RIGHT WING IDENTITY POLITICS TAKES HOLD
The following is a letter sent to National Lawyers Guild President Michael Avery from LULAC Executive Director Brent Wilkes. It is in response to a press release the Guild sent out opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the office of U.S. Attorney General. Some of my thoughts are below it:
Dear Mr. Avery:
The League of United Latin American Citizens, this nation's oldest andlargest Hispanic organization, finds your press release regarding Alberto Gonzales's nomination for Attorney General to be inaccurate, racist and offensive and we demand a public apology from your disingenuous group.
Alberto Gonzales is a moderate Republican attorney with an outstanding and extensive legal career; a history of taking moderate to progressive positions on contentious issues such as abortion, affirmative action, bilingual education, immigration, and civil rights; and a record of strong community involvement and accessibility to LULAC and other Hispanic community based organizations. LULAC has interviewed Gonzales on a number of occasions and we are well aware of his positions which clearly place him in the moderate wing of theRepublican Party. We certainly believe he is the strongest candidate for theAG position of those that were under consideration and will make a much better AG than John Ashcroft.
Your press release inaccurately characterized a memo that he wrote regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to captured Al Queda and Taliban (but not Iraqi) fighters who were not part of the regular armed forces of a foreign government. Contrary to what you assert, Gonzales did not OK the use of torture and in fact, clearly stated in his memo that he believed that the principals of the Geneva Conventions regarding the humane treatment of prisoners should still apply to the Al Queda and Taliban prisoners even though he felt that the Geneva Conventions themselves did not. It should also be pointed out, that Al Queda and Taliban have never abided by the Geneva Conventions themselves.
However, what we find most offensive about your press release, other than its distortions of fact, is the following statement attributed to you: "The suggestion that has appeared in the media that Democrats may be afraid to oppose Gonzales because he is a Latino is offensive. If Gonzales were living in a Latin American country he would no doubt be a member of a repressive oligarchy."
First of all, the media is suggesting that Democrats aren't opposing Alberto Gonzales because they believe he is an outstanding moderate Republican attorney who rose from an impoverished migrant worker family with eight children to become one of our nation's top attorneys and they realize he is about as good as a Bush appointee gets. Democratic Senators have never given much consideration to promoting Latinos when they have the opportunity to make appointments themselves and they have never hesitated to oppose Latinos they felt were not qualified before so the idea that they would be afraid to oppose a Latino appointment now if they felt it was justified is ridiculous.
Second, what kind of civil rights organization (as your group purports to be) would state that the son of migrant farm workers would probably be a member of a repressive oligarchy if he were living in a Latin American country? This is an outrageous and repulsive statement that displays arrogance toward Latinos and toward Latin America that I find very troubling.
On your web site it states that the aims of the National Lawyers Guild are:-to eliminate racism; -to safeguard and strengthen the rights of workers, women, farmers and minority groups, upon whom the welfare of the entire nation depends; -to maintain and protect our civil rights and liberties in the face of persistent attacks upon them; -to use the law as an instrument for the protection of the people, rather than for their repression. Yet the same web site lists the following individuals as members of yourExecutive Committee:
[Here he lists the names of officers from the NLG's website. You can find them here.]
I only see one name out of 22 listed here that appears to be Hispanic. How do you expect to achieve your aims when you don't practice what you preach?
Your group clearly needs to get its own act together before it goes on the attack against the first Hispanic ever to be nominated for the position of Attorney General. In the meantime I suggest you issue a public apology to Alberto Gonzales to avoid further public embarrassment.
Brent A Wilkes
National Executive DirectorLeague of United Latin American Citizens
2000 L Street, NW, Suite 610Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-6130
FAX (202) 365-0851
Where to begin? First I respect LULAC. They do some good work throughout the country, including taking a leadership role in Texas on the issue of criminal justice reform. But supporting a right-winger like Mr. Gonzales, simply because he is Latino, is disappointing to say the least.
Has Gonzales taken moderate stands in the past? A handful of facts have been presented, including an example where he voted in favor of the rights of a 17-year-old girl to have an abortion without the consent of her parents. Little, however, is known about his actual values, in part because he's been aiming for the U.S. Supreme Court for a few years now. However, he has made it clear through his memo on torture as White House counsel, that he stands with some of the most reactionary elements of the Bush team. He also has a history of protecting his wealthy, conservative bosses, particularly Mr. Bush, from public embarassment or worse. He hasn't come close to the progressive social statements made by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or former NY Mayor Rudy Guiliani (hardly progressives, but not quite hardliners either), yet Wilkes argues that Gonzales is a moderate? This must be countered as another attempt to move the political dialogue in this country far to the right.
