, he consistently reached out to the Hispanic community and supported immigration reform. Mr. Bush won his first gubernatorial election in 1994 with 25% of the Hispanic vote and was re-elected in 1998 with almost 40% Hispanic support. He left behind a solidly Republican Texas and a state party with a much friendlier reputation among Hispanics, along with the extra political support that entails. Two years later he won the presidential election with 34% of the national Hispanic vote and was re-elected with 40% in 2004.
California’s Gov. Pete Wilson took another path. Facing a tough re-election campaign in 1994, the Republican decided to blame illegal immigrants for all of the state’s troubles. The result was that he and the rest of the state GOP were perceived as blaming all immigrants for California’s woes. Mr. Wilson won re-election but doomed the GOP for decades in that state.


The GOP’s decline in California was dramatic. According to the Field Poll, the GOP gubernatorial candidates in 1986 and 1990 received 46% and 47% of the Hispanic vote, respectively. In 1994 Mr. Wilson received 25% of the Hispanic vote. In 1998, Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Lungren received 17% of the Hispanic vote, giving Democratic candidate Gray Davis an 8.5-point lead in the general election.


Democrat Bill Press ran a voter drive in heavily Hispanic East Los Angeles in the early 1990s. At that time, he recently explained in the Hill newspaper, “residents distrusted government so much, it was hard convincing them to register, let alone vote. At the same time, Democrats feared that, if Latinos ever did register, they’d sign up as Republicans, because most of them were Catholic, pro-family and pro-small business.”


According to Mr. Press, who was chair of the state Democratic Party in 1994, Pete Wilson’s campaign “woke up the ‘sleeping giant.’” Mr. Wilson backed a ballot initiative, Proposition 187, that prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving any government social services, including public education. “Millions of Latinos,” Mr. Press said, “came out and registered to vote—not as Republicans, but as Democrats.” California is now a solidly Democratic state thanks, in part, to Mr. Wilson’s alienation of a large and fast-growing Hispanic electorate.


Mr. Bush empathized with illegal immigrants and supported immigration reform. His 2000 presidential campaign implicitly criticized Mr. Wilson’s hard line on illegal immigration. George P. Bush, the governor’s nephew, said that the biggest challenge the campaign faced among Hispanic voters “will be to separate my uncle from the rest of the Republican Party.” They succeeded.


A recent Fusion poll of likely millennial voters aged 18 to 34 found that a plurality of 49% support the Democratic Party’s immigration-reform position while only 30% supported the GOP’s position. But when the poll asks whom the respondent blames for the failure of immigration reform, 12% blamed the Democrats, 15% blamed President Obama, and 30% blamed both political parties. Thirty-three percent blamed the Republicans in Congress. Looking at the Fusion poll, the best political hope for a GOP nativist strategy is that few voters notice it—hardly a ringing endorsement.


Modern history doesn’t supply the only lessons against a nativist political strategy. Three early American political parties committed suicide partly due to their intransigent nativism.


The Federalist Party turned against Irish and French immigrants in the late 18th century, who then turned against them, thus eroding their base of support in Northeastern cities. The Whig Party self-destructed over opposition to immigration and disagreements over slavery. In the 1850s, the nativist American Party (also known as the Know-Nothings) quickly rose but then failed after a few successful elections. Anti-immigration positions may have helped those embattled parties for an election or two but in the long run they turned off more voters than they attracted.


Abraham Lincoln would have none of this when he helped build the Republican Party. In an 1855 letter he wrote to Owen Lovejoy, an Illinois state representative and an abolitionist, “I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be?” Lincoln continued, “Of their principles [Know-Nothingism] I think little better than I do of those of the slavery extensionists.”


Lincoln divorced the new Republican Party from nativism. German voters in the Midwest were attracted to the party’s support for immigration and laws, like the Homestead Act and speedy naturalizations, that rebuked the nativists. Modern Republicans would be wise to learn from Lincoln’s inclusive vision. A nativist turn would rebuke the party’s principles while paying a high long-term political cost.





Alex Nowrasteh is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...ampaign=buffer

Nativism is the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants.^[1] Nativism typically means opposition to immigration, and support of efforts to lower the political or legal status of specific ethnic or cultural groups who are considered hostile or alien to the natural culture, upon the assumption that they cannot be assimilated.^{[2][not in citation given]}
According to Fetzer, (2000) opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural, and religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years, where immigration is seen as lowering the wages of the less well paid natives. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on fears that the immigrants will distort or spoil existing cultural values. In situations where the nativistic movement exists inside of dominant culture it tends to be associated with xenophobic and assimilationist projects. At the other end of the spectrum, in situations where immigrants greatly outnumber the original inhabitants or where contact forces economic and cultural change,^[3] nativistic movements can allow cultural survival. Among North American Indians important nativist movements include Neolin (the "Delaware Prophet", 1762), Tenskwatawa (the Shawnee prophet, 180, and Wovoka (the Ghost Dance movement, 1889). They held anti-white views, teaching that whites were morally inferior to the Indians and their ways must be rejected. Thus Tenskwatawa taught that the Americans were "children of the Evil Spirit."^[4][5]
In scholarly studies "nativism" is a standard technical term. However, in public political discourse "nativist" is a term of opprobrium usually used by the opposition, and rarely by nativists themselves (who tend to call themselves "patriots").^[6] Anti-immigration is a more neutral term that may be used to characterize opponents of immigration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_%28politics%29





Well I guess if the shoe fits..A native I am..

Alex Nowrasteh and the Cato Institute are both open borders illegal alien amnesty supporter liars.

