The Spanish language version of the national anthem is in the news, and it is adding an interesting mix to the illegal immigration debate, almost none of it in the interest of the elites who seem to be demanding that America become more Balkan-like. President Bush has entered the debate:
"Asked at a news briefing in the Rose Garden on Friday whether he believed the anthem would have the same value in Spanish as it did in English, Mr. Bush said flatly, ’No, I don’t.’
’And I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English,’ Mr. Bush said. ’And they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English.’"
The New York Times story is worth reading. There are a number of revealing moments in the piece. The author finds it "striking" that Bush has entered the debate in this way, after all, he does speak Spanish, and is the first president to give his weekly radio address in Spanish. So, I presume this means he should be more "understanding"? And note this: "But his statement about the anthem was taken by members of both parties as a clear signal to conservatives that he stood with them on what many of them see as a clash between national identity and multiculturalism." Is the man "throwing a bone to the right"? Or, is he speaking his mind? I have talked with a dozen people on this question today, and not one of them thought that Bush was wrong, and all of them thought that the Spanish anthem (changed words and all) was silly at best, and stupid at worst. The putative strike on Monday may be a revealing moment, and not to the advantage of the multiculturalist drum-beaters.
By the way, the Liberal Princeton (sorry, I’m being redundant) historian Sean Wilentz, periphrastically contemplates why Bush may be our worst president. Not the best thing Wilentz has written. Until recently, such historians were proudly asserting that Reagan was the worst president ever. But the last few years they have stopped saying that, havent they. The truth is Carter is our Buchanan, not Bush or Reagan.