« Sad Observation of the Day | Main | Yglesias Smash »
August 04, 2007
The Future!
I'm at a panel on immigration and American politics that is really quite convincing on how screwed the Republicans are. In a couple of decades, Hispanic immigrants will make up almost a quarter of the country. Even now, 70 of the 100 largest cities are in the South and the West, and are that large because of Hispanic immigration.
That would all be rough enough for the Right, but to hear the recent narrative on immigration as explained by those experiencing it was a little shocking: You had the Sensenbrenner Bill, and the attempt in 2006 to make immigrants the new gays/terrorists/communists. You have John Boehner refusing to take up any reform bills, and you have Republicans objecting to everything from S-CHIP to education reform because it will do too much for undocumented children. You have Lou Dobbs and the recent immigration battle, which is almost less important for the bill that failed than for the astonishing amount of hate, vitriol, and mobilization exploding out of talk radio. And much of this came after the 2006 election, when Hispanic turnout leapt up and broke almost 70:30 for Democrats. That's a bad trend line for the Right, and it's one, if you watch the Bush administration, that Karl Rove has done everything he could to prevent. But even the Architect couldn't stand against the base.
August 4, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
That actually makes a lot of sense. IF you were a party in decline, and knew that your only hope was to stamp out immigration, what would you do? They simply can't make the appeals that would matter to Hispanics (abortion, Church V State issues) without pissing off their racist base.
Still, this is a large influx of people who do not generally favor progressive policies. I worry that we may achieve victory, but essentially become an anti-gay, anti-secular, anti-woman party. On the other hand, they are likely to be far more open to the class issues I generally favor, so I could care less.
I'm still glad that the Immigration act, which was essentially the Cheap Labor Importation Act of 2007, failed. These same demographic changes put the lie to the argument made by so many that we would never get a more favorable circumstance for a real immigration bill that, you know, actually helps people immigrate to this country.
Posted by: soullite | Aug 4, 2007 11:34:48 AM
What's all the fuss? There are only 100 million Mexicans left in Mexico -- and polls show fewer than half want to move here (Pew poll said 46%). If one-third actually make it that will only add 11% to our population -- and they are mostly all honest, hard-working people.
The thing to push -- now -- is a land for people deal -- while we still have some bargaining leverage -- and not land in the sand; land along the coasts. If they persist in sending people here without our asking, we are capable of taking the land without their asking: there is a precedent. :-)
Posted by: Denis Drew | Aug 4, 2007 11:49:29 AM
I've tried to understand what appears to be serious self-defeating GOP behavior on immigration.
I can only think of three reasons that make sense as explanations:
1. They are only worried about the next election and believe the demographic changes won't hurt too bad in 08, because they can mau-mau enough white voters using fears of several varieties (terrorism, crime, job displacement, precious bodily fluids, etc.)
2. They believe Rove has things 'fixed' so the actual vote won't determine the 08 outcome - electronic voting manipulaton, caging, etc. (variation: there won't be 08 elections due to martial law)
3. Death Wish through slow motion or stop action.
I considered a fourth reason - lemming-like behavior following GOP dogma and Bush/Rove, without regard to how deep the canyon is that they are moving toward, but discarded it because the drive seems to be from bottom to top among the nutroots - so the voice of the wingnut base is stronger than the leadership will to survive. I concluded this is the same as #3.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 4, 2007 11:58:00 AM
This is one of the reasons I fear a man named George Bush. In a couple of decades, Jeb's half-Hispanic (and quite gorgeous) son will be looking toward the White House. I'm not sure the stink of that name will have worn off by that point, but if it has, he could help the Republicans rebuild the Hispanic base they will surely have squandered by that point.
Posted by: cms | Aug 4, 2007 11:59:05 AM
You are too optimistic about the Democrats' ability to convert the Republicans' idiocy into a Dem electoral victory. On the contrary, the Democratic leaders never fail to live up to their stereotype and to act like sissies when the chips are down and snatch defeat from the jaws of certain victory.
