This morning I caught the second half of the Bradley Center’s Symposium, “Who Are We Today? American Character and Identity in the Twenty-First Century,” which can best be described as a panel discussion by an all-star cast of right-of-center intelligentsia: John McWhorter, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, David Blankenhorn, Linda Chavez, Ross Douthat, Yuval Levin, John O’Sullivan, Stephan Thernstrom, James Q. Wilson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Amy Kass.

The conversation ranged from meaty to meandering, often getting into pretty philosophical or esoteric concepts, but often coming back down to real-world policy decisions, mostly relating to immigration and assimilation. (From time to time, it’s easy to get disillusioned; there are times when conservatism seems synonymous with peeing into the wind. But you notice that the right actually worries about issues like American identity and a national character and assimilation, and discusses these issues with frequency. Our friends on the left often seem to glide past those thorny issues on the way to enthusiastically celebrating the fact that many new immigrants are likely to be voting Democrat.)

Anyway – Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity illustrated the issue with this little anecdote – the following is a paraphrased quote, based on my notes) “We were asked earlier whether the problem with a failure to assimilate is with the immigrants coming here, or whether it is with us. Often, the problem is with us. We have large public institutions failing, and a lack of private institutions… [when you look at immigration to America a century ago,] we had settlement houses and civic leagues for immigration, all sorts of groups who see as their purpose guiding newcomers to process of becoming American… Today, you look at the textbooks used in public schools, and you realize it’s no wonder that new Americans identify with America. The most popular school history textbook used in California, there are eight representative people that students are asked to identify with. One is Juan Segene, not Abraham Lincoln. I have to admit, I had to look up who he was. He was a very minor character who played a role at the Alamo, a Hispanic who fought on the side of the Texans.”

“At least he was on the side of the Texans,” joked (I think) Ross Douthat, illustrating how conservatives’ experience with multiculturalism in schools has conditioned them to expect the worst.

It will be interesting to see if any candidate hones in on this issue in tonight’s debate, or at least tries to as best they can in thirty to sixty-second increments. I get the feeling it’s one of the animating spirits driving the passions in the immigration debate: Americans don’t want their country to be seen as just a great temporary workplace. We want those who come here to sign on for the whole package, the language, the history, the ideals – i.e., to become Americans.

NRnik John O’Sullivan noted, “How come so many Democrats are absolutely resistant to join President on his vision for an immigration-reform bill? Because many ran on the right of the president on this issue, and I suspect that for many, they think this is the one issue where they could lose their seats.”

I had expected to contrast the high-minded discussion of the Bradley event with the pie-throwing and chest-thumping at a National Press Club event sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America’s Future and The American Prospect, entitled, “The Big Con: The Failure of Conservatism.” But after catching the midday debate between Robert Kuttner and the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the liberal event was a little better than I expected.

One of the mildly refreshing comments from Kuttner was his statement, “we shouldn’t believe that a collapse of conservatism will automatically guarantee a resurgence of liberalism. We have a lot of work to do.” (Maybe it was tough for a lefty to be feeling their oats on a day when the top Washingon Post headline was, “Democrats Back Down on Iraq Timetable.”)

I was also mildly surprised after so many antiwar liberals insisting that the 2006 election was a referendum on Iraq, for Kuttner to admit, “the 2006 elections were more about pocketbook issues than national security. [Ohio Senator] Sherrod Brown, if he had only run on criticism of the Iraq war… he wouldn’t have won.”

One other note – after seeing two separate Code Pink protestors try to disrupt Hillary Clinton’s kickoff fundraiser, I saw a somewhat similar phenomenon at this event. After a few minutes of Kuttner and Kristol answering questions from moderator Karen Tumulty of Time magazine, one guy in the audience jumped up and angrily asked about military spending in Iraq, and accused Tumulty of editing his question. (Attendees were encouraged to write down questions on cards and leave them at her table before the event.) Think about it – when you’ve got angry antiwar liberals disrupting events organized by the Campaign for America’s Future and The American Prospect, then no event is sufficiently antiwar to satisfy their passions…