Immigration and "Intellectual Cowardice"

Mickey Kaus, on this op-ed (courtesy of yours truly):

It may be that sensible Republican voters are rebelling against McCain-bashing orthodox conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, etc. But to write a column dismissing those figures for "emphasizing a host of small-bore litmus tests" and not even mention the major policy conflict over immigration seems like intellectual cowardice verging on dishonesty--or else really bad editing by the NYT. ... Not quite like attacking Eugene McCarthy for challenging LBJ and not mentioning Vietnam. But close. ...

It was the editing, actually - but on my part, not the NYT's. In the original draft of the piece, instead of just noting that the movement establishment is right about certain issues and McCain is wrong, I actually enumerated some of those issues - including McCain-Feingold and embryo-destructive stem cell research as well as immigration. But I thought that given the contours of the intra-conservative debate, it made more sense for the op-ed to stick to the question of why many conservative voters didn't listen to their supposed spokesmen, which meant emphasizing what's been wrong with the right-wing response to McCain and Huckabee - both the narrowness of many of the litmus tests being imposed (the Gang of 14, waterboarding, etc.) and the tone of the attacks, from Limbaugh's claim that nominating either man would "destroy" the GOP to the Coulters and Dobsons saying they won't vote for McCain against a Democrat to the widespread and ridiculous claims that Mike Huckabee is a "Christian socialist" - rather than listing the issues on which I agree with Limbaugh et. al.

I would also note that as the last of the DLC Democrats, Kaus is (for understandable reasons) primarily interested in the GOP as a vehicle for holding his own party's feet to the fire on a few specific issues, immigration chief among them. But from within the conservative tent, where the immigration debate is just one part of a larger pantomime, things look rather different. And whereas I suspect that Kaus would be happy to see the GOP turn into a Limbaugh-led rump, so long as it somehow moved the immigration debate in a restrictionist direction, that's a future I'd prefer to avoid. Moreover, even from a Kaus-ian point of view I think the style of the right-wing attacks on McCain has been self-defeating. A focused critique that stuck to his immigration position, I suspect, would have done far more damage to his political viability - and/or forced him into more specific concessions than he's actually made - than the sweeping and implausible attempt to read him out of American conservatism entirely.

All of that said, though, in hindsight I think Kaus is right about the op-ed. Regular readers of this blog know that I think the GOP should remain to McCain's right on the immigration, as will readers - if there are any - of my and Reihan's forthcoming book. (We even quote Mickey Kaus!) But a Times op-ed reaches a different audience, and serves a different purpose, and thus it should have mentioned my views on the subject, if only to lay down a marker regarding which right-wing attacks I think McCain should ignore, and which he needs to address with meaningful concessions. So, mea culpa.

Comments

Immigration is the perfect example of why the Rs will lose in 2008. It is the hot button, litmus test issue for the right, but not enough people care about it as an issue for it to have a major effect in November. A Republican who runs on the Krikorian-Kaus platform on immigration will get wiped out in the general.

Posted by Steven Donegal | February 10, 2008 1:28 PM

"Small-bore" is incorrect when discussing Limbaugh; he's a huge bore (and a huge boor).

Posted by Mike | February 10, 2008 1:36 PM

So, mea culpa.

The nice thing about being attacked by Kaus, like love, is never having to say you're sorry.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 10, 2008 1:49 PM

No need for mea culpa--

1. Your article rightly pointed to the relatively trivial issues of McCain-Feingold and taxes as the reasons why the two remaining candidates have been read out of the movement, and

2. The GOP will lose in November if its candidate makes immigration a central issue. Hillary seems to be mobilizing Latinos, a constituency that Rove/Dubya wooed in both elections, and which we need to at least not totally alienate if we hope to win. McCain made convincing concessions to the right on the issue of border defense, neutralizing this issue as an election focal point.

Posted by MD | February 10, 2008 2:20 PM

Illegal Aliens and Immigration is NOT the same thing. Immigrant is a legal status granted by a sovereign country. We have to many folks who do not know and are ignorant or outright deceivers, confusing illegal alien workers calling them illegal immigrants with immigrants. Criminals did NOT build America; Citizens and LEGAL immigrants built it. American’s want an end to anarchy! This is NOT a Democrat, Republican, Independent issue. It's an American Issue.