The reason California went to the Democrats is because the Republicans failed to stop illegal immigration in their state when an activist judge shot down Proposition 187 which had passed with popular support to try to save CA from the illegals!

Illegal aliens are not going to start voting Republican. And George Bush being all happy because he once got 25% of the Hispanic vote does not mean squat!

What matters is the Pew Research Center finding that illegal aliens, if legalized, will vote 8 to 1 Democrat!

W

Questioning Obama on Cynicism, Hope, and Immigration

By Jerry Kammer, November 3, 2014


In today's blog, I want to juxtapose an excerpt from President Obama's comments November 2 in Philadelphia with related thoughts, first from conservative writer Reihan Salam in Slate, and second from liberal law professor Peter Schuck's essay in the 1985 book Clamor at the Gates. I'll try to broaden the discussion in future blogs.
President Obama:

Cynicism is sometimes passed off as wisdom. There's nothing wise about it. Cynicism didn't put a man on the moon. Cynicism never started a business or cured a disease or fueled a young mind. Cynicism is a choice, and hope is a better choice. Hope is what gave young people the courage to march for civil rights, and voting rights, and workers' rights, and women's rights, and immigrants' rights, and gay rights. Hope is what built this country, the belief that there are better days ahead, the belief that together we can build up our middle class, that we can pass down something better for our kids.

Here the president identifies the fight to expand the rights of immigrants, regardless of their legal status in the United States, as part of the noble liberal struggle to expand human rights. In this line of thought, immigration is an inherent good and those to seek to limit it are cynics. Salam and Schuck raise concerns that point in the opposite direction, suggesting that it is unwise to promote unconstrained immigration to the United States.

Reihan Salam:

Americans are, for obvious historical reasons, deeply romantic about the immigrant experience. More than one-tenth of Americans, like me, are the children of immigrants, and there are many more third- and fourth- and fifth-generation Americans raised with heady stories about flinty ancestors. The truth is that some immigrants are poised for great success in a society like ours, and others will have a tough time making their way into the middle class. If we accept that we have a collective responsibility for the well-being of every member of our society, as I think we should, it makes sense to select immigrants who have at least a fighting chance of making it.

Peter Schuck:

Having ordained an activist welfare state that increasingly defines liberty in terms of positive, government-created legal entitlements to at least a minimum level of individual security and well-being, the nation cannot possibly extend these ever-expanding claims against itself to mankind in general. Instead, it must restrict its primary concerns to those for whom it has undertaken a special political responsibility of protection and nourishment, most particularly those who reside within its territorial jurisdiction. Even this more limited task becomes impossible if masses of destitute people, many ill-equipped to live and work in a postindustrial society, may acquire legally enforceable claims against it merely by reaching its borders.

http://cis.org/kammer/questioning-ob...nd-immigration


To me it is loss of freedom with the hope of cheap labor, no liberty, no pensions, or healthcare for all. With only poverty and despair for everyone, brought to you by the Global elites, from their bag of wishes of hopes and dreams. Any my cynisium is that it comes crashing down upon their heads...

cyn·i·cism (sn-szm)n.1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: "She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms" (Henry James).
3. Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

---

Cynicism (ˈsɪnɪˌsɪzəm) n1. (Philosophy) the doctrines of the Cynics

---

cynicism (ˈsɪnɪˌsɪzəm) n1. the attitude or beliefs of a cynic
2. a cynical action, remark, idea, etc

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

---

cyn•i•cism (ˈsɪn əˌsɪz əm)

n. 1. cynical disposition or belief.
2. a cynical remark.
3. (cap.) the doctrines of the Cynics.
[1665–75]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

Cynicisma Greek philosophy of the 4th century B.C. advocating the doctrines that virtue is the only good, that the essence of virtue is self-control and individual freedom, and that surrender to any external influence is beneath the dignity of man. — Cynic, n. — Cynical, adj.
See also: Philosophy

---

the holding or expressing of opinions that reveal disbelief and sometimes disdain for commonly held human values and virtues. Also called cynism. See also philosophy. — cynic, n. — cynical, adj.
See also: Attitudes-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Noun

1.

cynicism - a cynical feeling of distrustpessimism - the feeling that things will turn out badly

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

---

cynicismnoun1. scepticism, pessimism, sarcasm, misanthropy, sardonicism I found Ben's cynicism wearing at times.
2. disbelief, doubt, scepticism, mistrust This talk betrays a certain cynicism about free trade.Quotations
"Cynicism is intellectual dandyism without the coxcomb's feathers" [George Meredith The Egoist]


Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cynicism

Call me a Cynic!!!

Commentators continue to enlighten the audience as to how the GOP should reach out to various groups, here is my thought, politicians reach out to all Americans no matter the race/gender stop the division why should citizens be broken down into groups simply it is to divide and conquer, the Democrat party are pro's at that game and the media wants the GOP to join in.

If your natural born or a legal citizen this group baiting should make you angry.

IMO patriots would be wise to focus on jobs, crime, and national need.

Recent polls show that Latino Americans are becoming sensitive to the possiblilty that illegals will take jobs from their children and grandchildren.

Illegal perverts seem to be on a crime spree in places such as illegals-friendly North Carolina. That deserves publicity.

Mexico has a population law that discourages immigrants who could take jobs that Mexicans can do. Let's publicize that patriots are learning from our neighbor;-)

(And let's be clear that we are just as much against visa overstayers as we are against those who just sneak in.)
****************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Hey, can someone post that poll for us that came out last week showing most LEGAL Hispanic voters did not consider a candidates position on 'immigration reform' to be a deal breaker?

W