Samuel Huntington suggests in this book that American national identity is threatened by a tidal wave of Latino—primarily Mexican—immigrants who are refusing to assimilate to American “Anglo-Protestant” values, and who are facilitated in this resistance by the erosion of elite support for those very same values. That erosion is a consequence of the “cults of multiculturalism and diversity” (p. 144) that have collectively “denounced the idea of Americanization,” “downgraded the centrality of English,” and “advocated legal recognition of group rights and racial preferences” (p. 142), strong charges indeed.

Who Are We? makes four contentions, two with regard to the nature and role of Anglo-Protestant values and culture and two specifically focused on the values and behaviors of Latin American immigrants. With respect to Anglo-Protestant values, Huntington contends, first, that there exists an Anglo-Protestant national culture and value-set that has been largely stable for most of our national history, and second, that the universality of this culture—which he judges uniformly, normatively, good—is a necessary condition for the unique and successful elements of our national history.

The first two central points of Huntington's argument represent a serious misreading of American history, and a wholly unserious examination of the merits and demerits of our national character. First, it defies credulity to interpret the sweep of American history and the degree of social change here as little more than cosmetic variations on an enduring core. Likewise, there is considerable dispute in both the theory and comparative literatures over the necessity of a unitary national culture for the survival or success of democratic regimes. Similarly, critics have identified any number of less-than-attractive characteristics apparently endemic in the American identity. Huntington's claims merit serious testing.

They are, however, largely asserted rather than tested. The book never considers arguments and evidence to the contrary. Rather, Huntington's “method” is to appeal to an array of luminaries, including founders, theorists, and—naturally—Tocqueville, each attesting to his claim, that is, the connection between American ideals, especially Protestant Christianity, and national success. This, of course, does not establish the veracity of the claim but, rather, widespread belief in it. I could similarly cite dozens of historical figures, including popes and saints, testifying to the veracity of the Ptolemaic theory of the cosmos, but it would not make it so.

The latter two claims of Huntington's work are that Latin American, and particularly Mexican, immigrants do not share this culture nor subscribe to these values; and finally, that unlike previous waves of immigrants to our society, they do not acquire them over time, either. These two contentions, I would suggest, are similarly unexamined here and merely assertions on his part.

What is most troubling about the unsubstantiated nature of these latter claims is that each is perfectly testable with data available today. Suppose, for example, we identify individualism, a work ethic, religiosity, and belief in political equality as “core” American values. We could measure adherence to these values among both Huntington's Anglo-Protestants and newly arriving immigrants. Further, to assess the degree to which these are acquired during the assimilation process, we could compare the values of those newly arrived to those who have been here for 10 years, to second-generation offspring of migrants, and so on.

Nothing of the sort is done here. In fact, it is fair to say that at no point does the author attempt to sustain any of his claims with regard to what values immigrants do and do not possess, let alone demonstrate that the Anglo-Protestants themselves hold these values. Rather, the differences are either presumed or “established” by way of socioeconomic measures of assimilation. In the chapter on Latin American immigration, Huntington presents data and discussion on language usage, education, occupation and income, citizenship, and intermarriage, none of which directly measures adherence to any of the values we might generally regard as “American,” and each of which is highly problematic as an indirect indicator of the same.

Data are available. Since 1989, there have been two large and oft-used data sets that directly measure some of the elements Huntington is concerned with, namely, the National Latino Immigrant Survey and the Latino National Political Survey. Moreover, what exactly they say about Latino values and value acquisition is in the scholarly literature but, curiously, unaddressed here (e.g., see Harry P. Pachon and Louis DeSipio, New Americans By Choice: Political Perspectives of Latino Immigrants, 1994; and Rodolfo O. de la Garza, Angelo Falcon, and F. Chris Garcia, “Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up: Anglo and Mexican-American Support of Core American Political Values,” American Journal of Political Science Vol. 40, No. 2 [May 1996]: 335–51). I will return later to the question of this apparent disregard for previous scholarly work and contrary findings. The point, however, is to suggest that the last two of the four critical contentions of the book are untested and unsubstantiated.

Can we, then, really engage this as a scholarly work? The answer, I would suggest, is an unequivocal “no.” Huntington's book is not political science in any manner that most political scientists would recognize. What there is here is an extensive, albeit highly selective, literature review. Now, literature reviews can be useful so far as they go, but their usefulness is generally tied to their comprehensiveness. It would be fair to say that the literature surveyed here is anything but comprehensive.

