One more item from the Gerson lunch

I really wanted to write more last night, but exhaustion overcame me and my brain just shut down.

In the ensuing 24 hours, I have thought as much about the overarching message that Gerson sent as I have about the interesting anecdotes he shared about his former boss (George W. Bush). I wrote last night that Gerson is not a militant conservative. I don't mean to imply by such wording that he is not a real conservative; for that reason, I chose my terminology carefully, even through my post-midnight fatigue!

To elaborate: Gerson relayed strong concern about the subtext that he feels the GOP is sending to certain demographic groups, especially Hispanics. His fear, as best I could discern it, is that the indiscriminate message that Hispanics are receiving from Republicans is that they are not welcome in this country and therefore, not in the GOP. In other words, the way we craft what we say and the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) in which we reach out to people must change. Gerson specifically named Tom Tancredo as a representative of the element of extremism (and probably nativism, although Gerson did not use the term) that Gerson feels endangers the party and its chances of dominance in the future.

I have several thoughts that I humbly offer in response to someone with the keen intellect, penetrating rhetoric and experience in the corridors of power that Michael Gerson possesses.

I would first acknowledge that there is a strain of racism against Mexicans that does exist in our country. That is a shameful stain that must be erased, but I don't think there is any proof that it is limited to adherents of my party as opposed to the other. Racism is an ugly, equal opportunity offender and is grossly unfair, undesirable and unhealthy.

The fact that I never hear the easy immigration advocates own up to, though, is that there are legitimate security concerns on the Mexican border. Beyond that, what about the rule of law? If more Mexicans should be allowed to emigrate to this country, then make the legal case for that. No one except a few fringe nutcases is out there protesting that no one should be allowed to immigrate from Mexico.

The fact is that the bulk of Hispanics tend to ally strongly with many of the values that conservatives hold dear. As Ronald Reagan put it, "Hispanic voters are Republicans. They just don't know it yet." I'll be the first to admit that Republicans can be clunky communicators at times (though with a mainstream media that exponentially magnifies every misstep, perhaps the slips of the tongue that occur are exaggerated). So perhaps Gerson has a point when it comes to tone, but I disagree with what I fear is his underlying philosophy, governed more by his view of what constitutes compassion and charity than the colder realm of logic.

I would like to clarify that in this post, I have zeroed in on a point of divergence with Michael Gerson, out of an hour of very stimulating information and Q&A. He is a fine man with a humble, gracious spirit. I have seen a lot of political speakers, especially in the last year or two and Michael Gerson's ability with words and recall of political arcana is almost unparalleled. (Karl Rove and George Will come to mind when contemplating comparative figures.) If I had taken better notes, I would remember other points of commonality that I could pass along. But I didn't...there were only about 30 of us in the room and space was tight and I was chowing down and whispering to my seatmates...need more excuses?

If I ever get to hear Michael Gerson again, I would like to ask him how he would address my belief that yes, you must compromise in politics in order to garner accomplishments, BUT what about the times when compromise cannot be achieved without betrayal of principle? After all, the same Master that both Michael Gerson and I seek to serve once rhetorically questioned his followers: "What is a man profited if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?"