What the Immigration Issue Says About the Modern GOP

By Mark Thompson | Related entries in Conservatism, General Politics, Immigration, Partisan Hacks, Republicans

Alex Massie, right again:

Now it’s true that immigration reform is a tough subject for conservatives. True too, that when it comes to immigration there are some many on the restrictionist wing who consider Bush to be either a) a sentimentalist or b) corporate America’s pawn or c) both of the above. Equally, the orthodox Republican position on immigration – border enforcement first, then reform – is not desperately unpopular. But a popular (or at least not unpopular) position is only half of the matter: you have to sell it well too. And on a subject as contentious as immigration, that requires a degree of tact and sophistication that, by and large, seems alien to many Congressional and grass-roots Republicans.

***

So it isn’t just that legal Hispanic immigrants might be turned off by the GOP’s language on immigration, so too are educated, upscale white voters who don’t like the idea of endorsing a party that gives the impression, unwittingly or not, of being hostile to immigration. The GOP’s posture on immigration fosters the impression, fairly or not, that they’re the “nasty party”. As far as political branding goes, that’s a toxic position for any party to find itself in.

And this is the real problem the GOP faces, and which we’ve been discussing over the last several weeks. The biggest problem with the party’s current situation (i.e., the problem of “talk radio dogmatism”) isn’t its position on the issues – it’s the downright meanness upon which it insists to push those positions.

As I wrote during my stint subbing for John Schwenkler, it’s terribly difficult to persuade people to vote for a party or even support its policies (regardless of whether they agree with those policies in principle) when:

  • That party’s guiding lights, rather than make principled arguments for various “anti-terrorism” policies, insist on labeling your religion as “Islamofascism”;
  • Rather than make principled arguments for stronger restrictions on immigration, you and your family are portrayed as foreign invaders seeking to destroy the country from within because of the Mexican flag hanging on your balcony – even as nothing is said about the Italian or Irish flag hanging on your neighbor’s balcony
  • Rather than make principled arguments against gay marriage, you are accused of wanting to destroy your country’s traditions because you want legal recognition of your relationship.
  • Those same guiding lights proudly promote, rather than simply defend, the use of words and phrases with a well-known role in oppressing you or your ancestors.
  • Rather than make principled arguments against an auto bailout, you and your friends are accused of bleeding the American people dry
  • Rather than make principled arguments for the use of force and/or for restrictions on civil liberties, you are accused of being a “Defeatocrat” or wanting to “let the terrorists win.”

The reason this meanness comes about is that the party has lost sight of the principles that gave rise to its policy preferences in the first place, principles that came from a number of different strains of political thought. Far from being a sort of “master conservatism,” the resulting set of litmus test policy preferences thus lacks a coherent ideological basis in any cognizable form of conservatism.

And when a party loses sight of underlying principles, the only way to maintain party unity is to scare its constituents into loyalty, turning every issue into “Us vs. Them.” While this can work in the short-term, it must inevitably result in unprecedented discord as once-loyal coalition members become fed up with consistently being called one of “Them.” Case in point – see Weigel on Malkin on Voinovich. And that says nothing about the effects it has on ensuring you don’t make inroads into the other coalition’s constituencies.

H/T: Conor Friedersdorf.

Cross-posted at Publius Endures.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 13th, 2009 and is filed under Conservatism, General Politics, Immigration, Partisan Hacks, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “What the Immigration Issue Says About the Modern GOP”

  1. Constructive Criticism on Immigration | RightDialogue.com Says:

    [...] to be open to constructive criticism, and there’s a good article by Mark Thompson over at Donklephant.  Here’s a portion: As I wrote during my stint subbing for John Schwenkler, it’s terribly [...]

  2. Thomas More Says:

    I’ve been at odds with the GOP for some time on the issue of immigration. For one, an abundance of labor means lower prices on goods and services. That’s a good thing. Secondly, I don’t suffer from the fear/hatred of Latinos or their culture that many on the right seem to.

    That doesn’t mean I support open borders, though. If it were my call I’d build a fence the whole length and put the National Guard on the border; we must be able to control who comes into our country and when. As for those who are already here, well, we essentially encouraged them through our de facto open border policy, so we share in the responsibility. We need to find some way to regularize them, weed out and deport the bad guys, and move forward with a strategy.

    The flip side of this issue is that it’s been badly handled by the party for a long time, perhaps because there is so much disagreement on the issue. I think it’s good to be open to constructive criticism like this.

    If the Republicans want to be the party of conservatives, they’ve got a lot of work to do. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but it is a fresh look at one problem nagging the party.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: