[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 37 (Thursday, March 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2619-S2624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ASIAN-AMERICANS AND THE POLITICAL FUNDRAISING INVESTIGATION
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as we prepare for hearings on campaign
fundraising irregularities, I would like to express concern about the
negative impact that this issue is having on the image of the Asian-
American community.
Mr. President, Asian-Americans are an important part of our body
politic. They have made significant contributions to politics,
business, industry, science, sports, education, and the arts. Men and
women like Senator Dan Inouye, Kristy Yamaguchi, Tommy Kono, I.M. Pei,
David Henry Hwang, An Wang, and Ellison Onizuka have enhanced and
invigorated the life of the Nation.
Indeed, Asian-Americans have played a fundamental part in making this
country what it is today. Asian immigrants helped build the great
transcontinental railroads of the 19th century. They labored on the
sugar plantations of Hawaii, on the vegetable and fruit farms of
California, and in the gold mines of the West. They were at the
forefront of the agricultural labor movement, especially in the
sugarcane and grape fields, and were instrumental in developing the
fishing and salmon canning industries of the Pacific Northwest. They
were importers, merchants, grocers, clerks, tailors, and gardeners.
They manned the assembly lines during America's Industrial Revolution.
They operated laundries, restaurants, and vegetable markets. They also
served our Nation in war: the famed all-nisei 100th/442d combat team of
World War II remains the most decorated unit in U.S. military history.
Despite their historical contributions, Asian immigrants and Asian-
Americans have suffered social prejudice and economic, political, and
institutional discrimination. They were excluded from churches, barber
shops, and restaurants. They were forced to sit in the balconies of
movie theaters and the back seats of buses. They were required to
attend segregated schools. They were even denied burial in white
cemeteries--in one instance, a decorated Asian-American soldier killed
in action was refused burial in his hometown cemetery. Rather than
receive equal treatment, Asians on the whole were paid lower wages than
their white counterparts, relegated to menial jobs, or forced to turn
to businesses and industries in which competition with whites was
minimized.
For more than 160 years, Asians were also refused citizenship by a
law that
[[Page S2620]]
denied their right to naturalize, a law that remained in effect until
1952. Without citizenship, Asians could not vote, and thus could not
seek remedies through the Tammany Halls or other political
organizations as did other immigrant groups. The legacy of this
injustice is seen today in the relative lack of political influence and
representation of Asian-Americans at every level and in every branch of
government.
Additionally, Asians were denied immigration rights. The Chinese
Exclusion Act of 1882 singled out Chinese on a racial basis, and the
Gentlemen's Agreement of 1908 and the National Origins Act of 1924
prohibited Japanese immigration--while permitting the annual entry of
thousands of immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Poland. The 1924 law
also allowed European immigrants to bring their wives from their
homelands, but barred the entry of women from China, Japan, Korea, and
India. Even Asians who were United States citizens were prohibited from
bringing Asian wives into the country. Conversely, the 1922 Cable Act
provided that any American woman who married an Asian would lose her
citizenship. It was not until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act
eliminated immigration by national origins that the vestiges of these
legal restrictions were lifted.
Asians were also targeted by laws prohibiting them from owning
property. The alien land laws passed by California and other Western
and Southern States earlier this century, fostered by nativists and
envious competitors, placed heavy obstacles in the path of struggling
Asian immigrants and their children that were not faced by others.
Perhaps most egregiously, Asians were denied civil rights guaranteed
under the Constitution. The relocation of Asian-Americans from the west
coast and Hawaii and their detention in internment camps between 1941
and 1946 is one of the worst civil rights violation in our history. One
hundred twenty thousand men, women, and children of Japanese descent,
two-thirds of them citizens, were incarcerated behind barbed wire
fences, without due process or evidence of wrongdoing, under the grim
view of machine gun towers. German-Americans or Italian-Americans did
not suffer a similar fate. In the process, Americans of Asian ancestry
were torn from their friends, their loved ones, their property, and
their faith in the American dream. It was only in 1988, through
legislation sponsored by Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and others
who serve in this body today, that the U.S. Government officially
apologized for this injustice.