Wilkes also mentions access. In both the LULAC statement and the National Council of La Raza statement in support of Gonzales, they mention access and his willingness to meet with Latino organizations. Yes, Gonzales has clearly done a good job of lobbying these organizations for the Bush Team, but I'm very suspicious of organizations who sell their souls for a seat at the table of power.
The memo is only one piece of evidence against Gonzales. No matter how you try to spin it, he has clearly sought to protect the highest officials in the Bush administration against any consequences that might come from authorizing torture in the course of the war on terror. Yes, it is true that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have never followed the Geneva Convention, but certainly we want something better from our leaders than excusing their own conduct because the terrorists do it also.
Wilkes doesn't really explain why the statement from the press release about Gonzales being part of an oppressive oligarchy if he lived in a Latin American country is offensive. I'm open to the idea that this statement could be racist, but I havn't heard a decent argument yet. My interpretation is that it demonstrates that the Guild's analysis doesn't stop at race. If it did we would have to excuse the most evil and vicious policies, as long as a person of color was the source of those policies. A great example, particularly ideal when arguing against the appointment of a Latino to a U.S. executive post, is the fact that very oppressive regimes have existed in Latin American countries, run by some evil people of Latin American origin (e.g., Pinochet). Coincidentally, the U.S. government has often propped up those dictatorships, and the Bush family doesn't have clean hands on this issue. The quote from our press release seems to demonstrate that the Guild is an anti-racist organization, but the basis of our anti-racism is human rights, not identity politics.
So, he was the son of a farm worker. Why should that give him a free pass?
It's true that the Guild could work on recruiting more Latinos to our organization, but there are more of us than LULAC might know. Resorting to listing the names from our website is a weak attempt to peg us as a white, liberal organization. "Wilkes" doesn't seem like a Latino name to me, but I would have never criticized LULAC because of it. In a way the Guild is more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, and multi-cultural than LULAC. We have done a lot to support labor movements among Latinos and other people of color, we have built close relationships with Arab American, South Asian, and Muslim communities. At our convention this year we had rooms full of African Americans, Arab Americans, Palestinians, South Asians, Latinos, Muslims, Jews, and of course plenty of gringos. We could do better, and we will do better in the future, but we are not just another white, liberal organization.
I think LULAC (along with NCLR and other Latino mainstream organizations) need to apologise for embracing Gonzales along with all of his alarming views. It is a great tragedy, not a triumph, that the first Latino to hold such a high office would be this dangerous right-winger. I am insulted.
6 comments:
Once again Carlos, I don't know what we would do if you were not on our side. Your political articulation makes you seem like a clairvoyant.
Muy bien, Carlito! Ruben Navarrette has been spouting similar tripe, which I dissected here.
Hope all's well,
Scott Henson
I read Navarette's column about liberals and Gonzales and found it pretty disappointing. It's quite a low blow in a debate that should be more substantive.
Nice blog.
published!
The following is a reponse from Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, to Carlos Villarreal's post:
I didn’t see Carlos Villarreal’s posting until just now, because he didn’t bother to send me a copy, but in the interest of clarity I thought I would respond to some of his statements:
First of all, LULAC is not supporting Gonzales just because he is Latino. We are supporting him because he is an outstanding attorney with a moderate record whose support of affirmative action, civil rights, immigration reform and a women’s right to choose have often brought him into conflict with Attorney General John Ashcroft and other more conservative members of the Bush Administration. NLG’s refusal to recognize his moderate positions is one of the few exceptions to a general consensus that Alberto Gonzales is about as moderate an appointment as the Bush Administration is likely to make. Even Senator Schumer has indicated he is likely to vote for confirmation as have all the Democratic Senators who have spoken about his nomination.
On the other hand, what grounds does Villarreal have for saying that LULAC and NCLR (and the vast majority of Latino organizations for that matter) are only supporting the Gonzales nomination because the nominee is Latino? We certainly didn’t put this statement into our letter of support. Was Villarreal at our board meetings when these decisions were made? Or is he simply saying this because we are Latino organizations and we have taken a position that he does not like. How would Villarreal react if LULAC or another Latino organization endorsed him for a position in the future and some right winger made the same kind of statement? It would be pretty disappointing to say the least.
The only actual evidence that Villarreal cites that Gonzales is right-wing is a draft memo attributed to Gonzales advising President Bush on the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to Al Queda and Taliban prisoners. I suggest all involved actually read the memo. It largely discusses the pros and cons of the Justice Department’s formal opinion on this matter and the State Department’s objections. In particular, readers should pay attention to the closing two paragraphs:
“In the treatment of detainees, the U.S. will continue to be constrained by (i) its commitment to treat the detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of GPW, (ii) its applicable treaty obligations, (iii) minimum standards of treatment universally recognized by the nations of the world, and (iv) applicable military regulations regarding the treatment of detainees.
