Phyllis Schlafly: Latinos Don’t Understand The Bill Of Rights, Not Worth GOP Attention

Some really bad advice for the GOP.

republicans-elephant-flag-shadow

Long time conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who previously said that the GOP should concentrate on attracting white voters instead of trying to attract minority voters, said in the wake of the passage of the Senate immigration bill that the party shouldn’t waste time with Latinos because they don’t understand American concepts of freedom:

Appearing on a California talk radio show last week, famed conservative activist and Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly disputed the notion that the Latino vote would be worthwhile for the Republican Party because, she believes, they do not comprehend limited government.

After the radio host posited that Hispanic voters actually have a lot in common with the GOP, specifically due to their generally social conservative views, Schlafly reiterated her belief that Latinos are actually not a worthwhile pursuit for the party.

“They don’t have any Republican inclinations at all,” she said, “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.”

She continued:

“They come from a country where they have no experience with limited government. And the types of rights we have in the Bill of Rights, they don’t understand that at all, you can’t even talk to them about what the Republican principle is.”

As a first point, I find it somewhat amazing that Schlafly is someone who is still apparently taken seriously in conservative circles. She dates back to the beginnings of the anti-abortion movement in the 1970s, and also played a prominent role in the successful campaigns against ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. In many ways, she represents not just the “old guard” of the conservative movement, but one that seems hopelessly out of date, as best typified by the views that she and her organization hold with regard to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Most recently, though, she’s somehow become a prominent voice in the campaign against immigration reform, and, outside several notable exceptions, her fellow conservatives take her seriously on the issue.

The substance of her comments are, of course, utter nonsense. For the most part, every ethnic group that has immigrated to this country has come from a nation with “no experience of limited government,” and many of those people had no real concept of what liberty in the American experience was all about. That was true of people from pretty much all of Europe, from Cuba, the refugees from the Vietnam War, and people who came to the United States from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Many of those groups have been Republican voters in substantial numbers, most notably Cuban-Americans. More importantly, though, her comments reveal an astounding amount of arrogance that is clearly a suicide pact for a politician. Schafly argues that only certain voters deserve Republican attention. In reality, any real politician knows that it is their job to convince voters that the politician in question deserves their vote. Any other strategy is suicide. Of course, Schlafly is speaking as a representative of the Stupid Party so her comments should not surprise anyone.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Tony W says:

    They come from a country where they have no experience with limited government

    I should go to ‘Latino-land’ on my next vacation and see what she’s talking about. Which country would that be? /sarcasm

    I appreciate the steady stream of silly, but it would great to have a loyal opposition one day that could present reasonable by alternative points of view.

  2. Caj says:

    I’m sure that comment will have Latinos signing up to become Republicans in droves!! Yes, they will be flocking to register now as they’ll feel so embraced by this BIG tent party! Tent! The Republican Party doesn’t even need a sleeping bag for all those they embrace! A very small pillow case would be suffice! Another nail in the coffin for the party of no sense!

  3. slimslowslider says:

    If we say her name three times, her son may show up and try to defend these comments!

  4. JWH says:

    She’s still relevant; her son seems determined to carry on her legacy.

  5. legion says:

    I totally want to see this woman in the next batch of GOP primary debates.

  6. JWH says:

    @slimslowslider:

    If we say her name three times, her son may show up and try to defend these comments!

    Phyllis Schlafly. Phyllis Schlafly. Phyllis Schlafly.

  7. Ken says:

    @slimslowslider: If we say her name three times, her son may show up and try to defend these comments!

    That would be nothing short of awesome. Andy Schlafly is the only person I can think of who is dumber than Louie Gohmert

  8. Latino_in_Boston says:

    It’s so nice to see how well their outreach is going.

    The real question is: how many on her side believe this?

  9. rudderpedals says:

    As dog is my witness, I thought she followed Paula Hawkins and shuffled off to that great vomitorium of infamy.

  10. OzarkHillbilly says:

    “They don’t have any Republican inclinations at all,” she said, “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.”

    I suddenly feel the need to shower.

    Also, I want to apologize to everyone for this placenta. She comes from my hometown and back in the 70’s we had the chance to abort her career in politics. Sadly, we blinked.

    Sorry.

  11. rachel says:

    @Ken: Are you sure? That’s a pretty low bar to limbo under.

  12. john personna says:

    The woman is 88 years old.

    It’s not very surprising that she’d be collapsing to her prejudices at that point. It happens.