The reasons for historical prejudice and discrimination against
Asians are complex, often involving economic or political motives. For
example, at one time European immigrant labor groups felt threatened by
cheap Asian labor and staged strikes and acts of violence against
Asians. Employers cultivated such ethnic antagonism as a stratagem to
depress wages for all workers, Asian and European. Nativists used
Asians as a foil for their racist philosophies. Politicians cynically
exploited anti-Asian sentiment to maintain power. And the press used
the ``Yellow Peril'', the specter of unlimited ``oriental''
immigration, to sell papers. But at heart, the reasons for anti-Asian
practices remain far simpler: Asians looked different, they
had accents, they worshipped different gods. They came from cultures
and spoke languages that were beyond the narrow experience of
traditional, white America.
Thus, Asians and Asian-Americans were targets. Unlike other
contemporaneous immigrants--Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews--Asians stood
out; they could not blend into the majority white population. Asians
were naturally suspect for their skin color and appearance: they looked
different so many Americans believed they must be different; that is to
say, somehow less than true-blooded American. In many instances, the
reaction of Asians was to turn inward, to establish their own
communities or ghettoes, like Chinatown or Japantown, or turn to small
businesses or farms where they did not have to compete for employment
against Caucasians--further isolating and insulating their communities
from the rest of American society.
In time, however, Asians became more integrated in American life. The
progeny of immigrants were born citizens, spoke only English, watched
television and went to the movies, danced to the latest music, and felt
they earned their place in society through workplace contributions and
military service. As they assimilated, Asian-Americans enjoyed success
in many areas of endeavor; in fact, they have been so successful that
Asian-Americans have been cited as the ``model minority.'' Today,
Asian-Americans tend to have high educational achievement, some are
prominent in business and the professions, and they have been cited by
social scientists for having community spirit, a sense of fiscal
responsibility, and a strong work ethic.
But the model minority image is mythical in many respects. On
average, Asian-Americans earn less than Caucasians. There is a
significant income disparity between Asians and whites with equal
education. Asian-Americans also tend to be located in secondary labor
markets, where wages are low and prospects minimal, and occupy lower or
technical positions, where income potential is not as great as in the
executive ranks. Proportionately fewer Asian-Americans are managers
than is the case with other population groups; they constitute less
than half of 1 percent of the officers and directors of the Nation's
thousand largest companies. In corporate America, Asian-Americans have
their own ``glass ceiling.''
In addition, many Americans mistakenly view the successful
assimilation of more established, affluent groups such as Chinese-
Americans and Japanese-Americans as the community norm. They do not
realize that the community is extremely diverse in terms of ethnicity
and recency of immigration. The more recent arrivals from Southeast
Asia--for example, Vietnamese, Thais, Cambodians, Laotians--have
significantly lower levels of income, education, and occupational
advancement.
Perhaps because of their success, perceived and otherwise, Asian-
Americans continue to suffer for their minority status. They are
periodically targets of hate crimes. The 1982 baseball bat killing of
Vincent Chin in Detroit, a scapegoat for the Detroit auto industry's
inability to compete with Japan, illustrated America's ignorance about
Asian-Americans--Chin was of Chinese, not Japanese, heritage--and the
inequality of justice for Asian-Americans--the killers paid a fine of
$3,780 and never served jail time. In 1987, teenagers chanting,
``Hindu, Hindu,'' beat a young Indian-American to death. These are not
isolated incidents. Last year, a report by the National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium found that hate crimes against Asian Pacific-
Americans grew from 335 incidents in 1993 to 458 incidents in 1995, a
37 percent increase in just two years.
These violent incidents have been paralleled and surely fed by a
growing national xenophobia. The fear of things foreign has manifested
itself in cutbacks in international programs; the growth of the English
only movement; and the passage of California's proposition 187 and
Federal legislation to curtail social services to undocumented aliens
and legal residents. Fear of Asians and other minorities is also seen
in proposals to rollback minority language provisions of the Voting
Rights Act and in broadbased attacks on affirmative action in
education, employment, and contracting.
I recall that only a few years ago, during the height of the debate
over the budget deficit, much was made of the fact that a significant
portion of our debt was held by Japan, but overlooked was the fact that
both the British and Dutch had far greater investments in United States
debt and property than the Japanese. Likewise, Japanese purchases of
signature properties like Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center received
sensationalized coverage, but few stories traced the decline and
eventual sale of these high-profile investments to other owners.
