-By Warner Todd Huston
I had an opportunity to interview former Congressman J.D. Hayworth as I attended the Conservative Leadership Conference on October 13th, 2007.
Congressman Hayworth had been involved in a bit of a row in the pages of the Wall Street Journal with a Mr. Richard Nadler over the question of just why Hayworth lost his House seat during the 2006 midterm elections.
I asked both Nadler and Hayworth similar questions, and it is interesting to hear their take on the issues. They seem closer together than either must realize.
The audio of the Hayworth interview can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE
The audio of the Nadler interview can be downloaded by CLICKING HERE
The transcript of the Nadler interview can be seen HERE.
To download a PDF document of the Wall Street Journal articles by both Nadler and Hayworth provided by Mr. Nadler, CLICK HERE
And, here is the transcript of my interview with J.D. Hayworth:
———
CLC Interview with Warner Todd Huston interviewing J. D. Hayworth recorded by Avalon Podcasting at the Conservative Leadership Conference on October 13th, 2007.
WTH: Today we have visiting with us here at the Conservative Leadership Conference, J.D. Hayworth most recently an Arizona Congressman and current talk show host. Mr. Hayworth, I’d like to thank you for the many years of outspoken support for conservative values, your voice has always been reliable for Reagan Conservatism and I’d like to thank you for your years in service.
JD: Well, Warner Todd thank you, it was a tremendous opportunity and being part of this podcast is icing on the cake.
WTH: I’d like to start, if you would… wanted to have anything that you wanted to say to start with, this mic is open for you.
JD: Well, I was ah, in the speech that we just completed here at the Conservative Leadership Conference I was saying if you think that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, think again. For a guy out of office, supposedly bereft of ideas to be featured in the Wall Street Journal not once, not twice, but thrice in the last two weeks shows that our message of national security and border security, ah, the American people get it and sadly the malefactors of great wealth — or as we might say with the Fred Travalena game show of the 1980’s, the anything for money crowd — is desperately trying to change people’s minds. But the American people are having none of it.
WTH: Thank you. My first question to you is Congress has failed to do much with that border fence. The law has been passed and they’ve built a tiny little bit of it. What remedy would you have for this situation?
JD: It’s very sad to say and you predicated it on Congress but the fact is the Executive Branch, as we know the reason we call the administration the administration is because it administers the laws and there is a clear disconnection. Despite some cosmetic efforts to get things done the progress, or more accurately the lack thereof, is wholly unsatisfactory. And it betrays… how can I say this… if not a lack of seriousness of purpose, it betrays… the sad fact that border security just is not a priority with this president and it hurts me to say that because I worked very closely with this president as a member of the ways and means committee cutting taxes, doing some things that I think were good, but on this question he is absolutely unwilling to respond to clear and present dangers. And it is disappointing and lamentable.
WTH: Well, obviously you are definitely a border security fellow, we know that from all the work you’ve done but there are those out there that say — and as you mention the Wall Street Journal they are one of them apparently — there are those that say that uh, that predicating a policy on border security, and immigration, and, you know, security first, is a mistake, that we’re going to lose that Hispanic vote. What would you say to that?
JD: That, I think it is better to do things for the right reasons and not succumb to imagined electoral fears that will not materialize. As I pointed out in my response to the piece written by Mr. Nadler a couple of weeks ago which he mistitled “Immigration Losers,” the fact is that in using his own study in the Hispanic influenced precincts, get tough propositions on our ballot, denying bail to illegals, making English our official language, and depriving illegals of benefits, all passed by landslide margins. Now there reaches a point in time, are you going to believe what actually happens in elections or are you going to allow paid professional “scholars” — let me put that in quotes — are we going to allow them to cherry pick data and suggest that, that you can’t believe your, quote, “lyin’ eyes”? Look, your eyes are not lying to you, they’re telling you the truth, the American people get this instinctively. And this, I hope I’m wrong Warner Todd, but our failure to deal conclusively with this leaves us all susceptible.
You know, just last week the ah, amidst great fanfare, the White House announced al Qaeda is redoubling its efforts to slip into the United States. Well, how do you think they’re coming? We have unguarded borders. You don’t have to be a paid political scholar, cherry picking data to understand the clear and present danger and that is what so disappoints and concerns the American people.
WTH: Well, you know that topic is definitely one of the… you know, a lot of these guys, these open border guys want to predicate their whole idea on a sort of moral issue. That it’s immoral to say that after you’ve been here for so long you cannot be sent back. We’re the ones at fault for letting you… well, you know, if you go to the store with your quarter and you lose your quarter in the dirt is it the dirt’s fault for stealing your quarter or is it yours for losing it? You know, I mean, that’s basically how they’re saying it. They kind of use the word like the stare decisis that was a popular term not long ago. They’re here, what are we going to do about it?
JD: Yeah. Well, of course and this again is a deliberate effort by Nadler and the, and the open borders crowd at the Wall Street Journal to mischaracterize what I’ve pointed out. He cherry picks one quote out of “What Ever it Takes” where I said, here’s my remedy: Two illegals, one is a buss boy the other is a hijacker. And I wrote the buss boy should be deported and the hijacker should be shot. And, I do feel that way. Now, I don’t call for mass deportation and guess what happens once you start enforcing the law? People start obeying the law.