    The only sad thing is that someone put her on the radio.

  13. steve says:

    Of course, Schlafly is speaking as a representative of the Stupid Party so her comments should not surprise anyone.

    Spot on. A guy yesterday said to me “So you admit you’re a Democrat.” My reply, “It’s not so much that I AM a Democrat, it’s that I’m not stupid and insane and hateful, so I have to vote against republicans, and that means for democrats.”

  14. steve says:

    The woman is 88 years old.
    It’s not very surprising that she’d be collapsing to her prejudices at that point. It happens.

    Her son is even dumber. Andy Schlafly, who runs Stupidapedia, says E=mc^2 is “liberal claptrap”.

  15. Senyordave says:

    “As a first point, I find it somewhat amazing that Schlafly is someone who is still apparently taken seriously in conservative circles.”

    People like Schlafly are a significant portion of the base of the Republican party. She’s an older version of Palin. And does anyone seriously doubt that a large amount of the Senate and House Republicans secretly agtree with her?

    Thje only difference is Schlafly doesn’t use dog whistles (see Gingrich, Newt).

  16. steve says:

    The only sad thing is that someone put her on the radio.

    No, that was awesome. She needs to be named Senior Republican Spokesperson on Latino Issues and put on a daily media rotation.

  17. So basically Schlafly is a female version of Pat Buchanan, not surprising. I wonder whats her reaction to all those minorities who serve in the military? She probably thinks that they’re all communist/terrorist infiltrators I guess. However it’s always funny to see conservatives squawk at the highest mountains that they’re the bastion of liberty. Anyone who takes the time to look at conservatism knows that they’re just as statist as liberalism is.

  18. Moosebreath says:

    “As a first point, I find it somewhat amazing that Schlafly is someone who is still apparently taken seriously in conservative circles.”

    Umm, why? Is it because she is out of touch with conservative thinking, or because Doug is? The evidence seems to be Doug.

  19. HarvardLaw92 says:

    LOL, the circular firing squad continues unabated …

  20. stonetools says:

    Re- branding, re-branding. Don’t you understand that the Republicans are RE-BRANDING?

    In other news, only 14 of 46 Senate Republicans signed on to the “bipartisan” Senate bill. Of course the MSM is celebrating that as a triumph of ‘reasonable bipartisanism” and they have talked a lot about Marco Rubio, but this is really Chuck Schumer’s bill (54 Democrats voted for it).
    Its really a Democratic bill, that enough Republicans went along with, in return for concessions on “border security” and lots of “border security’ related spending.
    Bottom line, the Republican base-exemplified by the Schlaflys -really don’t want immigration reform. That’s why a majority of Senate Republicans voted against it. That’s why there is no way a majority of House Republicans will vote for anything like the Senate bill. And that’s why Republican “rebranding” is pretty much a dead letter. The Republican base like the Republican Party message just the way it is. Independents and “moderate” Republicans, take note.

  21. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Cynical in New York:

    So basically Schlafly is a female version of Pat Buchanan

    She’s a Bircher in a Pat Nixon hairdoo. Sadly, that segment (until it dies out anyway …) comprises a decent sized chunk of the baggage we’re cursed with having to carry.

  22. Fog says:

    I think HarvardLaw92 has it about right. It ain’t a tea party when they’re serving birch beer.

  23. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @text loans:

    Can somebody delete this spam please?

  24. Franklin says:

    @steve: Oh, my god, comedy gold!

  25. JWH says:

    @steve:

    Her son is even dumber. Andy Schlafly, who runs Stupidapedia, says E=mc^2 is “liberal claptrap”.

    I thought it was the formula for putting bubbles in beer.

  26. Rob in CT says:

    So, she’s superdestroyer. Same argument, almost exactly.

  27. al-Ameda says:

    Wow, I thought Phyllis Schlafly was dead – now I know she is.

    She’s like a ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ talking blow-up companion doll – just pull the string and get the 19th century take on American culture.

  28. James in Silverdale, WA says:

    I’m sorry, Phyllis who?

  29. Barry says:

    @Latino_in_Boston: “The real question is: how many on her side believe this? ”

    I don’t know about the total, but in the Base, it’s probably 80-90%.

  30. legion says:

    @Ken:

    Andy Schlafly is the only person I can think of who is dumber than Louie Gohmert

    He’s up there, but I remain unconvinced. We need to have a “dumb-off” to keep ourselves entertained before the 2016 Primaries…

  31. john personna says:

    @steve:

    Wow. I’d say that e=mc^2 stuff is not actually “dumb” but it is certainly “insane.”