Illegal aliens are criminals, those who hire them are criminals and those who aid-and-abet them are criminals.

Illegal aliens in America have NO rights. We are required by law to arrest and prosecute, deport them. (Title 8 U.S. Code) To report illegal aliens call the DHS National Hotline 1 866 DHS 2ICE. (1-866-347-2523)

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by Dr Coles | February 10, 2008 3:51 PM

I like your arguments against Rush and the rest -- especially when it come to Huckabee. But didn't you publish this on the wrong day, a day when everyone woke up to the favorite candidate of every neo-con and every Senate Republican couldn't pull more than 1 out of every 4 votes the three states holding elections yesterday? As Rush sometimes says, he's merely saying what his listeners are already thinking -- and when it comes to McCain some of those folks seem to have gone to the polls Saturday.

Posted by PrestoPundit | February 10, 2008 3:53 PM

Dr. Coles -

Since your problem is with illegal aliens, and not immigrants, can I assume that you would have no problem with making it easier to immigrate legally? That way, all those people currently crossing the border illegally can still come, but do so in a legal, non-criminal manner.

And Ross - I don't know that I've ever heard your argument for being to the Right of McCain on immigration. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised - immigration tends to be one of the few issue where conservative Catholics are actually more on the left (e.g Brownback).

Posted by Peter Bautista | February 10, 2008 4:03 PM

McCain and Huckabee weren't read out because of heresies. They were read out because of how they articulated their differences with orthodoxy.

McCain didn't say 'I think waterboarding violates the Geneva convention, and that we should apply Geneva protections to non-signatory combatants for reasons x, y, and z.' He says things in a tone like 'I'm ashamed that my fellow conservatives have chosen to endorse torture and barbarism.' His tone shows that he doesn't respect the majority conservative opinion. He doesn't want to convince majority conservatives either -- he wants to marginalize them.

Same with Huck. He doesn't say 'I think we should address the legitimate concerns of anxious working class Americans in the following ways...' He says that prices are high because of greedy corporations and his critics are a Club for Greed.
Like McCain, he doesn't just have disagreements with core conservative groups, he's trying to make his career by defining himself in opposition with them.

Romney was easily as heterodox as McCain and Huckabee [fee hikes, health-care mandates/subsidies, cultural issues, distancing himself from the Iraq war], but he was respectful of the conservative establishment. This speaks against Ross' argument that conservative opinion leaders are inflexible or doctrinaire.

McCain wasn't read out of the movement because of the number of his heterodoxies. He was read out because he didn't respect anyone who disagreed with him. If McCain is quiet about his conservatism, and loud about how majority conservatives are the problem with America today, why should conservatives support him?

Posted by gyrd | February 10, 2008 4:09 PM

I, for one, kind of like Huckabee exactly because I think he might be (or at least might become) kind of a Christian socialist.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | February 10, 2008 4:27 PM

"McCain didn't say 'I think waterboarding violates the Geneva convention, and that we should apply Geneva protections to non-signatory combatants for reasons x, y, and z.' He says things in a tone like 'I'm ashamed that my fellow conservatives have chosen to endorse torture and barbarism.'"

It could be because that's how many conservatives feel about it. Even if it was technically legal, I would still be 100% against the policy.

Posted by JordanT | February 10, 2008 4:38 PM

McCain and Huckabee haven't been "read out" in any significant way. The South is the electoral and ideological heartland of today's conservatism. Both McCain and Huckabee out-polled Romney there by significant margins. But the point on McCain's articulation of disagreement is very well taken. He would do well to consider Obama's style in this regard.

In any case, I like the description of the "small-bore litmus tests". What a crock when Huckabee is slammed for big-government programs-- in Arkansas?