And, maybe my friends at the Wall Street Journal aught to take a look at what is one of, in retrospect, one of our crowning successes: welfare reform. We passed that not once, not twice, and if you hear my friend Dick Morris tell the story, he’s in there with Clinton and Clinton’s going “What, what, I can’t sign, what should I do?” and Dick Morris says, “Hey. Three strikes and you’re out you better sign it.” And he did and guess what happened? When we put work requirements and a time limit on welfare, people left welfare and went to work. Now, if people are willing to follow the law there I think you are going to see people leave the country, uh, by attrition when they realize we’re going to enforce the law. It does not mean mass deportation but as I pointed out post 9/11 the forerunner of ICE actually got off its bureaucratic duff in the wake of 9/11 and started checking on people who had overstayed their visas. Do you know what happened in a relatively brief period of time? Thousands of Pakistanis who were in the United States illegally because they had overstayed their visas, if memory serves between thirteen and fifteen thousand left the country and this is not a matter of crossing a border on the same continent. They had to get on board trans-oceanic airliners to leave. Now, if it works there, imagine what happens nationwide when you actually show you’re willing to enforce the laws.
But we know the real agenda of this. All our friends who claim to be really… really want to be tough on national security they just want the cheap labor. As I said in the motion picture “Border Wars,” a lot of my friends on the right see illegals as cheap labor and those on the left see illegals as cheap votes. And what you have is the perfect political storm. Not led by the majority of the American people, but by elites on the right and left looking for specific benefits — some in terms of their balance sheets, some in terms of ballots.
WTH: Well, your point on observing the laws brings to mind an L.A. Times article I had read probably four or five months ago that said, uh, some of the crackdowns on the employers that we have recently had has halted some of the illegal immigration. So, I mean, if we don’t, if we do, if we do follow the laws now they won’t come here in the first place because they know that it will be difficult for them to get here and then make a living here.
JD: That’s exactly the case. Enforce the law. And for all those who say, “Oh, it won’t work,” how do ya know? We’ve never even tried it. What we do know is the so-called comprehensive approach, with the last great mass amnesty in 1986, president Reagan may have intended for that to be a solution but it created many more problems. And every time we talk about this and the president talks about a comprehensive solution that translates south of the border as “Y’all come.” And come they do.
WTH: OK, well, all that being said, uh, it’s certainly an important issue but of course you recognize that immigration is important and always has been important to this country. What roll do you think it should play now, today?
JD: Well, as I write in the book, immigration is a part of America’s fabric. But immigration should be lawful and we should approach immigration from an enlightened point of view. Instead of huddled masses we need talented people who can contribute to the American dream like the lady who came up during question time from the Philippines who did it lawfully. There are people who can contribute to our society. Let’s not forget that Einstein and many of the nuclear physicists, those who helped us reach the nuclear breakthrough in World War Two, had fled Nazi Germany and had been welcomed here. We need to take advantage of brainpower and those who can help build America rather than look at this as, oh, OK we’re just gonna take anybody because we can have cheap labor. Because, again, you set up the psychology of entitlements that frays the social fabric and that bankrupts society if it’s just anybody, everybody and no rules. We can have a sound immigration policy updated for the 21st century that recognizes we don’t need bureaucratic red tape and needless delay but we do have to have sound security measures to make sure we understand who’s coming into the country and that we bring those people who are talented and, yes, unapologetically those who can contribute to our way of life in the United States.
WTH: And many people say that all this untrammeled immigration is bringing in a permanent underclass that will never be able to improve themselves and I think that the H1B visa program which we would be trying to expand to get these talented people in should be something we should investigate more.
JD: Yeah, in fact that’s where I part company with some of my friends in the border security movement, those who say “Oh, no the H1B’s, you have to get rid of those.” No, as I write in “What Ever it Takes,” I think you have to maintain that program because there are people who can contribute to our society. And so um, and so um, that, that’s my standpoint as well.
WTH: OK, well, I’m a big believer in, obviously this is a long-term solution and I mentioned this to Mr. Nadler, and he seemed to just begrudgingly accept it, but I’m a big believer in teaching American exceptionalism in our schools and I think that’s one of the biggest problems we’re having now for our future is that our children really have no clue what it is that America is or why we’re great. And if we don’t teach these children of the immigrants that same principle they’ll grow up to vote against us because they’ll have no reason not to.
JD: Well, absolutely, and, you know, as you point out Warner Todd, this problem touches every aspect of American life. Not only the whole entitlements question but in terms of education, in terms of our culture a failure to teach American exceptionalism to go along with this muddle of multiculturalism and equal validity to all forms of government is a recipe for national disaster and political suicide. And it is the irony of our times that the most inaccurate term is utilized “politically correct,” what is politically correct? We cannot stand by and let the future of our Republic be sacrificed on the funeral pyre of the allegedly politically correct.
WTH: Well, let’s switch directions here a little bit, uh, I’m curious about your feelings on campaign finance reform. Do you think money is a problem in politics today?
