Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

February 18, 2010

The Tea Party's Future

Jack Cafferty asks the question on his CNN blog about the future of the Tea Party. I was just about to blog about that and see no reason not to post a paragraph on his blog and more on this one. The Tea Party, at least at the leadership level, is Republican astroturf goaded by one of your main competitors. It was never anything but a GOP activity designed to rally the base, especially the economic conservatives. The poll should have asked what Republican party offices activists have held in the past if you really wanted to know the true nature of the "movement." Now, there is a thread of people who want both more economic justice and less government who the movement was gunning for, but the reason they were being mobilized was to revitalize the GOP, not form a third party. Time will tell whether the GOP gets them or not.

Carl Milsted believes that the most fertile ground for a new party are members of the Christian Left and people that can be classified in his political matrix as "Left Leaning Freedom Lovers" which would support a mix of libertarian and democratic policies, as well as "Social Liberals", which favor a mix of Libertarian, Green and Democratic views. When I took his political quiz, I lined up right on the line between these two groups, neither of which is really represented by either party. From its stated positions and past support for Constitution Party folks, it is more likely that Tea Partiers would fit in Carl's Economic Conservative category, which is quintessentially Republican (although many hard core Republicans are in his Social Conservative area - however these care less about taxes than abortion, gays and immigration).

My bet is that many of the people who are liking the Tea Party (outside its Republican organizers) want more economic freedom but are not necessarily happy with the Republican social conservatives. The Republican Party will never be a home for these people, although they may vote Republican if Obama does not get the economy back on track soon. Of course, if the immigration debate comes to a head, they may just stay home if the Republican social rhetoric gets ugly (which it likely will).

The recent losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachussets did not come because the Republicans are gaining in popularity, but because the new Obama voters stayed home or have moved, graduated or were not mobilized on election day. In time, these voters will turn out more frequently while the older Tea Partiers continue to die off (sometimes in a blaze of infamy). Anchor babies will also soon age into the voting population, even without immigration reform. I doubt they will vote with Republicans who wish to deny them their natural born citizenship.

Indeed, freedom lovers will tell you that the best way to reduce immigration is to quit restricting the ability of immigrants to work. They will then become less attractive to American employers because they cannot be exploited if they no longer need documentation (or if they, gasp, join the Union like American workers).

The Tea Party may force a third party, but only because they contain enough anti-immigrants to make the GOP look like the KKK, while at the same time radicalizing people who want both more freedom and more justice (the Christian Left and Christian Libertarians). Even if the Christian Left does find a home in the Democrats (like we did in 2008), we won't stay there and the Democratic Party and the ranks of the independents will eventually get too big to not lead to a third party by 2016, except that this "third party" will likely be a second party by then. It all depends on the positions held by the two top contenders to replace Obama that year. Whoever loses the nomination may take their marbles and go found a second party. My bet is that the Democrats will fracture on corporatism vs. populism, what to do about the deficit and abortion. That's 2016, however, not 2010.

Posted by MichaelBindner at 02:05 PM | Comments (1)

January 01, 2008

Illegal Immigration and Moral Turpitude

A common technique among law and order types is to question the moral character of criminals by pointing out that they have committed crimes. It is often used in relation to drug laws, where the drug warriors use the fact that a person has broken a law (say by smoking marijuana) to prove that the law is justified, and then urge people not to use the drug based on the negative effects (which in the case of marijuana are almost totally the result of the law). It is also heavily used by illegal immigration hawks. A good example of this is a comment by Anonymous to this recent posting by Paul Gessing.

Anonymous says:

A number of bleeding heart types and illegal aliens advocates try to minimize the fact the even though illegal aliens are here illegally, there really is no crime involved. Here are some facts below so you can decide:

(1) Violating the immigration law is a CRIME
(2) Forging documents is a FELONY CRIME
(3) Passing forged documents is a FELONY CRIME
(4) Stealing ID is a FELONY CRIME
(5) Using stolen ID is a FELONY CRIME
(6) Re-entering the country after being deported is a FELONY CRIME
Well, definitionally, tautologies are tautological, and criminals commit crime. Illegal immigrants break the law. There is no added benefit from pointing this out. The question, rather, is whether the criminality of an act is justified by the morality of the act. Further, are all crimes equally bad? Do all crimes reflect bad character on the part of the criminal?

