I find myself more than vaguely insulted by Michael Gerson’s column in the Washington Post this morning.
It is a strange spectacle. Conservatives are intent on building a more appealing, post-Bush Republican Party. But their most obvious change so far is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. The renovators seem more like the wrecking crew.
Apparently the idea of “principle” never enters this gentleman’s lexicon. Republicans have been screaming bloody murder about how the Democrats have been willing to throw the military under the bus so as to gain short term political victory. They are screaming, and rightly, I think, about the principals involved with the thing. So, how is it, then, that Gerson figures we’re willing to toss aside the American culture, and the security of our borders, for a short term political victory?
Gerson says:
From the beginning of his political career, George W. Bush refused to support amnesty for illegal immigrants. He did, however, take a principled, middle-ground position that also appealed to Latinos — a proposal that would give legal status to those who want to work in America and return home, while also providing a realistic (but not easy) path to citizenship for those who want to stay.
That’s a mischaracterization of the first order. What Bush offered this was in fact an amnesty deal. Which, in turn, is why the American people rejected it in overwhelming numbers.
There’s this, also; Gerson is as much as suggesting that if we’re not behind Bush on these matters, we’re Bigoted, short-sighted fools. I can hardly think of something to more polarize the issue than this nonsense.
Tags: Illegal immigrants