Today, with the hype and hoopla surrounding Asians and Asian-
Americans involved in the fundraising controversy, we see hints of the
kinds of anti-Asian treatment that have been practiced in the past.
The first and most obvious of these is the inappropriate and
misguided attention paid by the media, commentators, and public figures
to the ethnic heritage of those involved in the fundraising
[[Page S2621]]
controversy. For example, an early Washington Post front page headline
trumpeted an ``Asian Funds Network.'' However, upon a careful
examination of the article, the reader found the article was
principally concerned with Asian-Americans, not Asians. Clearly, in
some quarters, ``Asian'' and ``Asian-American'' are synonymous, unlike
the case with Europeans and European-Americans. In fact, the term
``European'' Americans is rarely heard in public discourse, because the
ethnic origin of European Americans is not presumed to have a bearing
on their patriotism.
Despite the fact that Asian-Americans have paid taxes, lived and
worked here for several generations, and died in military service, a
different standard applies: Asian-Americans are still deemed to have an
extraordinary, perhaps sinister, connection to their countries of
origin.
Mr. President, I think that I speak for the entire Asian-American
community in expressing the hope that we can get to the bottom of this
whole controversy, wherever the cards may fall. Those responsible for
violations of laws or improper conduct should be identified and
appropriately dealt with by the relevant authorities. However, I know
that Asian-Americans also agree that the gratuitous attention to the
heritage and citizenship of John Huang and other fundraisers is unjust
and destructive. According to the press and others, John Huang isn't
simply a DNC fundraiser or even an Asian-American fundraiser; rather,
he is referred to as a ``Taiwan-born naturalized citizen with ties to
an Indonesian conglomerate'' or, worse, ``an ethnic Chinese with
overseas connections.''
Last fall, during an appearance at the University of Pennsylvania,
Presidential candidate Ross Perot erroneously referred to John Huang as
an ``Indonesian businessman.'' Later, alluding to the fundraising
controversy, Mr. Perot rhetorically asked his audience, ``Wouldn't you
like to have someone out there named O'Reilly? Out there hard at work.
You know, so far we haven't found an American name.'' The implication
of these and other characterizations is that being Asian and
naturalized, rather than of European stock and native born, somehow
renders one less American.
Mr. President, this hyphenation or qualification of citizenship
status is one of the subtle ways in which Asian-Americans are cast as
different and therefore suspicious. To some, Asians and Asian-Americans
are the Fu Manchus of Hollywood legend--evil, cunning, and inscrutable
Easterners who march in lockstep to some hidden agenda. According to
this view, being of Filipino or Thai or Pakistani heritage is all the
same--if your skin is yellow or brown, you are alleged to share certain
invidious characteristics of your race; your individualism fades into a
kind of monolithic group identity.
Thus, all Asians and Asian-Americans are, by extension, responsible
for John Huang's or Charlie Trie's or Johnny Chung's alleged misdeeds.
Furthermore, goes this circular reasoning, since it is accepted that
Asians lack individualism, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Johnny Chung
must be part of an Asian conspiracy.
A columnist for the New York Times played on this stereotype when, in
a series of editorials last year, he wrote of the ``penetration of the
White House by Asian interests'' and characterized John Huang as ``the
well-subsidized Lippo operative placed high inside Clinton Commerce.''
The columnist also referred to an ``Asian connection'' which provided
contributions through ``front men with green cards.'' Even the
respected Wall Street Journal described some of John Huang's donations
as coming from ``people with tenuous connections to this country,''
although it is unclear whether it was referring to Asian residents or
Asian-Americans.
A more recent manifestation of this stereotype can be found on this
week's cover of the National Review, which depicts President Clinton
and Mrs. Clinton with slanted eyes, buckteeth, and wearing a coolie hat
and Mao cap, respectively, over the headline, ``The Manchurian
Candidates.'' This is a true low for reporting standards, more
reminiscent of William Randolph Hearst's Yellow Press than of modern
journalism. Some irresponsible publications, in the interests of
sensationalism, are obviously more than willing to conflate racist
stereotypes with modern standards of objective journalism. The
President, Mrs. Clinton, and the Asian-American community are owed an
apology for this gross affront to decency and taste.
