G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
For instance, she writes of her father’s allegiance to the Republican party:
For more than 40 years, my parents maintained their unshakable loyalty, even while living in Minnesota, the only state with the distinction of voting for a Democrat in every presidential election after 1972, and despite the Republicans’ rising anti-immigration fervor — which was aimed, I pointed out, right at them. After all, they were, for a time in the 1960s, undocumented aliens, and it was our Democratic members of Congress who stayed their deportation.
Lee mentions that her father came to this country with $200 in his pocket and established a medical practice and sent her and three siblings off to college. Yet, according to her, he, with false-conscience, supported the Republican party. A smart successful man in one arena was a dolt in another. This doesn’t add up. Perhaps dad was smarter than daughter believes.
Liberals and Democrats use this same logic to appeal to every minority group – including blacks, Hispanic, gays, Kansans, and, in a distortion of math, women. “But we’re giving you all of this stuff, why don’t you support us? You must hate yourself!” What they don’t understand is that many minorities that go against their bloc don’t just look at what the government is promising them. They look beyond and wonder about the ramifications of the policy which the government is using to purchase their allegiance.
Lee hints that her father should have been a single-issue voter (though she doesn’t say if he ever became naturalized). Being an immigrant, he should vote for the pro-immigrant party. What’s the logic there? Perhaps her father was less stupid than he was shrewd and opportunistic. Perhaps he understood that if the United States extended to everyone the same policies and procedures that helped him stay in this country, the country would become too similar to what he’d escaped. Not to say that it would or that the father would be naive enough to believe this would happen in his or his children’s lifetime. But perhaps he saw that just because he got lucky meant that everyone should get as lucky as him. Wisely, he embraced his incumbency.
And that’s just assuming that he opposed limitations placed on immigration. Maybe he was a “racist” – he might have favored Asian immigration over the immigration of Hispanics or blacks which, under the logic of liberalism, would proceed unfettered. Who really knows exactly what his thought process was.
It’s funny how liberals are so quick to proclaim that, when it comes to behavioral tendencies besides voting, minorities don’t monolithically adhere to the values generally embraced by their group. But when it comes to the weight they give to political issues and the platforms of the different parties, if they vote against immigration or welfare or high taxes, they are either blind or stupid. But it should be easy to see that an immigrant who becomes a high earning medical professional would switch from race-group allegiance to preference for policies that support high income earners.
There is much more to laugh at in this op-ed. Nick Gillespie focuses on the muffin top analogy which was supposed to be the cutesy selling point of the article. Lee’s argument there, if you didn’t read the article, is that her father (and all Asians since they’re all alike, right?) would abhor the story that Mitt Romney only eats muffin tops, discarding the stumps. This offends Asian/immigrant frugality. Though Lee has shrouded this argument behind a veil of sarcasm, she thinks that her father should be fooled by a superficial display of wastefulness. This ignores that he was probably smart enough to realize that the other party represents the party of profligate spending and waste. Mitt Romney eats tops and discards stumps. Democrats, Keynes adherents that they are, bake up batches of muffins and throw them in the trash. Stimulates the economy. Which would be worse to the stupid Asian immigrant?