Posted by: gregor | Aug 4, 2007 11:59:51 AM
People looking to analyze the behavior of the racists on the right in terms of electoral success need to stop. They're racists. They hate the brown people because they're brown. Their objection has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with bigotry. The cost of the devil's bargain Nixon struck with the Southern strategy is finally being realized, and ultimately it will destroy the GOP.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Aug 4, 2007 12:15:33 PM
It's early to be counting these chickens. In a couple decades it could well be that established Hispanics who compete for jobs against newer immigrants won't be so supportive of the newer ones. And there will continue to be pressure on Democrats not to help illegal immigrants, both from within and without the party. Mere rhetoric will wear thin eventually. Either way we may end up with a split among Hispanics with regard to Democrats.
These same demographic changes put the lie to the argument made by so many that we would never get a more favorable circumstance for a real immigration bill that, you know, actually helps people immigrate to this country.
Yeah, that's a nice wish. Just watch what happens if the Democrats even talk about a bill better than the last one. People are very unrealistic about the present politics of this. There will be nothing significant done for illegal immigrants for the foreseeable future unless there's a Republican president who favors it. There isn't a chance in hell that the Democrats will take the heat on their own.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 4, 2007 1:09:33 PM
The speculation that immigrants who have successfully assimilated into the US socially and economically will be more inclined to oppose further immigration,if valid, points up the self defeating nature of the GOP's position. The longer they resist legalizing the status of foreign national workers in this country, the longer they postpone this realignment. The more hostile the GOP is to immigrants now, the greater the residual antipathy of the immigrants to be overcome later.
Having only just witnessed the feral reaction of the GOP base to Bush's attempt at "immigration reform", the suggestion that only a Republican President could bring about such reform would seem, shall we say, counter-intuitive.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 4, 2007 1:31:40 PM
I agree with Sanpete. Loads of things will change-- including Republican strategy-- in the next five years, ten years, and beyond. Maybe the Democrats will get a chance to overreach.
George Will gave a speech in maybe the spring of 2001 (definitely before September) that foresaw GOP dominance due to trends in church attendance and voting behavior. But the world change, and crapped up all his triumphalism.
That's not to say we can't use our brains and look at data to try to guess how things might look in the future, but I find it very unlikely that either of the two parties will collapse. The Democratic Party of 2007 is different from that of 2005, of 1990, and of 1960.
Hell, after the Senate Democrats caved last night, I'm of half a mind to move to the GOP, and try to revitalize the moderate, small-government but not anti-government wing of the party that used to exist in the northeast.
Posted by: Elvis Elvisberg | Aug 4, 2007 1:40:40 PM
Hell, after the Senate Democrats caved last night, I'm of half a mind to move to the GOP, and try to revitalize the moderate, small-government but not anti-government wing of the party that used to exist in the northeast.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: WB Reeves | Aug 4, 2007 1:44:13 PM
Ezra: How can you hear yourself think in that echo chamber? Wait, don't answer that.
As I've discussed here before, one of Ezra's old blogads - featuring a TAPPED quote of his - was from a group with members linked to the MexicanGovernment. Did anyone at the panel discuss the PoliticalPower that that government has been able to obtain inside the U.S. due to, among other things, their links to various non-profits? Why does the Democratic Party support giving even more PoliticalPower to the MexicanGovernment inside the U.S., with some Dem House members even standing with Mexican politicians demanding "reform"?
Eventually, the GOP might get a brain and attack the Dems for their actions and indirect links to that government and if that happens I don't think the echo chamber is going to save your party.
Posted by: TLB | Aug 4, 2007 2:38:54 PM
The speculation that immigrants who have successfully assimilated into the US socially and economically will be more inclined to oppose further immigration,if valid, points up the self defeating nature of the GOP's position.
It's only a realistic possibility, not something the Republicans should count on any more than the Democrats should count on Hispanics sticking together.
Having only just witnessed the feral reaction of the GOP base to Bush's attempt at "immigration reform", the suggestion that only a Republican President could bring about such reform would seem, shall we say, counter-intuitive.