Mr. President, a second major fallout of the fundraising affair is
the impression fostered by the media and commentators that legal Asian-
American participation in the political process is illegitimate.
Charges of undue influence on the part of the Asian-American community
have been raised with regard to immigration policy, specifically, the
``fourth preference'' category that allows siblings of citizens to
immigrate.
The press makes much of the fact that Asian-Americans who are
concerned about this matter also contributed money to the campaign.
Certainly Asian-Americans, the majority of whom are immigrants, wish to
be reunited with their families. However, it is improper to imply that
contributions to political campaigns by Asian-Americans should be held
to a higher standard or any more suspect than contributions by other
Americans. This is tantamount to suggesting that the practice of giving
to political campaigns should be limited only to non-Asians.
A third troublesome impact of the fundraising allegations is the
overhasty and excessive reaction to the issue of legal contributions by
permanent residents. In the wake of the ``Asian donor'' story,
proposals have been made to eliminate their eligibility to make
political contributions. Alarmed by the public fallout of the
controversy, the Clinton administration and the Democratic National
Committee have preemptively decided not to accept contributions from
permanent residents or U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. And a
number of Members of Congress have returned contributions made by
permanent residents who are Asian, not because the contributions were
illegal but because they feared the public's reaction to their
accepting ``Asian'' money.
Mr. President, I acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns
regarding the wisdom of allowing permanent residents to make
contributions to political campaigns, apart from the possibility that
proscribing such contributions may violate the free speech rights
accorded all residents, citizens and aliens alike, by the Constitution.
As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court has held that campaign
contributions are an activity protected by the first amendment, and
that the first amendment rights of legal residents are fully protected.
In this instance, however, I am more concerned by the possibility
that the only reason why campaign contributions by permanent residents
has become an issue now is because, for the first time, Asians and
Asian-Americans happen to be involved in a major way. Evidence of this
perhaps can be seen in the DNC's private audit of supposedly suspect
contributions.
Reportedly, DNC auditors asked Asian-American donors whether they
were citizens, how they earn their money, if they would provide their
tax returns, and other intrusive questions, while threatening to tell
the press if the donors did not cooperate. Some of the Asian-Americans
contacted were longtime political contributors with impeccable
reputations, who were naturally outraged. The DNC audit clearly smacked
of selective harassment of those who happened to have Asian surnames;
it underscores the Asian-American community's fear that they are being
asked to pay for the alleged transgressions of a handful of individuals
who happen to be of Asian heritage.
Mr. President, a fourth major concern of the fundraising affair is
that it has undermined Asian-American leadership opportunities in
Government. According to some analyses, the fundraising affair impelled
the Clinton administration to drop from consideration the names of
University of California-Berkeley Chancellor Chang-Lin Tien and former
U.S. Congressman Norm Mineta for the positions of Secretary of Energy
and Secretary of Transportation, respectively. Thus far, no Asian-
American has ever held Cabinet rank, and only a handful are represented
in the senior ranks of Government.
[[Page S2622]]
Furthermore, I would not be surprised to learn that every Asian-
American candidate for political appointment is currently being
scrutinized for contacts he or she may have had, no matter how
innocent, with the Asian and Asian-American principals in the
fundraising investigation. As a consequence, I greatly fear that
promising Asian-American candidates for responsible Federal office will
fall by the wayside, victims of guilt by association.
A fifth and perhaps most serious impact of the fundraising story,
however, is its long-term effect on Asian-American participation in the
political process. Last year, a record 75,000 Asian-Americans
registered to vote, a sign of the Asian-American community's newfound
confidence and political maturity. I am deeply concerned that biased
scrutiny of Asians and Asian-Americans by the press, politicians, and
investigators will kill this initial flowering of a historically
quiescent and apolitical community, a flowering that led to the
historic election of an Asian-American to governorship of a mainland
State.
