My plan had been to wait until I'd read the recent bipartisan Senate compromise bill on immigration, until I realized the Senate apparently plans to vote this week before Senators have even read the bill. In fact, even today the final version is not yet drafted, so no one really knows what's in it. If a Senator can vote for something he knows nothing about, then I can certainly opine, as well. Since facts are in short supply regarding this bill, it is useful to look at who the supporters are, and compare them to the opponents, always looking toward the motivation of each side.
Amongst the supporters: the Bush Administration, most Democrats, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and some Republicans such as Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The motivation of the Bush Administration is easy to deduce. Bush has always been a little leftward on immigration, I think because he views it as a demographic plus long-term for the GOP, and also because he really believes his rhetoric. Besides his judicial legacy, with the permanency of his tax cuts in doubt and with the failure of his Social Security reform, immigration reform would be viewed by opinion-makers as one of Bush's major accomplishments. President Bush is human and therefore not immune to such fluff, especially at a time when he is steadfast in the face of ferocious opposition to his foreign policy objectives.
With regard to most Democrats, again, their support is predictable. Most national Democrats will reflexively support any measure that results in increased numbers of low-income government dependent voters, as this bill will. Only the most left-wing radical Democrats would oppose this bill, and then on the grounds that it doesn't let in enough immigrants. Increased immigration fits well into their philosophy of "sharing" and redistributing wealth, and more immigrants means bigger budgets for entitlements such as Medicaid, Social Security, and children's services. Bigger budgets mean bigger taxes and bigger bureaucracy and bigger government--these are Democratic fundamentals.
I think the Chamber of Commerce, along with some other business interests, views this bill as a way to ensure a ready supply of lower-wage workers, especially in service sectors. I'm not in disagreement with much of their reasoning, but, on the other hand, these are the same guys advocating increasing ties with Communist China and who are building factories and business partnerships with the Chinese. Their aim is economic gain, but I can't shake the feeling that in dealing with folks like the Chinese, we are dealing with potential enemies. I fear that 50 years from now our children and grandchildren will face a Chinese threat that we helped fund. Forgive my roundabout process, but my point is that I'm not convinced the Chamber of Commerce has our national interest at heart--they have big business interests at heart, and those two interests are not always concordant.
Finally, there are the Republican supporters of the bill. A few, I think, are motivated by principle, but others are simply interested in favorable publicity or are appeasers always willing to compromise to "make a deal." Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the Republican negotiators, has never met a camera he didn't like, and he is way too quick to sponsor compromises that sell out principles. John McCain typifies this group well. These, then, are the players in support of the immigration bill.
What about the opposition? Amongst the GOP Presidential candidates, most except McCain have come out against this compromise. This tells me that these guys have read the pulse of GOP primary voters and detected real concern. I was particularly interested to see Fred Thompson quickly come out in opposition with a well-reasoned article which can be found on the RealClearPolitics website. Countering the Chamber of Commerce support for the compromise is the National Federation of Independent Business. The NFIB might have been expected to represent the same interests as the Chamber of Commerce, but they have instead come out against the bill because of its punitive measures against small businesses and because of the regulatory burden it places on them.
On balance, just looking at the compromise's supporters and opponents, I'm pretty comfortable in opposing this bill. It seems to me that the merits of a guest-worker program ought to be subjugated to the imperative of securing our national border. Why can't the government come to the American people and say, " We've reduced illegal entry into this country by 80% over the last two years, and every illegal immigrant who commits a felony is being deported. Now that we've secured our borders and established the rule of law, here is our proposal for a guest worker program." This seems eminently more reasonable to me.
I hope conservatives can muster the groundswell necessary to stop this compromise. I'm optimistic that if we can, then perhaps progress can be made in enforcing our current immigration laws. If that happens, then I'm all for hashing out an agreement that allows for reasonable immigration. Right now, though, we're too busy getting the cart before we have a horse. And this is one ugly cart.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Debating the Debate
This week's GOP debate in South Carolina was another opportunity for the top tier guys (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) to distinguish themselves from one another, as well as an opportunity for the lesser-known candidates to kindle an identity for themselves in the public eye. Unlike the earlier GOP debate, I did not watch this one in its entirety, but I've reviewed partial transcripts and viewed snippets and digested some snap post-debate commentary, and, having done so, I feel reasonably confident in offering this analysis. By the way, the news of the day today has to do with the Senate's backroom bipartisan deal on immigration reform, and I'll certainly post on that once I know more details of the agreement. At first blush, I'm at best greatly conflicted, and I need to reflect for a few days on how this agreement purports to solve such a base failure as our government's failure to adequately secure our nation's borders. But I digress...