This is also not a critique rooted in methodological bias. Huntington has not gathered a single piece of new data, quantitative or qualitative, in the entire book, nor are there any new analyses of existing data. He has not spoken to any Mexican, immigrant, or multiculturalist to inform his thinking. There are no structured interviews, ethnographies, or new survey data regarding Latino values that he sets out to describe. There is no hypothesis testing to speak of, and no theory building. The entire project is the juxtaposition of assertions, old histories, arguments, and partial findings drawn from disparate sources.

With respect to his description of assimilation and Latino immigration, this effort, at best, could be considered a meta-analysis of existing work. The success and validity of meta-analyses, of course, rely principally on the exhaustive nature of the primary data analyses reexamined. That is, to glean new knowledge from comparing and contrasting the variety of extant findings, we need to consider all that has been “found.” The range of research reconsidered by Huntington, though, is actually quite narrow. For example, he does not employ any of the numerous quantitative data sets in existence, collected by the Pew Hispanic Center, the Washington Post, and the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute, to name just a few. Many of these surveys, and the analyses and resulting published work, speak directly to questions of assimilation, acculturation, language usage, national and ethnic identity, political preferences, and political behavior. These are data that surely would facilitate Huntington's evaluation of his central contentions.

The range of published analysis considered is similarly narrow. Take, for instance, the central claims of the book with regard to assimilation, immigration, and the attitudes, beliefs and values of Latinos generally and Mexican Americans specifically. The literature on both assimilation and Latino political behavior has expanded dramatically in the last 20 years, as has the scope of inquiry. Works on Latino political behavior, attitudes, and immigration have appeared in all of the general interest journals of political science, including the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, and Social Science Quarterly, as well as a variety of more subfield-specific journals, including Legislative Studies Quarterly, Public Opinion Quarterly, and Political Behavior. A rough count of these articles suggest that as many as 30 refereed, political science journal articles directly related to these questions have been published since 1985, to say nothing of the comprehensive symposium on Latino politics published in PS in 2000.

It is telling, then, that in the central chapters whose themes include assimilation and Latino immigration, not a single one of these journal articles is cited (at least that I could find, given the absence of a bibliography in the book). Similarly, I can find reference to only a handful of university press books on this subject matter and an occasional book chapter. This, of course, is not to denigrate the value of the work that was cited but is more to point out a rather substantial gap in Huntington's survey of what is “known” about the subject matter which, in the last analysis, is the only “method” of his work.

The issue here is far greater than simply bruised academic egos. Rather, the omitted works have much to say regarding language acquisition, Latino values and whether they reflect American values, and the patterns of migration and settlement. For just one example to which I alluded earlier, in de la Garza, Falcon, and Garcia (1996, p. 335), the authors find that “[a]t all levels of acculturation, Mexican-Americans are no less likely, and often more likely to endorse values of individualism and patriotism than are Anglos.” Now this finding indisputably speaks to Huntington's central thesis, is contradictory to its claims, and is published in a widely read and highly respected journal. It is not necessary, of course, that he accept the piece and its findings as accurate, but it is necessary that he engage the piece and its claims, highlighting his objections to its argument and methods, if he wants the contradictory conclusions of his effort to be deemed as having scholarly merit.

All of which is to say that, properly understood, Who Are We? is a polemic and not a work of scholarship. In large measure, Huntington stipulates this in the foreword, where he writes: “The motives of patriotism and of scholarship, however, may conflict. Recognizing this problem, I attempt to engage in as detached and thorough analysis of the evidence as I can, while warning the reader that my selection and presentation of that evidence may well be influenced by my patriotic desire to find meaning and virtue in America's past and in its possible future” (p. xvii). A patriot, Huntington appears to be saying, should be forgiven for the selective examination of data and preordained conclusions—in this instance, American virtue. A scholar, I would suggest, is not entitled to such forgiveness.

One should not underestimate the currency that highly visible books, such as this one, attain in political circles. The example of Huntington's last book, The Clash of Civilizations, and its frequent citation during the current international conflicts in which the United States today finds itself embroiled are, fittingly, the best example. When polemic is presented as scholarship, it bestows legitimacy on the claims—supported or unsupported by the evidence marshaled—that would not have been afforded works more clearly journalistic or ideological on their face. The claims of this tome, unchallenged in a scholarly manner, will be presumed by ideologues and decision makers alike as the product of social science inquiry. They are not.