On Indian Americans, a Reagan story, Populism 101, the canceling of Christmas, and more.
On Indian Americans, a Reagan story, Populism 101, the canceling of Christmas, and more
I t’s not every day that I’m used as the foil for an article. Every other day? Every third day? No, not even those. But it happened in the Washington Post last week.
The Post published an article headed “Why Indian Americans are not becoming Republicans any time soon.” It began,
In 2005, writing in the National Review, conservative columnist Jay Nordlinger speculated that a “group of American superachievers” was “ripe” for the Republican Party.
Let me stop them right there. Them? Yes, the article has three authors. It takes more than one to bring me down! The authors are researchers at three different institutions.
I have two nitpicks, right off the bat. Every now and then, a publication will say “National Review” instead of “the National Review,” and we think it’s a miracle. A couple of years ago, the New York Times referred to us as “National Review” (no “the”) — and we almost threw a party.
Nitpick No. 2: The article that the authors are criticizing was published in December 2004, not 2005. It was republished on our website in October 2005, for reasons I’m unclear on, or can’t remember. In any case, it matters not.
Let me start their article again, and I will not interrupt:
In 2005, writing in the National Review, conservative columnist Jay Nordlinger speculated that a “group of American superachievers” was “ripe” for the Republican Party. They were “entrepreneurial, hard-working, striving, traditionalist, family-oriented, religious, assimilationist, patriotic.” What’s more, he wrote, this group’s principal “‘issues” — “tax reform and regulation . . . free trade . . . tort reform” — were also dear to the GOP.
Nordlinger was wrong.
Yikes! A three-word dagger to the heart. But I’ve interrupted. Back to the authors:
Nordlinger was wrong. The group he was writing about — Indian Americans — has remained loyal to the Democratic Party.
The authors go on to say,
We find that Indian Americans remain solidly with the Democrats, for several reasons.
The first reason is, “Indian Americans view the Republican Party as unwelcoming.” The second reason is: the presence of Kamala Harris on the Democratic presidential ticket. The authors write,
Some commentators suggest that Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) is not popular among Indian Americans because she has been critical of the Indian government and emphasizes her Black identity over her Indian roots. Our survey finds that, to the contrary, Harris has increased enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket.
Okay. As I see it, my article in 2004 was not wrong — at all. It was perfectly right — at the time. In December 2004. That was a long time ago, if not in years then in political terms.
Indian Americans find the GOP unwelcoming? Well, when I wrote my article, George W. Bush was president, and the titular head of the Republican Party. No one was more welcoming than he (though Ronald Reagan was equally so). The next GOP nominee, in 2008, was John McCain.
The Republican Party is dramatically different now. Both Trumpers and anti-Trumpers agree on this. Trumpers say, “Hurray! ’Bout time!” Anti-Trumpers say other things.
As for Kamala Harris, she was not a vice-presidential nominee in 2004. She was a district attorney, known only in the Bay Area.
As for tax reform, free trade, tort reform, etc.: Were they issues dear to the GOP in 2004? You bet your booties.
Journalism is of the moment, necessarily. As Richard Brookhiser pointed out to me once, the very word “day” is embedded in “journalism” (jour). In a sense, “daily journalism” is a redundancy. In journalism, you write what is true, or believe to be true, that very day.
“Daily diary” is also a redundancy, strictly speaking. (Think of the Spanish dia.)
A lot has changed between 2004 and 2020. The political world is topsy-turvy, in multiple ways. Walk down Memory Lane with me to 2004, and read a few paragraphs of my piece. (When I say “this group,” at the start, I mean Indian Americans, of course.)
. . . Republicans think — and hope — that this group is ripe for their party. The thinking goes like this: “Indian Americans are entrepreneurial, hard-working, striving, traditionalist, family-oriented, religious, assimilationist, patriotic — what could be better?” And what are their “issues”? Tax reform and regulation, particularly as they affect small businesses; free trade, which includes a robust defense of outsourcing; and perhaps more than anything else, tort reform — Indian Americans are a community of doctors, not plaintiffs’ attorneys, and their political activity has been fueled by a desire to rein in medical liability. Affirmative action is an issue, too, for as Michael Barone points out, many Indian Americans had nasty experiences with preferential policy back in their homeland. This community as a whole — to indulge in some (further) stereotyping — is exceptionally merit-minded.
There is a point to be made in the foreign-policy realm as well: The administration of George W. Bush is fighting a war against Islamist terror, a cause that Indians can appreciate. And he is promoting democracy, another cause dear to Indian hearts: We hear frequently that the homeland is “the world’s largest democracy.”
None of this is to say that Indian Americans are in the Republican pocket. They form a diverse group, with plenty of Democrats and leftists, in addition to libertarians and other species. In short, they are Americans, spangled politically and otherwise. But as Neil Dhillon — for many years a Democratic policy hand, and now with Financial Dynamics — says, Indian Americans are undergoing a “dramatic shift,” in the Republican direction. And this is especially true of the young.