It may seem counterintuitive, but the logic is simple enough. The Democrats aren't going to take the heat on a bill better than the one that failed, one that doesn't include the provisions liberals objected to. The only way they're willing to back a bill is with Republican cover, as seen in the most recent case, as well as previous ones. Assuming Democrats will retain control of Congress, and the Republican members of Congress don't undergo some miraculous change of heart, the only significant Republican cover they'll get is going to have to include a Republican president like McCain, who is willing to support the bill. And the likelihood of that is very small. If you can come up with any other likely scenario, please do.
Hell, after the Senate Democrats caved last night, I'm of half a mind to move to the GOP, and try to revitalize the moderate, small-government but not anti-government wing of the party that used to exist in the northeast.
Maybe that will happen, now that the Republican wing of the Republican Party has failed so badly, but probably not right away. Forces working against the extreme and failed aspects of Republicanism will take some time to gather strength.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 4, 2007 2:39:33 PM
I don't think its such a political slam dunk. I'm Hispanic, speak Spanish and have a large number of relatives who are immigrants. And yet, illegal immigration drives me up the wall. My family had to jump through a lot of hoops to come to this country legally, I don't appreciate people who cut in line and then want amnesty.
So I think its a stereotype that Hispanics as a class identify with illegal immigrants and will vote against a candidate or party that promises to control the border.
Posted by: beowulf | Aug 4, 2007 4:05:20 PM
I've said before, and I'll say again - there's more to the dilemma on reforming immigration policy than simply our southern border and a growing Hispanic population. Until someone figures out how to address that, it will be hard to get a lot accomplished. Second, while the GOP is in full nervous breakdown over immigration, their spectacular flameout masks the fact that Democrats are by no means unified on this topic, that border state Democrats sound a lot like Republicans when it comes to enforcement and addressing folks already here, and that the Unions are by no means unified in their approach to this. Finally, while lefties speculate on all the triangulated reasons that conservatives act as they act on immigration, I'd urge folks to consider that they do what they do and say what they say because they believe it. There's a reason they're called "true believers," and immigration tends to demonstrate just how much they feel that they have to defend what they believe, even in the face of it being a wildly unpopular position. I think liberals, for whom new ideas, new experiences and adaptive approaches are key, can lose sight of this. And I think the point is that the really good fix for immigration is still evolving. No one, I thknk, should consider themselves too locked into a position while facts on the ground, and options to deal with them, continue to develop.
Posted by: weboy | Aug 4, 2007 7:47:43 PM
"In a couple decades it could well be that established Hispanics who compete for jobs against newer immigrants won't be so supportive of the newer ones. Either way we may end up with a split among Hispanics with regard to Democrats."
Um......Hispanics have lived in the US for centuries (they were here before the honkies, of course). There are tens of thousands of Hispanic families just in Los Angeles who have lived there since the 1920s. Hispanics who were born in the US, in my experience, are even more liberal than more recent immigrants, not less.
"So I think its a stereotype that Hispanics as a class identify with illegal immigrants and will vote against a candidate or party that promises to control the border."
If the Republicans were solely about a more orderly and controlled immigration policy, that might be true. In reality, it's very clear that a large percentage of the Republican party intensely dislikes Hispanic people completely irregardless of whether those Hispanics are illegal immigrants or not.
"Why does the Democratic Party support giving even more PoliticalPower to the MexicanGovernment inside the U.S., with some Dem House members even standing with Mexican politicians demanding "reform"?"
Why do you particularly object to this when American politicians work with lots of foreign governments and foreign politicians every day? You think there are no issues that US and Mexican politicians could possibly agree upon?
Posted by: burritoboy | Aug 4, 2007 8:53:35 PM
Weird note of triumphalism from Klein based upon one mid-term election. If the Dems embrace open borders along with anti-globalization protectionism then you're going to see a downward pressure on incomes as bad if not worse that the 70s. That will take care of any permanent majority.
Posted by: michael | Aug 4, 2007 11:32:26 PM
Oh, yes, increasing the population of Texas is going to be so good for Democrats with the current Electoral College setup.
