National Review had a symposium on Bush’s immigration speech, and the reactions ranged from disappointed to very disappointed. The majority of the conservative movement does not anything that even resembles amnesty for illegals. That’s an understandable position. As a nation of laws, we should enforce our rules.
John Podhoretz calls for a more level-headed discussion of the issue. I think he’s right – there’s absolutely no excuse for the kind of self-censorship that is being practiced by some on this issue. As Glenn Reynolds observes, if you’re starting to sound like a Kos diarist, you need to step away for a moment.
I think Bush is trying to find a reasonable middle ground here, but there’s a small but vocal segment of the base that just won’t have it. Even someone as reasonable as John Hinderaker is saying that there is no middle ground on this issue. With all due respect to someone who’s one of the best bloggers out there, that’s just not true. Yes, we could deport illegals in droves. We could seal the border. We could try to retreat behind the comfortable illusion of Fortress America. However, is that really a viable option? What would be the cost of such an action? Would that be a case of the cure being worse than the disease?
Politics is a game of compromise, and if all that conservative activists want is to deport illegals en masse, that just isn’t a viable strategy. Neither is the virtually uncontrolled immigration of the Hagel-Martinez bill currently in the Senate.
President Bush at least tried to find some middle ground here. If his base isn’t willing to do the same, the political situation of the Republican Party will only get more dire than it already is. The only thing that can help the Democrats is a Republican implosion, and it’s looking increasingly like that’s exactly what they’re going to get.
“The only thing that can help the Democrats is a Republican implosion, and it’s looking increasingly like that’s exactly what they’re going to get.”
It’s what they’ve asked for. The beauty of high standards is in the people who rise to meet them. The bar has been set too low for too long; there will come a reckoning.
“President Bush at least tried to find some middle ground here. If his base isn’t willing to do the same, the political situation of the Republican Party will only get more dire than it already is.”
The issue behind the issue here is the question how much a politician (regardless of party or allegiance) is willing to “please” the masses / the base, and to what extend he is willing to tick off his supporters. The problem with populism is that while you may be able to have the support of the masses, you may not be able to get anything done. Maybe Bush has to take a “liberal” stance. Maybe Democrats have to follow Republican ideas. What ought to count is *achieving* something, rather than getting re-elected at whatever cost.
J.
The base has left Bush. So what? His rudderless leadership can’t be further followed by Conservatives.
The base (me) will come back, come back united, and come back quickly as soon as a Repub. grabs the illegal immigration “bull by the horns” and begins to “talk” like a conservative about taxes, terrorism, school choice, smaller government etc, etc ,etc.
Is that person out there? I haven’t seen him/her.
Someone with some brains and an ounce of guts, has a great opportunity. I just hope that it’s not a Dem. in Republican clothing.
Bush’s base is used to getting what they want when they want it, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they’re banging their spoon against their high chairs about the fact that we’re not deporting 12 million illegals. I suspect that among center-right voters who are most concerned about border enforcement, Bush may receive something of a bounce for his focus on security. As for the Sam’s Club wing of the party, they’ll probably continue to be angry as long as they perceive their jobs and communities at continued risk for being taken over by Latinos. Much of the concern is based on ethnic prejudice, but there’s a legitimate economic concern here and Bush will keep a sizable percentage of the white and black working class pissed off as long as keeps repeating the “jobs Americans won’t do” meme.
The base will settle for nothing less than a hard right turn, and there have been so many hard right turns that have, well, turned wrong, that the Republican coalition cannot hold any more. At this point the choices are alienate the base, alienate Mainstreet USA or head into the elections with the figurehead of the party supported by 25% of the populace. And now that the Dems have been willing to let the Repubs ram their agenda through since the ’04 election, the Repubs have noone to blame for this mess but themselves.
It turns out that fear mongering and exploiting divisive issues for political gain does, in fact, have a price.
Mark – Please explain to me what the Sam’s Club wing of the party is?
Anyone that makes the comment that the base “is used to getting what they want when they want it” must have either been living on another planet for the last 6 years or is a complete babbling idiot. I’m hoping space travel has been good to you.
Joaquin, the Sam’s Club wing of the Republican Party is the white working class in Middle America, a demographic increasingly aligned with the Republican Party even though its policies are destroying them.
Never heard that phrase before. Is that something you coined?
For the sake of conversation, where does the black working class in Middle America fit in?
As embarrassed as I am to admit it, the “Sam’s Club” analogy was coined my Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty who suggested last year that the Republican Party is now “the party of Sam’s Club instead of the country club”, or words to that effect. As for the black working class, they don’t vote Republican so the analogy doesn’t seem to apply.
Mark – You shouldn’t be embarrassed about not coining a cheesy, low-class way of comparing Republicans to anything related to “evil” Wal-Mart. Come now, I’m sure you’re better than that?
Oh, by the way, W did get 11% of the Black vote. Just a thought.