February 7, 2009The Under-examined GOP RiftI'm glad Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians (note the little-l) are reexamining their tactics and message after the drubbing they all took in November-oh-eight. A little navel-gazing is probably well warranted. While many topics are on the table, it appears to me that Republicans have forgotton or choosen to ignore the immigration rift. (They should read ThreeSources Immigration Category.) The debate turned me into a name-caller and separated me from Michelle Malkin, National Review (especially NRO), and Hugh Hewitt. It made me even more skeptical of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and a large list of right-wing bloggers. Like the Civil War, it pitted brother against brother as I fought blog brothers, biological brothers and even a brother-in-law. The news may have moved on to the new administration and the stimulus bill, but I was reminded of the underlying rift yesterday. Allahpundit, whom I admire very much, had a post on the HotAir site where he complimented -- rightfully -- the tough and well reasoned stand that Senator Lindsey Graham has taken against the stimulus bill. Allahpundit could not resist pointing out that Michelle Malkin was now in agreement with "Grahamnesty." Grahamnesty is a good line. But as we ask the last 41 Republicans who count to stick together against overwhelming odds, name calling seems a little churlish. I don't know that a Jesus-Christopher Hitchens ticket could have beaten Obama this year, but how many Republican activists were unable to get 100% behind the party's nominee because of immigration? Regular ThreeSourcers know I stand pretty closely to McCain/Graham/Bush on immigration. I don't want to re-ignite the debate. I do, as a political pragmatist, want to seek out a New Fusionism. If the atheists and evangelicals could get together for decades to pursue their common interests, perhaps the populists and the free-border crowd need to do the same. I get tense when I hear Rep. Tancredo rail on about deporting valedictorians and I wince when Governor Huckabee says "we have to make the Constitution match God's law." Yet it seems that the whole idea of individual liberty is under serious threat. Looking for electoral majority, we may need to paper over these differences. As I have suggested, there is some middle ground. We could all support a platform plank of "reasonable border enforcement," "expanded legal immigration possibilities," "increased efficiency of INS and enforcement personnel," and "dignified treatment of current undocumented workers." I'll even stop calling you xenophobic, economically-ignorant, populists names. What do you say? Immigration Posted by John Kranz at February 7, 2009 12:06 PM |
"reasonable border enforcement", "expanded legal immigration possibilities", "increased efficiency of INS and enforcement personnel," and "dignified treatment of current undocumented workers."
As one of the blog 'brothers', who disagreed with you.....I am on board with all of the concepts laid out above.
Posted by: Terri at February 8, 2009 9:23 AMBorder security is rapidly shifting from keeping "Jose" out of the orchard to keeping out extremely violent drug cartels. If the violence now on the Mexican side spills over north of the border, the momentum for a wall will (ahem) build faster than you can say Gaza. Keeping illegal workers out will merely be a consequence.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at February 9, 2009 12:24 PMSounds good so far brother. Now give me a guarantee that current and future immigrants from third-world nations won't become voters - legally or otherwise - and I'm on board. Without that there's reason to believe any immigration liberalization will effectively make the Republican party, and the idea of a representative republic, obsolete.
I find it ironic that one of your justifications for forging this New Fusionism is in a quest for electoral majority. For whom?
Posted by: johngalt at February 9, 2009 3:46 PM | What do you think? [3]