Will this scandal confirm Asian-Americans' fears that the system is
rigged against them, discouraging them from participating in the
development of public policy in a meaningful way? If so, this would be
tragic for a community that is by far the fastest growing in the
Nation, which is expected to comprise 7 percent of the population by
2020, and which has so many skills and experiences to offer our
country. This tragedy would be compounded for those immigrants recently
escaped from the yoke of authoritarianism, who might find the
consequences of political activism reminiscent of the penalties
experienced in their countries of origin.
In conclusion, Mr. President, as we investigate the fundraising
affair, let us remember the bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination
faced by Asian immigrants and Asian-Americans as they struggled for
acceptance in the New World. Let us recall how they overcame steep
social, economic, and institutional barriers to become valuable,
contributing members of society.
With this in mind, Mr. President, let us keep our attention on
matters of substance--the laws that were possibly broken, the processes
and procedures that were bent, the individuals who circumvented or
corrupted the system, and most of all what we can do to prevent abuses
in the future. These are the real issues at hand.
By the same token, Mr. President, let us avoid focusing on such
irrelevancies as the ethnicity of the participants in this affair. Let
us cease characterizing individuals by meretricious stereotypes;
conversely, let us avoid judging an entire community by the actions of
a few individuals. To do otherwise, Mr. President, would be a grave
disservice to the seven million Americans of Asian ancestry who are
valued and rightful participants in our great democratic experiment.
Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of
articles by Robert Wright and Frank Wu addressing Asian-Americans and
the fundraising controversy be printed in the Record following my
remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Legal Times, Feb. 10, 1997]
The Asian-American Connection--the Campaign Contributions Fiasco and
Racial Stereotyping
(By Frank H. Wu)
As Congress prepares for hearings on the campaign fund-
raising fiasco arising from the work of Democratic Party
official John Huang, the racial aspects of the controversy
have become obvious to many Asian-Americans, if not to the
general public. But to combat the problem of racial
stereotyping in this matter, its presence first must be
acknowledged.
Consider the following evidence:
Before the November election, independent presidential
candidate Ross Perot commented about the controversy: ``You
know, so far we haven't found an American name.'' And:
``Wouldn't you like to have someone out there named O'Reilly?
Out there hard at work.'' Likewise, during the campaign.
Republican candidate Robert Dole and House Speaker Newt
Gingrich warned of foreigners buying the White House. After
Bill Clinton's re-election, auditors from the Democratic
National Committee began contacting Asian-American donors,
asking whether they are citizens, how they earn their money,
and if they will provide their tax returns, all the while
threatening to tell the press if the donors do not cooperate.
Meanwhile, New York Times columnist William Safire, who
seems to have written about nothing else since introducing
this scandal to the mainstream media, dubs the controversy
the ``Asian connection''--the title itself revealing a
perceived racial element to the matter. The Wall Street
Journal, in its initial series of articles, described Asian-
Americans as ``people with tenuous connections to this
country.'' Huang himself is almost always referred to as an
``ethnic Chinese'' with overseas connections, despite his
U.S. citizenship and low-key assimilationist approach.
Imagine how odious the same stories would be with a
different racial or religious group standing in for Asian-
Americans. If Jewish politicos were described as having a
``Jewish connection'' or portrayed as traitors who
represented Israeli interests, many more people might be
troubled by the anti-Semitic implications. When Pat Buchanan
and Gore Vidal began to verge on such claims in the 1980's,
none other than William F. Buckley was prompted to publish a
book of essays discussing the ``new'' anti-Semitism.
Furthermore, nobody has suggested that the ethical lapses
of Speaker Gingrich can be traced to his ancestry. Nor do
people believe that the disgrace of consultant Dick Morris
reflects on his entire racial group. Yet the leading
newspapers and television networks continue to focus almost
exclusively on Asian-Americans who are alleged to have given
money improperly, attributing their behavior to their racial
backgrounds, while giving only passing notice to campaign
contribution transgressions by whites, (In this past
election, after all, it was a Dole adviser who received the
heaviest fine ever assessed for a proven case of money-
laundering.)
Recently, journalists Robert Wright and Michael Kelly
argued over whether l'affaire Huang was an incident of
``yellow peril'' revisited. Writing in the online magazine
Slate, Wright suggested that racism had been used to
transform a minor scandal into a case of alleged major
wrongdoing. Kelly responded in The New Republic that this
view was merely a ploy by the Democrats to avoid answering
questions about misconduct.
