A small caveat before you proceed… I wrote this piece almost a year and a half ago reflecting upon a situation I saw emerging regarding “English-only” statutes that were under consideration in many states and municipalities across this great nation dividing many Americans along racial, cultural, and ethnic lines.  Given the current political climate and the impact of race upon it, I couldn’t help but think we as Republicans may be slightly behind the ball on this one – most regrettably.  Perhaps its time to claim our position on the battlefield- if you will- in this debate, before our position is chosen for us.  Maybe, just maybe, its time to get ahead of the curve for once.  A supreme opportunity to rely upon our core conservative principles to take the fight to the Left rather than reacting as they bring the fight to us…..?

Immigration, Diversity, Race Relations and a Case for Republican Principles on the Foundation of States’ Rights

We are nothing if not a nation of immigrants and in that spirit this nation has become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  Diversity should be seen as a positive result of a free nation that presents opportunity for people from all walks of life to venture to this nation for a shot at the American Dream.  While diversity provides an influx of cultures and beliefs, it also brings with it new ideas and new perspectives that will challenge conventional wisdom and force this nation to reexamine old ideas in a new light.

From a historical perspective, our Founding Fathers shared in the belief that diversity was a virtue rather than a burden.  James Madison believed that a large and diverse nation served as a deterrent to the oppressions of tyranny.  He saw strength in our differences – economically, religiously, and ethnically.  Diversity prevents any majority from gaining too much political weight so as to seize control of all the mechanisms of government.  In his piece titled, “James Madison’s Federalist Number 10 and the American Political System.” Russell Renka stated, “big schoolyards surely have more playground cliques than do small ones.  A high diversity of factions is the best warranty that no faction can become a majority.”  While this may be a simplistic view of the changing nature and enduring strengths of our federal system, it is particularly poignant in demonstrating the need to embrace these differences rather than trying to oppose them.  States must take action to ensure effective management of their governments but they should do so in a manner which accommodates their population rather than subjugating a minority population of it.  A discussion of states passing language statutes should not be seen as propaganda for those statutes making English the only language.  The only reason such a development is a positive is that it is occurring at the state level where governments are more aware of the settings in which their statutes will take shape.

Quite simply, this is a threshold moment for the Republican Party.  It is a genuine opportunity for it to be the forward thinking Party rather than the reactionary version of itself that has emerged in recent years.  Changes to our population are coming and will have a very real effect on our political culture of the years to come.  This is why it is fundamentally important for the Republican Party to seize the day on this issue.  By championing the call for a return to state control of those rights reserved to them by the Constitution – a core conservative belief – they can be ahead of the curve for once when the diversity of our population comes to the forefront of every political debate.

The Republican Party must capture this moment to choose its place in these debates as they come to the forefront rather than having them chosen for the Party by the Left or the DNC.  The Party has been slow moving to adopt policy in any of these areas solely out of expedience and fear of political retribution.  It must break away from these burdens that are holding it back and embrace a movement focused on states’ rights and state issues based on the realities that lie ahead.  The issues that diversity will create cannot be federal issues.  Each state must be left to decide for itself policies in these areas – both from a constitutional standpoint and from a practical one.  The populations of our Southern and Western states when compared to those in the North and the Northeast illustrate this necessity from a practical perspective.

Comparing a groups of states – composed of Southern and Western states – to the populations of the United States as a whole and the populations of another group – composed of Northern and Northeastern states – shows the absolute need for state specific policy in issues relating to diversity.  The population demographic disparities require it.  The First group which includes Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California has vastly different population characteristics than that of the second group consisting of North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and Maine.  While the disparities between these groups are quite dramatic, the difference between the first group’s populations and that of the entire US population are also particularly vast.

When viewed solely in terms of population growth from April of 2001 to July of 2007, the differences are quite apparent.  The United States population grew in that time from 281,421,906 to 301,621,157.  This represented a 7.2% increase.  Over that same time period, the populations of the first group increased by an average of more than 15% (Florida 14.2%, Texas 14.6%, Arizona 23.5%, and California 7.9%).  While the first group saw its total population increase at a rate more than double the national average, the second group increased by an average of 2.7% in that time (North Dakota (-).4%, Montana 6.2 %, Vermont  2.0%, and Maine 3.3%).  While these numbers clearly indicate a much higher population growth for these states, the disparities in their state demographics are even more telling.

The states in the first group illustrate the growing need for state centered policy to deal with the issues of diversity and a growing Hispanic population.  This groups’ racial composition illustrates precisely why a national standard would simply be inadequate.  Hispanics made up 15.1% of the US population in 2007 and White Non-Hispanics comprised 66.0%.  In contrast, the states in the first group had a decidedly different composition:  [Florida 20.6% Hispanic / 60.8% White Non-Hispanic], [Texas 36% Hispanic / 47% White Non-Hispanic], [Arizona 29.6% Hispanic / 59.1% White Non-Hispanic], and [California 36.2% Hispanic / 42.7% White Non-Hispanic].  The Hispanic population in these states is far greater than the national average and considering that three of the states represented are among our nation’s most populated states, this disparity should not be taken lightly.  Policies related to race and specifically the Hispanic population in these states are far more impactful that those with more homogeneous populations.  When compared to the second group the difference in percentage of Hispanic citizens illustrates how the issue could not be dealt with on a national level.  Policies that would be absolutely necessary in some states would be largely meaningless in others.  The second groups Hispanic population amounts to 1.9% in North Dakota (89.9% White Non-Hispanic), 2.8% in Montana (88.2% White Non-Hispanic), 1.3% in Vermont (95.3% White Non-Hispanic), and 1.2% in Maine (95.5% White Non-Hispanic).

The vast differences in populations illustrate the necessity that these issues be resolved by state governments.  They are the only entities capable of determining policy that can meet the needs of their citizens.  The large percentages of Hispanic Americans living in these states presents a formidable set of issues that simply don’t exist in many states insulated by geography from southern immigration.  While Florida, Texas, Arizona, and California are great examples of a growing Hispanic population, they are not the only states that are affected by the issues this creates.  Much of the Southeast, South and Southwest is similarly situated and already dealing with a changing multicultural and multiracial society.

So the question that prevails is what impact this diversity will really have on our political culture.  As the demographics of this nation change in the years to come, we will face a great number of issues which will present great obstacles for conventional wisdom of yesteryear.  Issues such as affirmative action will be seen in an entirely different light as the Hispanic population emerges as the largest minority group.  The very nature of the Hispanic population will change the discussion altogether.  Classifying Hispanic Americans will be an entirely different science from an affirmative action perspective as many Hispanics appear very dissimilar while sharing a cultural heritage.  Old notions of Black and White will be complicated by the inclusion of the Hispanic population ever changing the role of affirmative action programs in the years to come.  Visual diversity or perhaps even linguistic diversity may eventually emerge as the only true indicators of a true minority population.

Put simply, the issue of diversity will drastically alter the political balance on a great number of issues.  The Republican Party has a simple choice:  will it be the party that takes the lead in embracing this diversity and find positive answers to a growing list of problems; or will it remain reactionary and position itself to be the scapegoat and target of racial politics as it endeavors to catch up to the changing tide of American politics?

Photo Via 9-12 Project

Tags: arizona, diversity, illegals, immigration, race, Republican Party

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 29th, 2010 at 12:54 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.