With regard to the GOP debate, Mitt Romney was clearly the biggest loser of the night, I think in part because he had done so very well in the previous MSNBC debate. This week Romney was not so sharp, seemed to struggle with some answers, and consequently suffered the letdown of unmet expectations. My impression of Romney from the first debate was that he looked Presidential and in command of the issues. That was not my impression this week.
The conventional wisdom is that Rudy Giuliani helped himself the most among the Big Three with his authoritative focus on national security and his seemingly spontaneous umbrage with Libertarian Ron Paul's blaming of 9/11 in part on American foreign policy. Nevertheless, I do not believe Giuliani can win the GOP nomination with his strategy of embracing his pro-choice views on abortion. I once thought he could possibly finesse the issue with his assurances about appointing strict constructionist judges, but I believe he has needlessly alienated too many social conservatives with what I perceive is a flippancy ("It'd be OK..." to reverse Roe) toward one of the foundational issues of our day. He once had the reserve of good will to handle this issue, but I believe his opportunity is lost.
The debates do not help John McCain. His answers remind me of Al Gore's--the canned responses of an insider. I'm convinced John McCain is pursuing a pipe dream but doesn't know it. He has banked on the tradition of Republicans to nominate "the next in line" (think Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, even Ronald Reagan in 1980), but he underestimates his negatives. Conservatives remember his campaign finance reform which limits our free speech rights, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his coddling of the liberal media in 2000 in part by attacking religious conservatives, and his hamstringing of America's efforts to interrogate terrorists with his publicity-seeking opposition to "torture." McCain is learning the same lesson many other Republicans have learned the hard way--he was once a media darling by virtue of attacking conservatives, but now that the mainstream media has deserted him, he finds himself alienated from those conservatives. His base is now largely comprised of establishment inside-the-Beltway types who have no firm ideology. Support from such folks might normally be enough for a Republican to win the GOP nomination, but I suspect not for McCain, because I think he's made too many conservatives mad.
I've posted before of my support for Mike Huckabee, and I think his polished performances in both GOP debates may be enough to push him up from the mass of lower-tier candidates into his own lone position as a second tier alternative. He clearly had the line of the night with his John Edwards beauty shop one-liner, and his deft handling of questions and fresh yet polished candor is very appealing. National pundits don't appreciate what many of us know--Huckabee's background as a pastor of a large Baptist church is serving him very well right now. Huckabee has also quelled my concern that he might not be committed enough to limited government and lower taxes. He has a proposal for a consumption tax called the "Fair Tax" to replace income and corporate taxes, and his support for this indicates to me that he understands the economic imperative of a limited tax burden. Political consultant Dick Morris has called Huckabee's delivery a combination of Reagan's and Clinton's styles, and after a bit of a shudder at his linkage of these two icons, I can see Morris's point. Huckabee is Reaganesque in his ideology and optimism and his media savvy delivery, but he also emotes and engages the crowd like Clinton can.
We're about two months away from the campaign's second quarter fund-raising reporting, and Huckabee will have to have shown some movement by then if he is to have a chance. I suspect he will. I also predict McCain will muddle along while most media attention is devoted to Giuliani and perhaps a summertime Fred Thompson entry into the race. This is all very interesting to political junkies like me, but it's also critically important for our country as these candidates lay the groundwork for our nation's alternative to the Democratic vision of defeat, retreat, division, and economic and moral decay.
With regard to the GOP debate, Mitt Romney was clearly the biggest loser of the night, I think in part because he had done so very well in the previous MSNBC debate. This week Romney was not so sharp, seemed to struggle with some answers, and consequently suffered the letdown of unmet expectations. My impression of Romney from the first debate was that he looked Presidential and in command of the issues. That was not my impression this week.
The conventional wisdom is that Rudy Giuliani helped himself the most among the Big Three with his authoritative focus on national security and his seemingly spontaneous umbrage with Libertarian Ron Paul's blaming of 9/11 in part on American foreign policy. Nevertheless, I do not believe Giuliani can win the GOP nomination with his strategy of embracing his pro-choice views on abortion. I once thought he could possibly finesse the issue with his assurances about appointing strict constructionist judges, but I believe he has needlessly alienated too many social conservatives with what I perceive is a flippancy ("It'd be OK..." to reverse Roe) toward one of the foundational issues of our day. He once had the reserve of good will to handle this issue, but I believe his opportunity is lost.