Despite this focus, Asian-Americans are strangely missing
from the scene, the silent subjects of the debate. Asian-
Americans cannot afford simply to stand by and allow the
attacks on Huang to proceed, without at least asking people
to pause before assuming he represents all of us. By the very
nature of the allegations, however, Asian-American (as well
as Democratic) commentators are assumed to be self-interested
or covering up. Moreover, if we do speak out, we look like we
are defending not only the behavior of a monolithic community
but also the actions of foreign companies. We're in a classic
Catch-22 situation.
There have been a few exceptions to this silence. As the
scandal was developing last October, the nonpartisan
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Institute
(CAPACI) held coordinated press conferences in Washington,
Chicago, and Los Angeles to denounce the treatment of the
Huang matter. Yet the only coordinated Asian-American
response to the crisis was given minimal media coverage.
Similarly, the day before CAPACI held its event, the Rev.
Jesse Jackson called a press conference in New York. The
Rainbow Coalition leader was as supportive of Asian-American
political empowerment as he was critical of Indonesian
government labor policies. His statements attracted even less
attention than did CAPACI's.
Despite the intense media interest in Asian-American
involvement in campaign contributions, our positive electoral
accomplishments are ignored. Until the president praised him
in his State of the Union message last week, how many
Americans were aware that Gary Locke, the son of Chinese
immigrants, was the first person of Asian descent to win a
governorship on the continental United States when he was
elected to head the state of Washington last November? Nor
was it widely reported that in the last election, Asian-
American civil rights and community groups organized an
unprecedented nationwide naturalization drive to ensure that
eligible individuals became citizens and exercised their
rights. Or that a record number of Asian-Americans voted.
These stories and others received a fraction of the coverage
that the Huang spectacle has attracted.
The nature of the impropriety alleged against Huang also
belies a racial bias, or at least a lack of understanding of
what constitutes valid national vs. improper special
interests. Initially, the nexus between the contributions and
public policy decisions was said to be some vague influence
on American foreign policy by multinational companies or
Asian governments. Later, the alleged ``payoff'' for campaign
contributions was alleged to be related to immigration
matters--an issue that clearly is of particular interest to
the Asian-American community, but also one of national
concern.
Indeed, last year, immigration was the issue dividing the
country. The Clinton administration's strategy, like that of
moderates in Congress, was to distinguish between legal and
illegal immigration: Save the legal immigrants by sacrificing
the illegal immigrants.
As it happens, Asian-Americans--a majority of whom are
immigrants--generally supported family-based immigration.
Like other Americans, many Asian-Americans were especially
concerned with protecting the so-
[[Page S2623]]
called fourth preference, which allows citizens to sponsor
their brothers and sisters as immigrants.
Huang recognized the obvious. He organized a dinner
bringing together Asian-Americans and the Democratic Party at
a lucrative fund-raiser, a dinner at the Hay-Adams Hotel in
Washington at $25,000 per couple. President Clinton himself
attended the fete.
Huang wrote a briefing memo prior to the dinner stating
that immigration would be a key issue for Asian-American
voters. President Clinton denies that he ever read the memo.
In any event, his administration had already made the
strategically sensible decision to oppose abolition of the
fourth preference.
Critics have suggested that this series of events
demonstrates that the president ``flip-flopped'' on the
fourth preference, sacrificing the interests of the American
public in controlling the borders for an infusion of foreign
money to his campaign. Such a view, of course, ignores the
fact that the people who seek to bring over their relatives
are themselves citizens. And the view is based on an
erroneous understanding of what the administration's position
had been.
In fact, in the past, the Clinton administration had sought
only to suspend use of the fourth preference temporarily,
until the waiting list was cleared out. It never pushed for
outright elimination of the provision. Thus, a
misunderstanding of the distinction between interrupting use
of the fourth preference and abolishing it may have produced
the appearance of impropriety.
Indeed, the scandal is not that Asian-Americans were able
to voice our views on immigration, but that we had to look
like we were potential donors of large sums of money before
we would be heard. Assuming that Asian-American contributors
helped save the national tradition of immigration, there is
nothing shocking about people trying to bring together their
families or actively participating in politics in an effort
to do so.