Or McCain's accused of Reaganism in terms of "amnesty" when he's utterly backed down, now emphasizing border security and no amnesty. For those without dictionaries, if you have to pay a fine and lose any advantages it's not amnesty, whether the violation is speeding, shoplifting, or illegal entry.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 10, 2008 4:47 PM

JordanT, I appreciate that lots of "real conservatives," including McCain, sincerely feel that waterboarding in any circumstance is appalling and morally abominable.

My point is, if National Review and talk radio tends to disagree with you in that regard, shouldn't you do them the courtesy of assuming they can be reasoned with by trying to convince them of your position, rather than trying to shame them from voicing their position?

If McCain wasn't seeking conservative support, it doesn't reflect poorly on conservatives that they didn't support him.

Posted by gyrd | February 10, 2008 5:09 PM

"My point is, if National Review and talk radio tends to disagree with you in that regard, shouldn't you do them the courtesy of assuming they can be reasoned with by trying to convince them of your position, rather than trying to shame them from voicing their position?"

It's because they have not shown the ability to reason on these issues. Being against torture means you were for the terrorists and a traitor. McCain's strategy is working, probably because he decided not to pander to the National Review and talk radio hosts who hold little power.

Posted by JordanT | February 10, 2008 5:46 PM

I agree with Dr Coles and would like to add to his statement that illegal immigration is a national security issue that effects everything from health, education, and the environment. McCain has said "he will secure the border" there is much to be done and the devil is in the details. Who will determine when the border is secure? Today DHS says it is more secure than in time prior to 9-11-01,there reason being arrests are down dramatically. That proves to me nothing because when your government arrests border patrol agents and put them in jail like they did to Ramos and Compean for doing their job arrest will go down, not because less people are illegally entering across our undefended borders.
I am a 9-11-01 family member and I have personally spoken to senator McCain about border security and illegal immigration in 2004 when the house and senate were have conferee hearings on the 9-11 commission recommendations and he lied to me for some 20 minutes on a North bound Amtrak train from D.C. He said illegal immigration is a racial issue. He made many more telling statements and I can say as a register republican I will vote democratic before I vote for him.
Bruce De Cell
Board Member of 9-11 Families For a Secure America

Posted by Bruce De Cell | February 10, 2008 6:24 PM

When you're ticketed and fined for speeding, presumably you're not giving amnesty for future speeding.

An illegal alien who's allowed to stay here is being given amnesty. The wrongdoing is being here without a visa, fine or no fine if he's allowed to continue to stay, that's amnesty.

As for whether it would be OK if the same people just came here legally, sure, if they wait their turn in line. There are green card applicants who wait for years in their home country for their visa to come through.

I don't mind letting illegal aliens go home and get in line AFTER the visa applicants who've played by the rules and obeyed the law. On the other hand maybe we'd like to cherrypick the immigrants we wish to accept by education, language ability and health or criminal record screenings. But I guess I'm a utopian.

Posted by beowulf | February 10, 2008 6:30 PM

Steven Donegal and others are confusing the way that immigration is presented by the MSM (with lies, misleading statements, emotional stories, etc.) with the issue itself and how it could be presented. If most people were as familiar with the topic as I am, there wouldn't be much of a debate.

McCain and the Dems are extremely vulnerable on this topic, and it's only a matter of time before people start exploiting their weaknesses.

For instance, see this:
youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

She didn't ask him that good a question; something like this would have been more effective:
youtube.com/watch?v=YRWRzZ_yPnk

Enough people asking good questions, and it's going to become very clear how vital an issue this is.

(And, for Obama, see this.)

Posted by TLB | February 10, 2008 7:01 PM

Supporters of Immigration Fraud

An immigration advocacy group called "Civil Society Helps" and attorney Martha J Sullivan help perpetuate fraud against U.S. citizens. See http://www.marthasullivanlaw.com for more information about the immigration fraud these kind of groups help facilitate.

With false accusations from an immigrant residency seeker, a stable American citizen can be reduced to living in poverty. All of your assets can be seized and given to the residency seeker even if you are not found guilty. You will immediately be forced to surrender a portion of your income to the residency seeker. The courts may order you to turn your motor vehicle over to the residency seeker even if the car is in your name and the residency seeker does not have a drivers license. Your immigrant spouse becomes legal and you become illegal. The court system will abuse you and strip you of your rights while social programs that promote immigration fraud thrive.

