Challenging Huntington
by Noam Lupu

Political scientists are not, by nature, given to celebrity. But Harvard's Samuel Huntington may be an exception. Best known for his "clash of civilizations" thesis, Huntington has made himself a near-household name by promoting the idea that the new world order is actually riven by deep cultural conflict. His latest installment is "The Hispanic Challenge," which appears in the current issue of Foreign Policy. In it, he argues that the growing population of Hispanic immigrants in the United States threatens the "cultural and political integrity" of the country. Inasmuch as it posits "Hispanics" as a cancer slowly eroding the cherished "Anglo-Protestant" values of American culture, it's the kind of disconcerting thesis to be expected of the author. What's unexpected is just how wrong it turns out to be.

Huntington is perhaps best known today for his 1996 book, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." In it, Huntington noted the growing influence of the major world cultures, dividing them into Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu and African. Huntington predicted that world conflicts of the future would not be between empires or states. Instead, he saw the future divisions along lines of "civilizations" based on religious faith and dogma: for example, between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. Although Huntington's theory seemed vindicated after the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (and returned to the New York Times bestseller list), it has been criticized as a racialist, color-by-number division of the world.

The latest incarnation of this vision is Huntington's new reading of American demographics, though here he supplants religion and dogma with ethnicity. Huntington's argument is based on three principal points: first, that Hispanic immigration is unlike any other immigration in American history; second, that Hispanics refuse to integrate into the "Anglo-Protestant" mainstream; and third, that Hispanics do not share, or wish to share, the American values that form the basis of American culture and prosperity.

Huntington is correct that both the sheer number of Hispanic immigrants and their rate of non-legal entry are higher than any previous single immigrant group. Still, he is wrong on two points. First, he claims that Hispanic immigration is unprecedented because of the closeness of Mexico to the United States (and here he is apparently referring only to Mexicans, a consistent error in the article, which in turn undermines his argument overall). "They come across a 2,000-mile border," he writes, "historically marked simply by a line in the ground and a shallow river." It may be that the US-Mexico border was once so simply marked, but Huntington might himself try smuggling himself across one of the most heavily guarded borders in the world before he asserts how easy Mexicans have it.

Second, Huntington argues that Hispanics congregate in particular regions: "Mexicans in Southern California, Cubans in Miami, Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York" (the last of whom are not technically immigrants, but hey). Four sentences later, however, he himself notes that the fastest growing Hispanic populations are instead to be found in North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Nevada and Alabama; by his own evidence, they do seem to be dispersing around the country. Even so, every immigrant group that has come to the United States has congregated in particular regions or neighborhoods. As the Washington Post's Peter Carlsen asked sarcastically, "Why can't they expand their horizons and move into Chinatown or Little Italy?"

Huntington's argument on Hispanic immigrants' persistent use of the Spanish language is also flawed. He first suggests that first- and second-generation Hispanic immigrants seem to follow the pattern common to past immigrants: While the first generation speaks little English, the second tends to be bilingual. He is concerned, however, that even second-generation Hispanics refuse to reject Spanish altogether. Whereas past third-generation immigrants spoke little or none of their language of origin, third-generation Hispanics are likely to also be bilingual (nor does he explain which third-generation bilingual immigrants are a problem). But as The New Republic's Daniel Drezner noted, "60 percent of third-generation Mexican-American children speak only English at home."

The rest of Huntington's assertions are unpersuasive. Citing surveys, Huntington argues that Hispanic immigrants do not primarily identify themselves as "American." He also asserts that they reject the "Anglo-Protestant" values of education and hard work; indeed, he goes so far as to suggest that Hispanics reject the American Dream and lack initiative and ambition. But this is simply wrong. Hispanics — contrary to Huntington's characterization of them as lazy and disinterested — have worked hard and contributed to the American economy. According to a 2001 study by the US Small Business Administration, the number of Hispanic-owned companies in the United States has grown faster than the number of those owned by African-Americans or Asians. Of American minority-owned businesses, more belong to Hispanics than to African-Americans and Native Americans combined (despite being only slightly larger that African-Americans in population size). In 1997, Hispanic-owned firms provided nearly 1.4 million American jobs and $29.8 billion in payroll.

What's more, such assertions take for granted a level playing field. Huntington no doubt believes in his "Anglo-Protestant" dream of equal opportunity, but many Hispanics and African-Americans would tell him otherwise. A study by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fact showed that in 1999, 2 million minorities and women faced intentional discrimination in being offered employment.

Not only are Huntington's arguments flawed and unconvincing, but he is also sloppy in making them. He writes often of "Hispanics," but occasionally refers more broadly to "Latin Americans," even though his evidence largely applies to Mexicans alone.

There is truth to the argument that Hispanic immigration is unprecedented among immigrations, and that they may not be integrating as quickly, but not for the reasons Huntington observes. Unlike previous immigrant groups — Italians, Poles, Russians, Eastern European Jews, Brits, Germans or Swedes — Hispanic immigrants are not white. Although their children may learn to speak English without an accent, nothing short of eugenics will change their skin color. And that has always been an obstacle to prosperity and assimilation in the America of "Anglo-Protestant" xenophobia and racism. Just ask African Americans — they've been here longer.