JD: Well, it, it… do you now why it’s a problem? It’s because we just haven’t made the rules simple. Mr. Justice Brandeis said sunlight’s the best disinfectant. Now, as we’re doing this podcast, people utilize the Internet, what we should have is instantaneous reporting of who is giving what to whom. And Steve Forbes and others take it even further they say there should really be no limits, uh, that as long as it’s reported who is giving what to whom, there you have the information. And he talks about, if you’ll recall on the left there would be no, there would have been no Gene McCarthy campaign had it not been for Stewart Mott and some of those on the left. Now, the Stewat Mott’s of the world and now more ominously, the George Sorros’ of the world, are happy to put together on the left these kind of vertical and virtual monopolies ad they hide their money. And the tragedy of the McCain approach both to the border and to campaign finance is that it is predicated upon what I believe to be unconstitutional notions. And that is what we have seen here, we violate the First Amendment and, believe me, money will always get into politics and the left especially will find ways to bring it in. What we should do is keep it simple and keep it honest by keeping it open.
WTH: Very good information there. Uh, a lot of people are thinking that the GOP’s going to be taken to the woodshed one more time here in 2008. If we are, if we’re cast out into the wilderness for a period of time do you think this will be the perfect opportunity to realign the GOP back on its original, you now, American first principles?
JD: Oh, I think, I think it will be. I hope, and please don’t misunderstand I do not want to see electoral failure in 2008. I think many of the candidates running are heeding our words. And I think you have seen, even with Mr. McCain. Uh, it’s amazing that he is now the cosponsor of the Border Enforcement Act of 2007, which sounds hauntingly familiar like my Enforcement First Bill of 2006. So, a lot of these candidates are getting the message. It remains to be seen if this is simply atmospherics for the campaign or a profound understanding and realization of what needs to be done. But, I am still confident that the Republican Party can make gains in the Congress of the United States and in the Senate, can probably win back the House, the Senate may be more problematic with six retirements on the Republican side. But I still, I still hold out hope that we can take back the House and we can win the White House again in 2008. But always, regardless of electoral fortunes, our parties are always rebuilding, rejuvenating and yes there have been those times in history where we, where we had situations… well, I just think back to when I was a High School Senior in 1976. Gerry Ford was a good man. He wielded a veto pen. But the broader question of our times, and something I failed to mention to the audience here, but something I think I’m happy to share with your audience via the Internet and podcasting, uh, Ronald Reagan did not embrace the accomodationist Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy that called for détente. He offered a clear, concise alternative. “Here’s my strategy for the Cold War: We win. They lose.”
WTH: Right.
JD: …And in the fullness of time, with all due respect to those who brought elements of truth to public policy and elements of practicality to public policy, in the final analysis, we are best as conservatives, we are best as Republicans when we offer clear, articulate, Constitutional alternatives to what the left and their henchmen in the Media serve up and echo.
WTH: Well, one quick question speaking of presidents, are you supporting anyone in particular right now?
JD: I have, and again I’m not trying to do the whole they’re-all-my-friends, but I do have a lot of friends in this race and it is something to have served in the House with Duncan Hunter and with Tom Tancredo and with Ron Paul. Uh, I will tell you, and I know those three the best, but I will just tell you I don’t — and, and it’s no slam against Ron or Tom — but the candidate in the Republican field who comes closest to talking the talk and walking the walk is Duncan Hunter.
WTH: I like Duncan, as well. Met him today, had a nice little chat.
JD: He’s a wonderful man, totally unpretentious, brilliant, would never tell you the battles in which he was involved in Vietnam, would not tell you either that he hung out his shingle as a lawyer for legal services down in the Bario, down by the shipyards in San Diego. He is truly, truly a conservative, compassionate, uh, common sense guy who understands what’s at stake with our national security these days.
WTH: Well, we got one last question for ya. Everybody’s presuming that it’s going to be Senator Clinton as the Democratic National candidate for the Democrat Party. Now, I’m just kind of curious what you think about her including Sandy Burglar … er, I’m sorry, Sandy Berger as part of her campaign. What kind of arrogance does that bespeak of her?
JD: Well, it not only suggests an arrogance it really suggests what we all know to be true and that is the fact that the dominant media culture will not question her, will not give her a tough time, they’re cheering for her and if you take a look at what’s going on in terms of what could happen — my friend Dick Morris with whom I work on many, programs for Citizen’s United where I serve as the Ronald Reagan fellow — Dick Morris points out that there are eighteen million women in the Oprah universe who may not be voters and they would go out and vote specifically based on gender and at the recommendation of Oprah. Now, we understand that Oprah’s with Barack Obama right now but that could change in the near future.
However, the American body politic is given to its own surprises. And the big variable is, do you care enough to participate? Do you care enough to have a conservative in the White House? Do you care enough to have a conservative majority in Congress? That question will have to be answered by those who listen to this podcast.
WTH: Well, J.D. I’d like to thank you for attending the CLC, you had a great speech there and thanks for giving us a little bit of your time here today.
JD: Warner Todd happy to do it. Thank you very much sir.
____________
Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, townhall.com, men’snewsdaily.com and americandaily.com among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a guest on several radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Comments are closed.