Immigration connects our nation to the rest of the world.
Much as the rules of immigration affect citizens along with
their immigrant relatives, they also turn on domestic
politics blended with foreign affairs. If Asian-Americans and
others who care about allowing immigrants to come to this
country are motivated by some sort of racial self-interest,
then the same might be said of whites and others who wish to
close the borders.
There is a better way than to allow political disagreements
to degenerate into such suspicions. Otherwise, genuine issues
of campaign finance reform will be obscured by racial
accusations and counter-accusations.
____
Slanted--Racial Prejudice Is Part of What Fuels the Clinton Campaign
Scandal
(By Robert Wright)
The New York Times runs a lot of headlines about scandals,
but rarely does it run a headline that is a scandal. On
Saturday, Dec. 28, it came pretty close. The headline over
its lead Page One story read: ``Democrats Hoped To Raise $7
Million From Asians in U.S.'' On the inside page where the
story continued, the headline was: ``Democrats' Goal:
Millions From Asians.'' Both headlines were wrong. The story
was actually about a 1996 Democratic National Committee
document outlining a plan to raise (as the lead paragraph put
it) ``$7 million from Asian-Americans.''
Memo to the New York Times: ``Asian-Americans'' are
American citizens of Asian ancestry. ``Asians,'' in contrast,
are Asians--citizens of some Asian nation. And ``Asians in
U.S.'' are citizens of some Asian nation who are visiting or
residing in the United States. This is not nit-picking. It
gets at the heart of the subtle, probably subconscious racial
prejudice that has turned a legitimately medium-sized scandal
into a journalistic blockbuster.
Would a Times headline call Polish-Americans ``East
Europeans in U.S.''? (Or, in the jump headline, just ``East
Europeans''?) And the headline was only half the problem with
Saturday's story. The story itself was wrongheaded, implying
that there's something inherently scandalous about Asian-
Americans giving money to a political campaign. In fact, the
inaccurate headline was necessary to prevent the story from
seeming absurd. Can you imagine the Times running--over its
lead story--the headline ``Democrats Hoped To Raise Millions
From U.S. Jews''?
Political parties target ethnic groups for fund-raising all
the time (as Jacob Weisberg recently showed in these pages).
They target Hispanics, they target Jews, they pass the hat at
Polish-American dinners. To be sure, the Asian-American fund-
raising plan was, in retrospect, no ordinary plan. It went
quite awry. Some of the projected $7 million--at least $1.2
million, according to the Times--wound up coming in the form
of improper or illegal donations (which, of course, we
already knew about). Foreign citizens or companies funneled
money through domestic front men or front companies. And
sometimes foreigners thus got to rub elbows with President
Clinton. For all we know, they influenced policy.
But the truly scandalous stuff was old news by Dec. 27.
What that day's story added was news of the existence of this
document outlining a plan to raise money from Americans of
Asian descent. And that alone was considered worthy of the
high-scandal treatment.
Leave aside this particular story, and consider the
``campaign-gate'' scandal as a whole. What if the same thing
had happened with Europeans and Americans of European
descent? It would be just as improper and/or illegal. But
would we really be so worked up about it? Would William
Safire write a column about it every 15 minutes and use the
loaded word ``aliens'' to describe European noncitizens? If
Indonesian magnate James Riady looked like John Major, would
Newsweek have put a huge, ominous, grainy black-and-white
photo of him on its cover? (``Clinton's European connection''
wouldn't pack quite the same punch as ``Clinton's Asian
connection''--the phrase that Newsweek put on its cover and
Safire has used 16 times in 13 weeks.) Would the Times be
billing minor investigative twists as lead stories?
Indeed, would its reporters even write stories like that
Saturday's? The lead paragraph, which is supposed to
crystallize the story's news value, is this: ``A White House
official and a leading fund-raiser for the Democratic
National Committee helped devise a strategy to raise an
unprecedented $7 million from Asian-Americans partly by
offering rewards to the largest donors, including special
access to the White House, the committee's records show.''