The debates do not help John McCain. His answers remind me of Al Gore's--the canned responses of an insider. I'm convinced John McCain is pursuing a pipe dream but doesn't know it. He has banked on the tradition of Republicans to nominate "the next in line" (think Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, even Ronald Reagan in 1980), but he underestimates his negatives. Conservatives remember his campaign finance reform which limits our free speech rights, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, his coddling of the liberal media in 2000 in part by attacking religious conservatives, and his hamstringing of America's efforts to interrogate terrorists with his publicity-seeking opposition to "torture." McCain is learning the same lesson many other Republicans have learned the hard way--he was once a media darling by virtue of attacking conservatives, but now that the mainstream media has deserted him, he finds himself alienated from those conservatives. His base is now largely comprised of establishment inside-the-Beltway types who have no firm ideology. Support from such folks might normally be enough for a Republican to win the GOP nomination, but I suspect not for McCain, because I think he's made too many conservatives mad.
I've posted before of my support for Mike Huckabee, and I think his polished performances in both GOP debates may be enough to push him up from the mass of lower-tier candidates into his own lone position as a second tier alternative. He clearly had the line of the night with his John Edwards beauty shop one-liner, and his deft handling of questions and fresh yet polished candor is very appealing. National pundits don't appreciate what many of us know--Huckabee's background as a pastor of a large Baptist church is serving him very well right now. Huckabee has also quelled my concern that he might not be committed enough to limited government and lower taxes. He has a proposal for a consumption tax called the "Fair Tax" to replace income and corporate taxes, and his support for this indicates to me that he understands the economic imperative of a limited tax burden. Political consultant Dick Morris has called Huckabee's delivery a combination of Reagan's and Clinton's styles, and after a bit of a shudder at his linkage of these two icons, I can see Morris's point. Huckabee is Reaganesque in his ideology and optimism and his media savvy delivery, but he also emotes and engages the crowd like Clinton can.
We're about two months away from the campaign's second quarter fund-raising reporting, and Huckabee will have to have shown some movement by then if he is to have a chance. I suspect he will. I also predict McCain will muddle along while most media attention is devoted to Giuliani and perhaps a summertime Fred Thompson entry into the race. This is all very interesting to political junkies like me, but it's also critically important for our country as these candidates lay the groundwork for our nation's alternative to the Democratic vision of defeat, retreat, division, and economic and moral decay.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Who Will Write Our History?
My children and I traveled to Shiloh National Military Park this weekend for a family getaway and history lesson. It was a wonderful and fun trip for the kids and for me, as I remembered similar trips to Shiloh when I was their age. In a time when so many of the defining elements which shape our culture are not being passed to the next generation, it was a joy for me to be able to build memories with them.
As we wandered the beautiful and meticulously kept grounds of the cemetery, John Henry and Lydia were full of questions. Among them were questions about who was buried there, and which side were the "good guys" fighting on? It is hard to explain to seven year olds the concept of a civil war, with brother fighting against brother. Nor did they ever grasp that everyone buried in the cemetery in individual graves fought for the Union, while the Confederate soldiers were buried by the thousands in huge burial trenches. Indeed, according to family lore, my own great great grandfather is buried in one of those trenches, having himself left behind a seven year old daughter who would grow up to become my great grandmother.
The epiphany hit me while we were wandering in the cemetery. History is written by the victors, so it has always been, and so will it always be. We who live generations later can have little real understanding of the milieu which led these ancestors of ours to make the choices they made. We can study and read and educate ourselves, but the truth remains that in a major conflict such as The War Between the States, where basic philosophies are at odds, the victor conquers more than people or land. He vanquishes the losers' ability to frame the debate. I hasten to add that I do not speak of racial matters here, for there can be no reasoned debate on race in today's America.
I speak, instead, of victory in a society's battle of ideas: The South's belief, for example, that their government was the true inheritor of the principles of the Founding Fathers. That the individual states did have a sovereignty that superseded that of the Union. That many who fought for the South fought not for slavery but to defend their homes from what they viewed as armed invaders. Yet none of these truths, as Southerners saw them, has survived to the national identity of today, because the South lost the war. The United States after the Civil War was a very different country from the looser organization of states that existed before the war, and the Southern cultural perspective is now relegated to a quaint footnote, or worse.
