eyeon08.com

My friend Robert Bluey really laid into Michael Gerson’s piece in the Post today. But I think that Rob missed the point. For him, the focus of the piece was this paragraph:

It is a strange spectacle. Conservatives are intent on building a more appealing, post-Bush Republican Party. But their most obvious change so far is to reverse remarkable Republican gains among one of the fastest-growing groups of American voters. The renovators seem more like the wrecking crew.

Rob’s consistent critique of immigration reform has been that it is driven more by politics than by values and policies. From this view, the debate over immigration reform seems clear cut. However, that’s clearly not where Gerson is coming from. I took the key paragraph to be:

One gets the impression of decent men, intimidated by the vocal anger of elements of their own party.

As I have argued before, all the first tier Republican candidates have been what is called by restrictionists "open borders" people. Sam Brownback and John McCain have actually maintained their positions, while Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani have complicated their positions but not caved too much.

What about Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson who have simply sold their principles down the river on this issue?

One gets the impression of decent men, intimidated by the vocal anger of elements of their own party.

So why have McCain, Brownback, and, to a degree, Huckabee, maintained their positions?  My gut is that it is because their positions are deeply grounded in their values and, in particular, their religious values. Gerson actually praised McCain’s religious argument for immigration reform:

For McCain, they were not "illegals," they were human beings, with names. "We can’t let immigrants break our laws with impunity," he said. "But these people are also God’s children who wanted simply to be Americans."

This is not moral exhibitionism; it is just morality. And my respect for McCain, it turns out, is less and less grudging.

It should not be surprising that the two serious candidates of religious voters, Huckabee and Brownback, are members of the two major denominations that have taken a position in support of immigration reform. Their values are deeply grounded.

Some people, myself included, view immigration reform as a moral issue. And a simple one. And a deep one.

Now, Rob doesn’t understand this. For Rob, Gerson’s argument is about politics.  It is about Hispanic votes for the GOP. But for Gerson, McCain, and President Bush, that is a secondary argument. As Gerson said, "it is just morality."

Gerson’s point is, in part, also about integrity. People who are not haters have adopted the language and stance of hatred for votes. That is immoral. Tom Tancredo’s position on immigration is at least sincere. It is a serious position, even if it is irresponsible and wrong. However, the position of Thompson and Romney are different. They are weak. They are insincere for transactional reasons. They are simply acting out of politics. They are, as Gerson points out:

One gets the impression of decent men, intimidated by the vocal anger of elements of their own party.

The Republican Party deserves better than this from its leaders. They are to be leaders. They are to be men of principles. Riding the mob to victory is no way to lead or rule. But some parts of the conservative movement don’t understand that.

Tags: Immigration, Republicans

The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes compares the Democrat’s losing (the war and the voters) position to Iraq to immigration:

Yet Republicans are doing the same thing on another issue, trading away long-term gain for the immediate joy of pleasing voters who may (or may not) decide the winner of the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. That issue is immigration.

By dwelling, often emotionally, on the problem of illegal immigration as a paramount issue and as if nothing is being done to deal with it, Republicans are alienating Hispanic Americans, the fastest growing voting bloc in the country. What’s worse is many Republicans are oblivious to this or insist that losing Hispanic voters doesn’t really matter because they’ll never be reliable Republican voters anyway. These Republicans buy the notion that a sizable majority of Hispanics are and always will be Democrats.

Several points are worth making. First, he is talking about tone here. Jim Geraghty made the point about Tom Tancredo’s performance at Ames:

Tom Tancredo has also made stopping illegal immigration his signature issue — but he’s a bit more likely to shoot his mouth off, and cause racially-tinged controversies in the process. He has introduced legislation to impose an indefinite moratorium on legal immigration to the United States.  …

Two candidates, both tough on border security, but with two very different styles and approaches. I would call one [, Duncan Hunter,] serious, one reckless. And we see where seriousness gets you.

Second, Barnes point out that the language is very simple to hear as racism, especially by legal Hispanic immigrants:

A key question is why would Hispanics who are American citizens respond unfavorably to attacks on illegal immigrants? After all, they’re here legally and polls show they oppose illegal entry.

The reason is simple: they see the issue as focusing entirely on Mexican and Central American immigrants. Illegals from other parts of the world who overstay their visas are largely ignored by Republican critics.

Now, there is one thing that disappoints me. Barnes doesn’t make a positive argument for immigration reform. And here, I think Barnes misses an opportunity. Much has been made of the Christian arguments for immigration by Gerson, the Southern Baptist Church and Richard Land, or the Catholics. The business community has made its argument clear. But the talk about immigration also creates another sharp disconnect in our tone.

Our talk on immigration is not the talk of a people with hope. It is the language of people under siege. This is not good for our party. It strikes me that conservative values and policies are most successful when framed in a positive light. For example, tax cuts and deregulation bring opportunity for everyone. Winning the Cold War for our values. Etc.

A politics that is driven by anger and fear has never been a transformative or a majority politics in America. This path is the path of the angry white male minority party afraid of losing its place. And the angry white male is losing its place. The only way to stop that is a positive vision. A real shift is taking place, and hopefully our party will react appropriately. Maybe this is just a typical response to shock. The process starts with denial — like NRO’s piece, typically shouting "stop". Then anger. Then, finally, acceptance.

But, electorally, it makes sense to move through the cycle quickly.

Tags: Immigration, Republicans