Attorney Martha J. Sullivan - VAWA and Immigration Advocate
1317 VermillionSt
Hastings, MN 5503
Phone: (651) 438-
Web: http://www.marthasullivanlaw.com

Civil Society Helps - Immigration Advocacy Group
1st National Bank Building
332 Minnesota St,
Suite E-1436
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Web: http://civilsocietyhelps.org

Posted by Sean Patrick | February 10, 2008 7:28 PM

Our options are BRO'S, HO'S and McCain! We Are Doomed!!!
McCain is going to need the Latino/Hispanic/Chicano/Mexican vote....CAUSE HE AIN'T GETTIN MINE!

Posted by OrdinaryAmerican | February 10, 2008 9:01 PM

I think many Republicans are against McCAin becuase he and his staff are either too stupid to realize that putting 20 million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship will eliminate the hope of any conservative party being relevant in American politics or that McCain and his staff know this but do not care any way.

Either way, McCain is not fit to be president for being so stupid on an important issue and not being able to comprehend the long term implications.

Posted by superdestroyer | February 10, 2008 9:53 PM

If illegal immigration were the real reason the talk-radio Right hated McCain, they would be just as vehemently anti-Bush--which (with a few exceptions) they aren't.

Posted by David T | February 11, 2008 2:33 AM

beowulf--paying a fine and going to the back of the line isn't amnesty. If you get caught speeding a second time, you get a second fine. Ditto for illegal border crossing if a reasonable plan is put forward.

We should definitely be ramping up legal immigration, and by all means cherry-picking. Personally, I'd like to see lots of immigrants who are native Arabic, Urdu, Persian, and Pashto speakers from whom we might be able to recruit a functional cadre of intelligence officers to replace the hopeless Ivy League weenies we currently have.

And if McCain isn't a conservative, George Bush is a socialist.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 11, 2008 3:36 AM

Since when are you a "senior editor" at The Atlantic?

If this is a promotion -- congrats!

Posted by Chris | February 11, 2008 1:08 PM

And whereas I suspect that Kaus would be happy to see the GOP turn into a Limbaugh-led rump, so long as it somehow moved the immigration debate in a restrictionist direction, that's a future I'd prefer to avoid.

I am a life-long republican, but I disagree. The GOP shrinking by half would be well worth halting the immigration mistake of 1965. After seeing the data on the deleterious effect immigration is having on US social statistics, everything else seems inconsequential. But regardless, I think the that the GOP shrinking a lot couldn't feasibly coincide with more national restrictionism. The GOP becoming the ultra-restrictionist alternative and winning on the issue is the only feasible way for national restrictionist policy to occur. There is a possibility for that as the bad effects of poor immigrants and their descendants ever grows and more people wake up. It *generally* seems to be a race between pre-1965 stock americans waking up to reality and post 1965 stock americans growing in voting power.

Posted by scottynx | February 11, 2008 3:45 PM

I'm a Republican primary voter, but I don't 'turn to Mr. Limbaugh' for my 'marching orders.' Nor do I kid myself that Bush is a true conservative any more than McCain, although I voted for Bush because of his stand on judges, along with his stance on the War on Terror. The difference between McVain and Bush lies not only in their attitudes towards conservatives (McVain=condescending, Bush=respect), but also in the fact that Bush is upfront about what he believes, while McCain is quite underhanded in implementing his views (Gang of 14, anyone?). Not to mention his childishness-- just watch clips of his smirking smarminess in debates with Romney. (And sorry, but the impact of the campaign-finance bill-- abridging one of our most essential liberties, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights-- is hardly a minor matter.)

As for the conservative kefuffle over McCain, I believe it can be at least partly attributed to disgust with Republican candidates in general-- including Bush-- who have not lived up to conservative standards on even the most basic fundamentals. No doubt I and many other conservatives will hold our noses this coming November and vote for McCain-- but I suspect most of us will be doing it with our eyes wide open.

Posted by Rebecca Pratt | February 14, 2008 6:08 PM