Ruben Navarette Leaves it There

© by Mark Dempsey (10/7/14)

One of the representatives of the “We’ll have to leave it there”  school of journalism appeared recently in St. Mark’s Moon Lectures in Carmichael. Ruben Navarette spoke, and answered audience questions, about the experience of Hispanics, particularly his own, and the “problem” of immigration. He even told the audience about his difficulties writing a column about spanking.

As is characteristic of such journalists, Navarette was gravely concerned...in this case about the immigrants, particularly the Central American children who recently made the perilous journey to the U.S. to be safe from threats of violence and civil disorder, only to be deported almost immediately, rather than being accepted as refugees. Navarette criticized legislators, and even the teachers’ union for their indifference to the plight of these refugees or immigrants generally, and expressed his indignation about the immigrants’  ill treatment at the hands of ICE, and the Obama administration.

And all of that is good, as far as it goes. The problem with such a speech, and with this school of journalism generally, is that it frames the issues so narrowly as to miss the point. Sure, ebola gives its victims fever, but that does not mean treating the disease with cool drinks is appropriate.

What was missing was any mention of the U.S.’ responsibility for producing the problem. Even the most ignorant of students knows that for literally centuries, the U.S. has invaded, looted and otherwise devastated countries and economies south of its border. In pursuit of that foreign policy, the U.S. has regularly overthrown democratically-elected governments (Arbenz and Allende, to mention two), propped up dictators, and promoted exploitive trade policies (NAFTA, CAFTA). Between 1798 and 1994, the U.S. was responsible for 41 changes of government south of its borders.

This is not confined to ancient history, either. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently encouraged the current administration to endorse, or at least accept the military overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Honduras, ensuring the un-democratic regime’s survival despite popular opposition.

Gosh! I wonder why there are so many Honduran kids fleeing violence?

Perhaps the apotheosis of this foreign policy bias in south-of-the-border affairs occurred when the Reagan administration prosecuted a proxy war against another democratically-elected government in Nicaragua. The administration’s support included selling weapons and spare parts to the Ayatollahs of Iran just after they had kidnapped U.S. diplomats to fund the Contras.

Congress did not authorize the Contra war but that did not reduce the the Reagan administration’s feeling that manifest destiny called them to sell weapons to our enemies. The Iran / Contra scandal was one result. The World Court convicting the U.S. of state-sponsored terrorism (illegally mining Nicaraguan harbors) was another.

Reagan even asked the Mexican president if he too would say that one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere (Nicaragua) was a threat to the U.S. The Mexican president replied he would be happy endorse his friend Ronald’s policy if there was any way he could do so without being laughed out of office.

U.S. economic warfare has also hurt our Latin American neighbors. Mexican real incomes declined 34% in the wake of NAFTA, and many subsistence corn farmers had to flee to “Gringolandia” just to feed their families since subsidized Iowa corn flooded Mexican markets, putting them out of business.

That number--34%--is the same as the decline in U.S. GNP during the Great Depression. It also mirrors the decline in Cuban GNP after the Soviets withdrew their oil subsidy to Cuba in the early ‘90s. The average weight loss among Cubans was reported to be 20 pounds. A 34% decline in real incomes was particularly cruel for Mexico since roughly half the Mexican population subsists on less than $4 a day.

...So yes, the symptom of these depredations is the U.S. immigration “problem,” but we are closer to finding its cause when we attend to the beam in our own eye rather than the mote in the “illegal aliens’” eyes.

Mr. Navarette never mentioned the cruel irony or sense of entitlement that lets the U.S. complain about an immigration problem its policies create. The government’s sense of “exceptionalism” and how “indispensable” it is remains the subject of breathless reverence, particularly in the mainstream media, where the likes of Navarette ply their trade.

Since this was a church-sponsored lecture, Navarette also made a plea to the religious community, saying they had been silent about the plight of Hispanics when they should be speaking up, as they had for previous civil rights movements.

At its core, however, these depredations into Latin America remain the result of the most anti-religious sentiments: That making more money--i.e. profit--justifies any behavior, no matter how bad. The shame is that, despite all the protestations of “goodness” about a variety of hot button, divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage, what American religious organizations tacitly accept is merciless capitalism, not just the mistreatment of immigrants.

Our own population has been suffering under the weight of that immoral sentiment that profit justifies any bad behavior--not just our Latin neighbors. General Motors recently made 97 cents more profit on an ignition part that literally killed people, but excused that murderous practice because...hey! it was profitable!...and they paid the court claims to the victims’ families. What’s the problem, right? (And where were the religious protests outside GM?)

The anti-religious, positively Satanic sentiment is the sense that one can legitimately reduce all of humanity to marketable labor, all of nature to marketable land, and all human interaction to a financial transaction. That is the genuine problem here. These sentiments are the culprits, and Navarette never once indicated he understood them. But, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” (Upton Sinclair)

Not even spanking is as complicated as Navarette makes out. Violence, say yanking a child out of the path of an oncoming bus, is effective, but only short-term. It does not motivate for the long term, only attraction (love) does that. But somehow, this managed to side track Navarette into acres of needless complications. So we had to “leave it there”

Jesus himself talked about narrowly-focused concerns like Navarette’s. He called it straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel. I’m with Jesus on this one.