My point is not to comment on the consequence of the Civil War on today's America, but rather is to recognize that our society's views are a product of those battles of ideas that have preceded us. Further, we as a people are engaged today in a multitude of battles whose outcome will determine what kind of world our children and our children's children will live in. The victor will tell the story. If you are apathetic about these battles, you shouldn't be. The stakes are high.
We face, among numerous other challenges, an implacable Islamic terrorist foe who believes that women are second class citizens, who denies freedom of speech and religion, and who does not share the traditional Judeo-Christian view of the worth of the individual. If we as a society do not steel ourselves to recognize and fight this enemy, it is hardly an exaggeration to believe that our progeny might grow up under sharia law, with no understanding or appreciation for the freedoms we now take for granted. It does not matter whether we acknowledge the threat we face---the threat is before us and threatens our very existence. We ignore it at our children's peril.
Scripture tells us in the Book of Judges that the Hebrew people did such a poor job of teaching their children that, " ... a generation grew up which knew neither the Lord nor the things He had done for Israel." (Judges 2:10) It is incredible that after all God had done for the Hebrews--delivering them from Pharoah and slavery, parting the Red Sea, delivering The Ten Commandments, parting the Jordan River, and delivering Jericho--that God's people did not teach their children about Him. Let us not make the mistake that those Hebrews made. Let us recognize and engage our foes, and teach our children to appreciate and defend the blessings of Western civilization, so that they can carry those blessings forward for themselves and our children's children.
As we wandered the beautiful and meticulously kept grounds of the cemetery, John Henry and Lydia were full of questions. Among them were questions about who was buried there, and which side were the "good guys" fighting on? It is hard to explain to seven year olds the concept of a civil war, with brother fighting against brother. Nor did they ever grasp that everyone buried in the cemetery in individual graves fought for the Union, while the Confederate soldiers were buried by the thousands in huge burial trenches. Indeed, according to family lore, my own great great grandfather is buried in one of those trenches, having himself left behind a seven year old daughter who would grow up to become my great grandmother.
The epiphany hit me while we were wandering in the cemetery. History is written by the victors, so it has always been, and so will it always be. We who live generations later can have little real understanding of the milieu which led these ancestors of ours to make the choices they made. We can study and read and educate ourselves, but the truth remains that in a major conflict such as The War Between the States, where basic philosophies are at odds, the victor conquers more than people or land. He vanquishes the losers' ability to frame the debate. I hasten to add that I do not speak of racial matters here, for there can be no reasoned debate on race in today's America.
I speak, instead, of victory in a society's battle of ideas: The South's belief, for example, that their government was the true inheritor of the principles of the Founding Fathers. That the individual states did have a sovereignty that superseded that of the Union. That many who fought for the South fought not for slavery but to defend their homes from what they viewed as armed invaders. Yet none of these truths, as Southerners saw them, has survived to the national identity of today, because the South lost the war. The United States after the Civil War was a very different country from the looser organization of states that existed before the war, and the Southern cultural perspective is now relegated to a quaint footnote, or worse.
My point is not to comment on the consequence of the Civil War on today's America, but rather is to recognize that our society's views are a product of those battles of ideas that have preceded us. Further, we as a people are engaged today in a multitude of battles whose outcome will determine what kind of world our children and our children's children will live in. The victor will tell the story. If you are apathetic about these battles, you shouldn't be. The stakes are high.
We face, among numerous other challenges, an implacable Islamic terrorist foe who believes that women are second class citizens, who denies freedom of speech and religion, and who does not share the traditional Judeo-Christian view of the worth of the individual. If we as a society do not steel ourselves to recognize and fight this enemy, it is hardly an exaggeration to believe that our progeny might grow up under sharia law, with no understanding or appreciation for the freedoms we now take for granted. It does not matter whether we acknowledge the threat we face---the threat is before us and threatens our very existence. We ignore it at our children's peril.
Scripture tells us in the Book of Judges that the Hebrew people did such a poor job of teaching their children that, " ... a generation grew up which knew neither the Lord nor the things He had done for Israel." (Judges 2:10) It is incredible that after all God had done for the Hebrews--delivering them from Pharoah and slavery, parting the Red Sea, delivering The Ten Commandments, parting the Jordan River, and delivering Jericho--that God's people did not teach their children about Him. Let us not make the mistake that those Hebrews made. Let us recognize and engage our foes, and teach our children to appreciate and defend the blessings of Western civilization, so that they can carry those blessings forward for themselves and our children's children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
