The Power of Truth and the Weakness of Tough Talk

Originally posted at Commonweal Institute’s Uncommon Denominator blog

On June 25, President Obama met with a bipartisan panel of lawmakers to discuss immigration reform. Before this meeting, the general sense among progressive factions had been a growing sense of unease that the White House might not address the issue promptly, as promised.

Stalling on this issue would not only be devastating to the immigrant populations at risk, but also to Latinos: according to FBI statistics, hate crimes against Latinos – regardless of immigration status – rose by almost 35% between 2003 and 2006. Concurrently, Right wing pundits profit by portraying immigrants as The Unclean, Leeching, Invader Within—and not without consequences. A recent report by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund connects the rise in hate crimes against the Latino community to the tone of the ongoing immigration debate.

The line that separates hatemongers from allies or ostensibly neutral parties is blurring more every day. Anti-immigration groups like FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA claim beneficent ideals, and yet are designated as hate groups by watchdog organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Progressives spend a fair amount of time pushing back against anti-immigrant Republican politicians like Tom Tancredo, but when Democratic politicians themselves buy into the idea that they need to sound “tougher” on immigrants, they not only pose a danger to the Latino community and to the Immigrant community, but also to the credibility of the progressive movement. Senator Chuck Schumer illustrated this perfectly in his June 24th speech calling for the use of “illegal alien” over the term “undocumented.” President Obama calls sternly for immigrants to “learn English” and “go to the back of the line.”

When Democrats concede that the proper starting point is fear and revulsion of the Alien Other, they adopt the lens of xenophobia and feed the toxic environment in which race-based violence is bred.  This stance is not productive nor is it rooted in truth.

US citizens, rather than having their basest impulses massaged, could be reminded of how many people within the US already speak Spanish. Or how these ethnocentric utterances sound to those of us with pride in our Spanish names. This nation’s inclusive ideals allow for the many thriving communities within our borders that speak mostly Greek, or Chinese, or Hebrew.

“Go to the back of the line” is an intentionally punitive and domineering phrase. But instead of stroking our desire to dominate the new outsiders, we would benefit from a discussion on the many ways in which “the line” has broken down. From human trafficking rings in which foreign nationals are lured into exploitative US jobs, to foreign-born soldiers denied earned citizenship, the system is overwhelmed with a backlog of over 200,000 cases.

Even if rationalized as standard political posturing, any validation of language and ideas promoted by fringe elements that act violently todefend a “disappearing culture” from “illegals” cannot be excused. This type of theater fools no one. The Right wing commentariat sees these statements for what they are: empty gestures. When Democrats mimic the methods of the extreme Right, they start from a place of weakness. Further, with this hypocrisy, they send a message that they do not believe in themselves or their cause. If they did, they would dare to advance a progressive agenda without resorting to a bullying tone. United States citizens respect power, but also honesty. When Barack Obama spoke earnestly to us about race, we were riveted. There was much talk of moving forward, of a greater awareness being given the nation, of the first black US president helping to take us there. Progressives and Democrats ought to not miss opportunities for educating the populace.

Solutions are impossible without an honest accounting of what is at play. For example, do Democrats really think that more troops at the southern border are the answer to the economic problems in México? Is the implication that our armies will fend off the unceasing lines of poor and hungry migrants? Much like addressing the undocumented with “tough talk,” the answer to social fluctuations is not force.

Who will give the Democrats a tough talk? Who will tell them that in order to rise above the well-entrenched practices of the Right, they will need to be daring, intelligent, and original? Who will assure them they possess the ability to be both honest and victorious?