You mean Democrats actually offered White House visits to
Americans who cough up big campaign dough? I'm shocked. Wait
until the Republicans discover this tactic! The Friday after
Christmas is a slow news day, but it's not that slow. And as
for the ``unprecedented'' scale of the fund-raising goal:
Virtually every dimension of Clinton's 1996 fund-raising was
on an unprecedented scale, as we've long known.
There are some interesting nuggets in the Times story. But
among them isn't the fact, repeated in the third paragraph,
that fund-raisers told Asian-American donors that ``political
contributions were the path to power.'' And among them isn't
the fact, repeated (again) in the fourth paragraph, that
``the quid pro quo promised'' to Asian-American donors was
``in many cases a face-to-face meeting with the President.''
And, anyway, none of these nuggets is interesting enough to
make this the day's main story. The only way to do that is to
first file Asian-Americans in the ``alien'' section of your
brain. That's why the story's headline is so telling.
The funny thing about this scandal is that its root cause
and its mitigating circumstance are one and the same. Its
root cause is economic globalization--the fact that more and
more foreign companies have an interest in U.S. policy. But
globalization is also the reason that the scandal's premise--
the illegality of contributions from ``foreign'' interests--
is increasingly meaningless. Both the Times and the
Washington Post (in its blockbuster-lite front-page story,
the next day) cited already-reported evidence that a $185,000
donation (since returned) may have originated ultimately with
the C.P. Group. The C.P. Group is ``a huge Thai conglomerate
with interests in China and elsewhere in Asia'' (the Times)
and is ``among the largest foreign investors in China'' (the
Post). But of course, Nike, Boeing, General Motors,
Microsoft, IBM, and so on are also huge companies with
interests in China and elsewhere in Asia. They, no less than
Asian companies, at times have an interest in low U.S.
tariffs, treating oppressive Asian dictators with kid gloves,
and so on. Yet it is perfectly legal for them to lubricate
such lobbying with big campaign donations.
Why no journalistic outrage about that? Well, for starters,
try looking at a grainy newsweekly-sized photo of Lou
Gerstner and see if it makes you remember Pearl Harbor. (By
the way, neither the Times nor the Post noted that the
ominous C.P. Group is involved in joint ventures with Ford
and Nynex.)
You might think that, in an age of globalization and with
the United States' fate increasingly tied to the fate of
other nations, the United States' best newspaper would be
careful not to run articles that needlessly feed xenophobia.
Guess again. Six weeks ago a Times op-ed piece by political
scientist Lucian Pye explored the formidable mindset that
governs China today. Current Chinese leaders have
``distinctive characteristics'' that give them ``significant
advantages'' over the United States in foreign policy. They
``see politics as exclusively combative contests, involving
haggling, maneuvering, bargaining and manipulating. The
winner is the master of the cleverest ploys and strategems
[sic].'' Moreover, Chinese leaders are ``quick to find fault
in others'' and try ``always to appear bold and fearless.''
Finally (``in a holdover from classical Chinese political
theory''), China's leaders ``insist on claiming the moral
high ground, because top leaders are supposed to be morally
superior men.'' In short, China's ``distinctive'' edge lies
in combative, Machiavellian, mud-slinging, blustery, self-
righteous politicians. Gosh, why didn't we think of that?
These peculiar traits, Pye noted, aggravate another
disturbing feature of modern China. It seems that the Chinese
people vacillate ``between craving foreign goods and giving
vent to anti-foreign passions.'' in other respects, too, they
evince a ``prickly xenophobic nationalism.'' Imagine that.
Links
Feel free to read the Times story that got me so exercised
(the Times Web site requires that you register before serving
you the page; registration is free). Or, instead, you can
subject yourself to my further exegesis
[[Page S2624]]
on appropriate ethnic terminology. You can also view the
grainy Newsweek cover featuring Asian-American James Riady--
the Oct. 28 issue, which is headlined ``Candidates for Sale:
Clinton's Asia Connection.'' From Slate's ``The Compost,''
read Jacob Weisberg's column about the history of fund-
raising fraud in the United States and Eric Liu's piece
damning the press for painting Asian-Americans a having dual
loyalties. PoliticsNow begins the new year with a feature,
titled ``1996 Yearbook; Scandals,'' that covers the fund-
raising issue. Visit the DNC Web site for a more positive
portrayal of the embattled organizations.
____________________