  32. gVOR08 says:

    They come from a country where they have no experience with limited government. And the types of rights we have in the Bill of Rights, they don’t understand that at all…

    Don’t most Latinos in the U. S. come from, umhh… the U. S.?

    Once again, where do Republicans find these people, and why?

  33. legion says:

    @gVOR08: Don’t be ridiculous – only pale-skinned Europeans come from the US!

  34. Paul Hooson says:

    The Republican brand has so many problems right now including a shrinking voter base and a message that only largely appeals to some Whites. The party has become factionalized with many extreme elements with largely unconstructive policies to rule the country. Further, the death rate among Whites exceeds their birth rate, and minority voters, who are overwhelming democratic only continue to rise in numbers and should become the majority of voters in future years. I’m beginning to question whether it’s possible for the Republican Party to win a national election in the future or whether that ship has passed.

  35. Barry says:

    @Paul Hooson: “I’m beginning to question whether it’s possible for the Republican Party to win a national election in the future or whether that ship has passed. ”

    They’ve gerrymandered the House, they control a *lot* of state governments (which means voter suppression, and state-level gerrymandering and judicial apointments). They have an excellent shot at the presidency in 2016, which would quite likely carry the Senate along (and the Dems have never fillibustered like the GOP, so that means something). That gives them the next two-three SCOTUS appointments, which means a GOP majority for many more years – and the Roberts Court I believe is one of the more judicially activist courts in many decades.

    All in all, their prospects up through 2020 look really good. And since they can and will redistrict as they please largely regardless of the 2020 Census results, I can see it taking the decade of the 2020’s to kick them out of power. At that point, they can play a looooooonnng, sloooow blocking game.

    And they’ll always have the backing of the elites.

    And the above scenario assumes that nothing major happens to change the game. 9/11 gave the Bush administration a boost from just an administration to a looting spree and destructive orgy.

  36. Kylopod says:

    “they’re running an illegitimacy rate that’s just about the same as the blacks are.”

    Ah, “the Blacks” again! The same ones Donald Trump has a great relationship with. What is it about this nice Jewish family next door that keeps putting them in the news?

  37. JohnMcC says:

    I guess this is a sort of confession. As a high school student in the very early 60s, I was a Goldwater acolyte. (It took getting involved in actual Republican campaigning in ’68 to discover the crawly things under the landscaping.) I remember proudly carrying two paperback books around with my schoolbooks. One was of course Conscience of a Conservative (which I now know was actually written by Brent Bozell jr, the lover of Franco’s Spain) and A Choice Not An Echo by — tah dah! — Phyllis Schlafly. I see it’s still in print. Or at least available from Amazon.

    Whenever I hear some stupid thing she’s said, it’s like hearing the first few chords of something from the Everly Brothers.

  38. superdestroyer says:

    Of course, in a very awkward and round about way, what she is really saying is that there is now way that the more conservative party is every going to be able to appeal to Latinos (or blacks). She is correct that a demographic group where more than 50% of the children are born to single mothers will never be interest in conservative government policy. She skipped over that a group that is eligible for government set asides, quotas, ans affirmative action is never going to be interested in conservative politics. She is correct that most Latinos are always going to vote for the Democrats and will support high taxes, high levels of government spending, and a continuation of ethnicity-based government programs for ever.

    The question that most Republicans seem to skip over is that there is no way that any form of conservative party is going to survive in the U.S. The long term question is whether the Democrats will remain as the one relevant political party in the U.S. or will a second party will develop to the left of the current Democratic Party once all of the former Republicans start voting in the Democratic Party primary. Looking at states like Maryland and California, the one party state is the more likely scenario.

  39. Sejanus says:

    @JWH: I’m currently active on that website as a parodist.

  40. Rob in CT says:

    @superdestroyer:

    See? Like I said. Same argument.

  41. superdestroyer says:

    @Rob in CT:

    What is odd is that no one disputes the data. The argument is that Republicans are not suppose to notice that Laitnos are very liberal and very loyal Democratic Party voters. The argument is also that the Republicans should become the Democratic-lite, me-too political to appeal to Latinos while throwing middle class whites under the bus.

    The real question is can the Republicans survive by throwing middle class whites like Abigail Fisher under the bus to appeal to illegal aliens and poor single mothers.