Do we say a man is evil because he wishes to do honest work and feed his family? Les Miserable is the tale of a man who is relentlessly pursued for stealing a loaf of bread. People generally sympathize with Jean Valjean's plight and recognize his essential decency despite his earlier crime. We should have some sympathy for those who look to America as their beacon of hope. Taking illegal immigration by itself, we can come to no conclusion about whether a person is good or bad simply because he did this.

Illegal immigration (just by itself) is a completely separate kind of crime than murder, rape, and fraud, each of which has a definable individual victim or set of victims. Who is hurt by illegal immigration? What kind of crime is this? It seems somewhat akin to dope smoking -- there is no tangible victim, only those people who are offended by the abstract concept. The harm is either associated with the illegality of the act (border county criminality, death during human smuggling, slave trafficking, etc.) or it is an aggregate effect (political change towards socialism, social service budget strains).

Perhaps not every man is evil in illegally crossing the border, but there are those who flagrantly disrespect the law, or those who want to suck up social services and put their families on the dole. Perhaps we believe that illegal immigration is a proxy for other bad behavior. If a person is willing to violate one law, perhaps they are willing to violate others. That may well be the case, statistically. Legal immigrants are crowded out (sent to the back of the line?) because illegals have taken a shortcut around the process. These could be true, but they call for a better process, like a guest worker program. And simply because such bad behavior may be associated with illegal immigration, it does not condemn each and every illegal immigrant.

/KDR

Posted by KevinRollins at 08:18 PM | Comments (30)

Immigration and Polls

With all of the comments posted in response to my posting about Ron Paul's anti-immigration ads, I figured that some hard data on what Americans actually think on the immigration issue is in order. Thanks to the Krieble Foundation, there is now some hard data showing that Americans are not really as anti-immigrant as is said and they actually support a guest worker program.

Hopefully, this neo-nativist wave will soon pass and Americans -- and candidates for office -- will again view immigration as the positive that it is. That's a New Year's resolution I'd like to see.

Posted by PaulGessing at 02:15 PM | Comments (13)

December 31, 2007

Ron Paul Ad Not What I'm Donating For

I've donated a decent amount of money to Dr. Paul's campaign, but I have to say that this new ad is abysmal. Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com largely echoes my own thoughts on the ad in a blog posting here.

For someone who states that "the collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism," Dr. Paul certainly lumps immigrants of all stripes together. Perhaps the problem is America's restrictionist immigration policy as opposed to people who want to come here for a better life? Also, while I disagree with Dr. Paul's complete restriction on visas from so-called "terrorist nations" (exactly what countries should be on that list?), I am okay with greater scrutiny of, not an outright ban on, those who choose to visit us from certain nations that have a history of producing terrorists.

Posted by PaulGessing at 07:51 PM | Comments (19)

November 05, 2007

Immigration: Global Warming on the right

Over at the Future of Freedom Foundation, they have a great article comparing the emotion on the left associated with global warming with the hysterical rhetoric some on the right use when discussing immigration. One of my favorite arguments about illegal immigrants specifically is the fact that they are "illegal." Of course, as this article points out, we all do things that are illegal every day, but the question is whether immigration is good or bad on the whole. History has shown that it has been good for the United States and we'd be well advised to allow people who want to come here to work, to do so.

Posted by PaulGessing at 10:58 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2007

Republicans: Again the Stupid Party

Recently, the Democratic candidates for President debated, in what can only be called a very contrived format, on Univsion in an effort to attract Spanish-speaking voters. While this was an experiment that will undoubtedly need to be re-worked for the future, at least the Democrats made an effort.

The Republicans, on the other hand, including Ron Paul (but not John McCain), have refused to even attempt a similar debate. Of course, the reason is immigration and the desire for Republicans to "look tough" on the issue in order to satisfy the nativist vote, but in the long-term this is a big mistake.

Of course, I have long disagreed with Dr. Paul on immigration (even though I have agreed with him on most everything else), but snubbing Hispanic voters will create problems for Republicans as a Party, one that will help consign them to minority status for years to come. I don't blame Dr. Paul and the other Republicans necessarily. After all, they are just responding to their base. The fact is that the Republican base needs to wake up and understand that immigration is good for the country and that immigrants don't move here to go on welfare, but to work for a better life for their families....how's that for "family values?"

Posted by PaulGessing at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



Advertisement
Free For All -- The Free Liberal Blog