Similarly, the argument based on military culture fails to recognize that our military remain bound to apply the principles of GPW because that is what [the President] has directed them to do.”
This memo is hardly Gonzales’s finest hour if indeed he wrote or authorized his name to be used on it (which remains to be determined because it was labeled a draft, was not signed and could easily have been drafted by some overzealous White House staffer and leaked out by another before it was even reviewed by Gonzales). However, it also clearly indicates that he believed the President had directed the military to continue to apply the principles of the Geneva Convention to Al Queda and Taliban fighters even though he felt that the conventions themselves did not apply. This memo is clearly not an authorization for torture that demonstrates that Gonzales “stands with some of the most reactionary elements of the Bush team” as Villarreal states. Rather, it is a memo of interest that we expect will be fully explored during his confirmation hearings.
Villarreal seems to take particular offense that Gonzales has done his job as the President’s lawyer by “keeping him from public embarrassment or worse.” I am not sure that Gonzales can help the fact that Bush is rich and white—most, if not all, of the US Presidents fit that definition.
I am particularly offended that Villarreal accuses LULAC and the National Council of La Raza (and by implication the vast majority of Latino organizations that have endorsed Gonzales) of “selling their souls for a seat at the table.” This is an outrageous statement coming from the Executive Director of a fellow civil rights organization and flies in the face of our 75 year history of fighting for the rights of Latinos.
While Villarreal finds that Gonzales’s close working relationship with many Hispanic organizations is evidence of a sellout, the reality is that Gonzales would have been thoroughly lambasted for being elitist and a coconut had he not developed such relationships. If LULAC or NCLR had not had a longstanding relationship with Gonzales then Gonzales's critics probably would have accused us of supporting someone we knew little about. Villarreal takes a positive—that Gonzales has had a long and close relationship with Hispanic organizations and has worked directly with the Latino community—and turns it into a negative which he then uses to accuse LULAC and NCLR of being sellouts. Now that’s being progressive!
Why do I find Michael Avery’s statement that “If Gonzales were living in a Latin American country he would no doubt be a member of a repressive oligarchy” offensive? First it is offensive because it implies dismissively that Latin America is filled with repressive oligarchies when in reality every Latin American country other than Cuba is now a democracy. As a national Latino organization we get a lot of hate mail that often includes statements like “why don’t you go back to your corrupt repressive country in Latin America and stop screwing up the United States.” Avery’s statement reflects that kind of “Latin America is a pit” attitude. Second, the statement is offensive because by definition an oligarchy is a country ruled by a rich and powerful family or families while Al Gonzales is the son of migrant farm workers who has worked hard all his life to achieve what he has accomplished. It would be impossible for someone with Al Gonzales’s background to be a member of an oligarchy no matter where they lived. Surely Villarreal would be offended if someone suggested that he would no doubt be a member of a repressive left wing oligarchy if he were living in Latin America. Statements like these are offensive whether they are uttered by white supremacists or “progressive whites” like Mr. Avery.
I am glad to hear that the Guild has more Latinos as members than LULAC was aware of. On the other hand, I do think liberal organizations that make statements accusing Latino organizations of selling their souls because they support a Latino nominee they disagree with or those that claim it is offensive to imply that Senators should take into account the opinions of Latino organizations when considering Latino nominees should at least have a board that is representative of the Latino population. Latinos are now 15% of the US population, but they appear to be less then 5% of the Guild’s Executive Committee. I don’t think this is irrelevant to the matter under discussion. LULAC certainly is not representative of non-Latino communities nor do we purport to be. We also don’t presume to lecture other organizations that represent non-Latino communities when they choose to oppose or support Presidential nominees from their community even if we disagree with their position.
Villarreal suggests that LULAC, NCLR and many other Latino organizations ought to apologize for supporting Alberto Gonzales. If I were him I wouldn’t hold my breath.
I think LULAC should apologize for accusing the NLG of being racist and white. Their branding of the NLG as such shows that they are more concerned with cozying up to people who think the Geneva conventions are quaint than with human rights. That's why Wilkes ignores the fact that Gonzales withheld information from Bush on death penalty cases that were up for stays while Bush was governor. Particularly, it's hard to bring LULAC's endorsement of Gonzalez in line with the fact that he was silent on the execution of Mexican nationals who had been denied their basic right to speak with someone from their consulate when they were charged and tried for capital crimes.
No, more important is to have access to power.
Further, in regards to Republicans calling out Democrats on their whiteness and elitism - that's great. However, it rings a little hollow when Bush won't even speak to the NAACP
Post a Comment