Let's Call The Republican Response What It Is: A Tactical Decision To Let A Problem Fester For Political Reasons

Americans, dumbed down by a lazy, ignorant media and a substandard education system, are fond of the idea that both parties are at fault. OK, Republicans are idiots. What about Democrats? Here at DWT we tend to blame the crumbling from within of the Democratic Party on corporate shills like Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jim Himes and Joe Crowley shredding the Democratic brand on behalf of their own careerism. At The Nation yesterday, William Greider didn't personalize the problem, just asked what the Democratic Party actually believes in.

To put it crudely, the dilemma facing the Democratic party comes down to this: Will Dems decide next time to stand with the working people, or will they stick with their big-money friends in finance and business? Some twenty years ago, Bill Clinton taught Democrats how they can have it both ways. Take Wall Street’s money-- gobs of it-- while promising to govern on a heart-felt agenda of “Putting People First.”

It worked, sort of, for the party. Not so much for the people. New Democrats prevailed. Old labor-liberals lost their seat at the table. Among left-wing malcontents, Bill Clinton became “slick Willie.”

Now economic adversities have blown away the Clinton legacy, which is rightly blamed for much of what happened to middle-class wage earners. New voices like senators Elizabeth Warren and Sherod Brown are demanding a new new politics-- big governing reforms that really do put people first. The old New Dems are stuck with their moderation and obsolete economic doctrine that is utterly irrelevant amid the nation’s depressed circumstances.

Hillary Clinton is dangerously out of step with the new zeitgeist. If she already has the 2016 nomination locked up, as her campaign gremlins keep telling us, it’s hard to imagine she would desert the finance-friendly politics that supported her rise to power.

The Hillary question has many corners to it. On one hand, it could achieve the epic breakthrough of electing a woman. On the other hand, it might postpone the restoration of progressive economic polices for another four years.

Yesterday, Emma White, writing about polling for EclectaBlog, looked at why voters are drifting away from the two parties. More people-- 41%-- now identify as independents than as Democrats or Republicans, up over 10 points from just a decade ago.

That points out that many independents are more just disengaged from politics than actually true independent, let alone moderates, and that "[t]hey tend to be more negative about politics in general. Republican-leaning independents, for example, have very negative views of the Democratic party (78% unfavorable), but are not very enthusiastic about the Republican party either (40% have unfavorable views). They are less likely than their partisan counterparts to have positive views of the media-- so 49% of Democratic partisans see MSNBC positively, compared to only 38% of Democratic leaners, and Republicans and Republican-leaning independents show a similar pattern regarding Fox News. On the flip side, independents are more likely to express openness to people who do not share their views. Democratic- and Republican-leaning independents are less likely than their more partisan counterparts to say they want to live in a community where most people share their political views or religious beliefs, less likely to object to someone in their family marrying someone of the other party, and less likely to say that most of their friends share their political views." And her key point:

This starts to paint a picture of what distinguishes self-identified independents from those who do connect with a political party, and it reflects what I have observed about this group over the years. Independents, regardless of their which party they lean more toward, tend to be dissatisfied with politics as it operates today. They are skeptical of the political system and doubt that it will produce outcomes that satisfy them. In focus groups I have often seen independents complain about being turned off by what they perceive as “negative” messages. They are often less tuned into the details of whatever political conflict is consuming the day.

That said, let's take some random issue where the two parties are split. Umm… ok, everyone is talking about the immigration catastrophe right? And this week Jennifer Rubin, a right-wing moron who writes for the Washington Post looked at the polling. In fact, she looked at right-wing polling from the GOP firm Harper Polling, commissioned by Republican-leaning groups, the Partnership for a New American Economy, the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers. She reports that they "found high support even among Republicans for immigration reform" and that "the anti-immigration forces are loud but in the distinct minority."

The survey of likely voters finds, for example, that the vast majority of voters believe the system is in need of fixing.  86% of Republicans believe Congress should take action to fix the immigration system. 79% of Independents agree. The GOP excuse for not acting-- the president won’t enforce the law-- is not fooling anyone. Some 72% reject that argument, including 2 out of 3 Republicans and 69% of Independents. The idea of waiting for reform is also a loser with 80% of voters wanting Congress to act this year, with nearly half calling it “very important” they act this year. Some 77% of Republicans say it is important that Congress act, while 53% say it is very important. And 74% of Independents believe it is important for Congress to act this year… [T]wo-thirds of voters and 54 percent of Republicans support legal status for undocumented immigrants. Republicans would rather vote for a presidential candidate in 2016 that is from a party that supports reform (71%) than one from a party that opposes it (15%).

Ironically the border crisis, which anti-immigrant forces trumpet as evidence of the dangers of legalization, has if anything highlighted the urgency for fixing the immigration system. Congress is bristling at the president’s request for $3.7 billion, arguing that it is not clear how the funds will be used and whether funds will go to close the border or just provide services to the immigrants being held. In addition, the White House has resisted changes to existing law that would speed deportation of the unaccompanied minors. Rather than grouse about the request, Congress should pass its own bill, include the provisions identified above, specifically bar any unilateral relaxation in enforcement policy and in essence dare the Senate and president to say no. This is a golden opportunity for the House to use its leverage both to secure border protection and to get on the right side of this issue.

And it isn't just a crackpot conservative like Rubin who's warning the Republicans they're skating on thin ice by listening to their loud, hysterical racist base (i.e., teabaggers-- like Alabama racist Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III who is hysterically demanding that Obama immediately deport all DREAMers). The USAToday editorial yesterday was pretty strong medicine that Boehner and his pathetic team don't have the guts to take a swig of.

When tens of thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America started showing up at the U.S. border, Republican lawmakers were quick to pounce. The influx, they argued, showed that President Obama was weak on immigration enforcement and that his appeals for normalizing the status of millions of undocumented workers was encouraging people to make a mad dash for the USA.

Yet now that Obama is proposing a fix to the problem-- asking Congress for $3.7 billion for new detention centers and more judges and legal officers to expedite the deportation process-- congressional Republicans are balking.

The GOP critics have numerous rationales, none of them convincing, for spurning Obama's proposal. Let's call the Republican response what it is: a tactical decision to let a problem fester for political reasons. As long as the problem exists, hard-liners will be able to blame it on proposals to overhaul the nation's broken immigration laws. All of the talk of a path to citizenship is prompting people to come here before the law is passed, or so goes the argument.

Yesterday, Greg Sargent at the Washington Post reported that Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida meet with Boehner and his team "to make one final plea that Republicans act on immigration reform in the face of the current crisis. He was told that it is dead for the year." He then did an interview with Sargent and admitted he was "very disappointed [and] cast the GOP leadership’s refusal to move forward as the key obstacle to reform. He said he had legislation ready to go, and that his conversations convinced him that a solid number of Republicans and Democrats would have supported it. Diaz-Balart also broke with his party on immigration in two key ways. He said," continued Sargent, "that the current crisis at the border is an argument for reform, not against it. And he dismissed the argument made by many Republicans-- that the proper response to the current crisis is to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Obama’s program to defer the deportation of the DREAMers."