Let's remember, too, that since the passage of the Voting Rights Act (which added a huge ethnic bloc of Democratic voters to the rolls) only one Democrat nominated for the Presidency has managed to get even a bare majority of the popular vote -- and he only managed 50.08% running against the guy who pardoned Nixon.
Me, I wonder how Hispanics currently feel about the fact that only a tiny number of Democrats are supporting the highly-qualified Hispanic governor/cabinet secretary/diplomat running for the Democratic nomination, while a pair of one-term Senators of other ethnicities are considered major candidates.
Posted by: Weirdo | Aug 5, 2007 9:57:53 AM
Hispanics who were born in the US, in my experience, are even more liberal than more recent immigrants, not less.
You saw Beowulf's post above, which you quoted. This is a real phenomenon; the question is whether it will grow. Hispanic immigration has been different in quantity and thus its effects on other Hispanics for a couple decades, with no change in sight. This appears to be turning some heads among Hispanics.
since the passage of the Voting Rights Act (which added a huge ethnic bloc of Democratic voters to the rolls) only one Democrat nominated for the Presidency has managed to get even a bare majority of the popular vote -- and he only managed 50.08% running against the guy who pardoned Nixon
Only because of Perot. Clinton would have been well over that mark otherwise.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 5, 2007 1:08:23 PM
burritoboy inquires: Why do you particularly object to this when American politicians work with lots of foreign governments and foreign politicians every day? You think there are no issues that US and Mexican politicians could possibly agree upon?
I've already answered that in the description to this video: youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A
Get Obama to sign the pledge!
The bottom line is that one of these days the dot or two connecting major Dems and the MexicanGovernment is going to be much more widely known, and I don't think that's going to result in a whole lot of popular support or sympathy.
Posted by: TLB | Aug 5, 2007 3:11:48 PM
Couldn't bother me less. The people worried about that oppose immigration for other reasons.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 5, 2007 3:30:45 PM
Beowulf, perhaps you are correct about us Hispanics not necessarily being in lockstep on this issue. In fact, yes, the Democratic Party is even split on the issue, but I think you might be missing a key component. I too, would like to see immigration done on a fair and orderly basis. People who "cut in line" should be made to pay a penalty for it, but wholesale deportations are not the answer, not by the longest shot. What I object to most, and every single Hispanic I know feels exactly the same, is the TONE of the debate. That is especially true of the radio jocks and "news" personalities like Dobbs. By painting immigrants as less than people, they have started a swell of Nativist uprising that may well insure a brown/white split for decades. These so-called "anchor babies", citizens, remember, will not forget the Party that referred to their parents as criminals.
Posted by: Mack | Aug 5, 2007 6:57:01 PM
A Hispanic contingent that large for the Democratic party will alienate black voters. Any "advances" that the Dems make with Hispanics is going to be counterbalanced by black flight, either to another party or, more likely, away from the polls altogether.
Posted by: jack | Aug 6, 2007 12:53:52 PM
Balkans here we come and by the looks of it many people are celebrating that fact.
Posted by: Ernest | Aug 6, 2007 1:33:54 PM
"Um......Hispanics have lived in the US for centuries (they were here before the honkies, of course)."
Aside from the factual inaccuracy of this quote, I find it interesting that non-whites can use racial slurs against whites without rebuke. I assure you, I'm not the only white person who has noticed this. I can also assure you, I'm not alone in drawing decidedly non-PC conclusions from this phenomenon. Racial consciousness among whites--long suppressed and dormant--is re-awakening.
"These so-called "anchor babies", citizens, remember, will not forget the Party that referred to their parents as criminals."
Um, the parents of these anchor-babies *are* criminals. It's not just certain members of the GOP who feel this way. Most white & black Americans feel this way, witness the out-pouring of letters to "Nation" magazine opposed to the magazine's policy on immigration.
Posted by: Barry | Aug 6, 2007 2:08:03 PM
Is this what you are celebrating? Or maybe this?
Posted by: eh | Aug 6, 2007 2:18:46 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
