Lately I have been wondering how US citizens would react if a politician with strong anti-immigration views would step up and word his/her criticism against other ethnic groups as explicitly as Wilders does on a regular basis. The reason I am wondering is because I am not even shocked by his statements anymore. Wilders was not the first Dutch politician to utter very strong and explicit criticism of Islam. Before Wilders there was Pim Fortuyn, also called a right wing extremist and the first one to refer to Islam as a backwards religion. Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a mentally ill environmental activist. Then there were Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh, who was in fact related to artist Vincent van Gogh, was also murdered. Since 2000, the Dutch political climate has been domination by issues over Muslim immigration and the resulting violence.
I am aware of the immigration issues in the US. I know they exist and that they are problematic. I am also aware of the recent Arizona immigration law which was enacted to crack down down on illegal immigration and of the controversy that this law caused. However, there is not a single public figure (at least not that I am aware of) who has stepped up and openly criticized the culture, norms and values of a different ethnic group. And I am sure that there are public figures who have very strong sentiments about these issues.
I decided to talk to Elizabeth Keaveny, a junior Spanish and Political Science major here at the University of Portland. She went on the Moreau Center sponsored Border Plunge in 2010, which was also the topic of an interesting article in The Beacon written by student Kevin Hershey. The Border Plunge is a service-learning project that takes place on the US/Mexico border and is intended to teach students about immigration and human rights issues. I asked her if she thinks it would be possible for a charismatic political leader like Geert Wilders to gain a large following here in the US. She explained that the political climate of the US makes this unlikely.
"Immigration is such a tough issue, that there are very few national level politicians willing to risk political capital on that issue alone. With the two party system, a national level politician may be able to win primary
elections with an extremely racist, anti immigrant stance, but with general elections that politician's view must be much more moderate in order to win," she said. To illustrate this, she mentioned President Obama's decision to drop immigration reform from his plans after the midterm elections revealed that the Democratic Party was losing votes.
"A charismatic politician running on such an extreme and narrow platform as Geert Wilders would definitely gain an immediate following with the extreme right wing, anti-immigrant groups, civilian vigilantes, border communities and white supremacist groups," she continued. "However I do not think that this politician could get anywhere within our political system on such a narrow and extreme agenda."
 |
| Civilian Vigilante group "Minuteman Project" protesting illegal immigration Photo: AmericanPatrol.com |
I had never considered the implications of a two party system for immigration policies. In the Netherlands, these politicians generally leave their original party and start their own to avoid conflict with their party members. Regardless of the political system, Keaveny also added that she thinks that "the majority of America would recognize the dangers of racist rhetoric."
I think this sentiment was originally also true for the Netherlands, but the support for these right wing leaders has been overwhelming. That's why I curious to hear what you think. Do you believe that, regardless of the two party system, a charismatic leader like Geert Wilders who uses similar, strong language, could gain a large following in the US? Or would the large majority of Americans oppose a leader using such rhetoric?
No comments:
Post a Comment