So it was. I stand by the article entirely. About Indian Americans and their political preferences, I would write a different article today. Because different things are true.
I’m happy to serve as a foil, but you’ve got to bring the goods!
• Reading a story about President Trump, the American ambassadorial residence in Paris, and art, I thought of a story I learned from Van Galbraith, long ago. I’ll get to Van in a minute. First, the recent story, as related by Bloomberg News:
After Donald Trump’s planned trip to a French cemetery for fallen Marines was canceled in November 2018, the U.S. leader had some extra time on his hands in a mansion filled with artwork. The next day, he went art shopping — or the presidential equivalent.
Trump fancied several of the pieces in the U.S. ambassador’s historic residence in Paris, where he was staying, and on a whim had them removed and loaded onto Air Force One, according to people familiar with the matter. The works — a portrait, a bust, and a set of silver figurines — were brought back to the White House.
A little bit more, before I get to Van:
The incident was met with a mixture of amusement and astonishment at the time, but caused headaches for White House and State Department staffers, according to several people familiar with the episode who asked not to be identified due to its sensitivity.
I’ll bet.
Anyway, Evan “Van” Galbraith was a dear friend of National Review and a dear friend of William F. Buckley Jr. He and WFB were Yale classmates. Van was many things in life, including an investment banker and ambassador to France, in the first term of Reagan.
I was always pumping Van for Reagan stories, as I was all the Reagan guys. (They have almost all gone now.) Van also told me a story about Princess Diana. It’s a little fuzzy, but I will piece it together in due course.
Anyway, one day, Reagan came to town. To Paris, I mean. In the residence, he gazed upon a portrait of a lady. “Who’s that?” he asked. Ambassador Galbraith answered, “That’s Neville Chamberlain’s mother.” The Gipper pointed at a long fan in the lady’s hand and asked, “Is that her umbrella?”
Prime Minister Chamberlain was holding an umbrella when he returned from Munich to announce peace and all that. For a long while, the umbrella was a symbol of appeasement (fairly or unfairly). Most people would have gotten Reagan’s joke, I wager, in 1984, though comparatively few would today.
There is one wrinkle in Van’s story, one little error: though it does not ruin the story. The portrait was indeed of Mrs. Chamberlain, by John Singer Sargent (1902). But it was not a portrait of Neville Chamberlain’s mother.
Joseph Chamberlain, the Empire Builder, had three wives, the first two of whom died in childbirth, or shortly after. His first wife, Harriet, was the mother of Austen, who would become foreign minister, and a Nobel peace laureate. The second Mrs. Chamberlain was Florence, the mother of Neville. The third was Mary Crowninshield Endicott — and it was she whom Sargent painted.
She was an American, actually: and the daughter of the secretary of war, William Crowninshield Endicott, in the first Cleveland administration.
This is just a wrinkle, as I say. Van Galbraith had many wonderful stories, and he told them with a twinkle. He was a very blithe spirit. Small wonder Bill (Buckley) loved him.
• At his rallies, Trump has been saying that Joe Biden is “a servant of the globalists, lobbyists, wealthy donors, and Washington vultures who got rich bleeding America dry.” This is Populism 101. It has been practiced for ages and ages.
I recall Trump’s “closing argument” from 2016. He is a consistent pol. I will give you a portion of that “closing argument”:
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests: They partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.”
I’m not vouching for the syntax — I’m just quoting, faithfully.
“The political establishment that is trying to stop us is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled our country dry.”
A bit more:
“It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of large corporations and political entities.”
Etc., etc. In a television ad, these words were accompanied by pictures of George Soros, Lloyd Blankfein, Janet Yellen, and Hillary Clinton.
Right out of Central Casting, all of it. 101.
• If Biden is elected, said Trump, “the Christmas season will be canceled.” Hmmm. That sounds terrible. By the way, Fidel Castro did cancel Christmas, in Cuba. He banned it in 1969, not allowing its public observance again till 1998. (He must have gone soft.)
• I’ve been mentioning old friends in this column: Van Galbraith, Bill Buckley. How about Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East historian? The other day, I went to a dictionary to look up “attenuate.” I wanted to be sure of its precise meaning.
That meaning is “to lessen the amount, force, magnitude, or value of.” And an example is provided, from Professor Lewis: “. . . shows great skill in the use of language to moderate or attenuate the impact of awkward facts.”
Pretty neat.
• Last month, President Trump said, “If I don’t win the election, China will own the United States. You’re going to have to learn to speak Chinese, you want to know the truth.” In New York, I spotted the below billboard. So, you can think of Campaign 2020 as the Battle of the Languages.
(Who’s gonna make us learn French?)
• A friend of mine in Illinois sent me a picture of the ballot she was filling out. There were many candidates for U.S. Senate — from the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green parties. There was also Willie L. Wilson — representing the “Willie Wilson Party.”
“Look!” said my friend. “I found a party for which I can be enthusiastic about voting!”
If you’d like to receive Impromptus by e-mail — links to new columns — write to jnordlinger@nationalreview.com.