In Wake of Amnesty, Elites Get Mad, Plot to Get Even

Despite what you will hear from the mainstream media and the leadership of both parties, yesterday was a triumph. Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Harry Reid, AND George Bush’s immigration amnesty bill went down in flames Thursday when a crucial vote to cut off debate was defeated 53-46. Thursday represents a defeat for the Republican and Democrat party bosses and the elites they have sold their souls to in favor of this fatally-flawed legislation (big business, big labor, and big La Raza come to mind). It is a victory for everyone else (you know, the “loud folks”), and before we go any further, kudos are in high order for Senators- Republican and Democrat- who did the right thing and voted against their leadership and against cloture. Don’t expect the elites in the wake of this knock down to stay down, however.

This bill represents more than any other in recent memory the visible divide between the people’s elected representatives and the people who do the electing. Just take a look at the recent Gallup poll of Congress, which shows the lowest approval rating in the history of the Gallup poll itself. The bill failed principally thanks to an open rebellion among the American people, mostly- but not exclusively- on the right whose message was reverberated on the alternative media. Groups like the Heritage Foundation conducted cost studies placing enforcement (which begs the question that this bill could have been enforced) in the trillions of dollars. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin shed more light on the bill than many Senators would have liked and exposed it for the “come-and-get-it” amnesty it was. Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham not only offered their views on the bill but aired their listeners’ concerns on the matter. Most importantly, ordinary citizens placed so many phone calls to their Senators that the phone system was overloaded and had to be shut down.

Their response was visible enough at first and will become even more so after their, umm, Cuatro de Julio trips back home. Many in support of the bill were shocked to find that their constituents did not share their enthusiasm for a porous if not absent border and a free pass for 20 million people. How did these public servants, these elected representatives react? By name-calling. Senator Graham’s “loud folks” was just the tip of the iceberg. Senators dropped terms like “racist,” “bigot,” and the slightly-dated “know-nothing” to describe their concerned constituents. Senator Feinstein declared that she had never before received such hate-filled mail from voters who didn’t want to live in a balkanized, bilingual state. Just yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid reported receiving a negative letter from a constituent which he promptly turned over to Capitol Police. I guess petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is grounds for a criminal investigation these days.

And what good is petitioning without a means to petition? Frustrated elitists on both sides of the aisle have now set their sights on the vehicle they see as most responsible for shutting down their amnesty bill: political talk radio. The left has been hinting since before they took power at bringing back the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” to silence the voice of conservative opposition on the airwaves. Now it seems they’re not only serious about it, but they’ve got Republican support! Just ask Senator Foghorn Hairspray (R-Mississippi) who declared “talk [ah say, talk] radio is running this country and we’ve got to do something about it, [see?]” The “Fairness Doctrine” is gathering steam (or is that hot air?) with Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Durbin, Hillary, and others expressing their support. It was even reported that Democrats told wavering Republican Senators yesterday that by the time they returned from their angry constituents, they would have already “taken care” of talk radio.

It is now becoming apparent that hell hath no fury like an elite scorned, and it’s not hard to see why they’re reacting in this way. Congress and the President hold approval ratings which rival those of the Adams administration, and back then they countered the will of the people with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize President Adams and the Federalist Party’s government. Several members of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were thrown in jail for doing just that. The American people wouldn’t stand for such tyranny then and the Federalists were thrown out in 1800. Now, faced with bipartisan elitism, the end result is much less clear. The American public is quite clearly mad as hell at both parties, and the elites will more than likely try to silence opposing viewpoints in the media and re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” to maintain their power. However, the two-party system in place in America ensures a result similar to the 1981 NBA Playoffs: somebody’s got to win, even if nobody’s paying attention.

With Dems in Left Field, Republicans Should Play to the Center

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s termination of what can best be described as a brief and politically-convenient fling with the Republican Party ought to surprise no one. After all, he had been hinting for quite some time at an independent run for the White House next year. While his status as a Republican allowed him to ride his predecessor’s coattails to become mayor of America’s largest city, he fit in about as well with most in the party as I do in a room full of drunk coeds. His exit from the Republican Party is important not for what it means to his future but to the future of the party’s rapidly shrinking center.

Whatever you may think of his real compatibility with the Republican Party, Mike Bloomberg represents a certain wing of the party that is struggling to maintain their place at the table. These are the descendants of Rockefeller, Scranton, Nixon, and Ford who are at odds for being moderate or even liberal on certain issues that have defined the party platform since the 1980’s. They are pro-choice, pro-green deficit hawks who often defy their more conservative members on stem cell research and gay marriage. The losers in the schism that doomed the party in the election of 1964, they are now the ones who, for better or worse, argue for “big tent” inclusion against right-wing extremism.

The election of 2006 didn’t help GOP moderates whose ranks were further depleted by retirement and defeat. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the House’s lone openly-gay Republican retired, Michigan’s Joe Schwarz was beaten in his primary, and Connecticut’s Nancy Johnson- a founding member of the Republican Main Street Partnership- was knocked off on election night. She, however, was not alone: six other moderate Republican Congressmen and Senator Lincoln Chafee joined Johnson’s involuntary return to the private sector. The fate of elected Republican moderates is not nearly as dire however as those who do the electing. This became apparent in the recent primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire when a self-proclaimed moderate asked candidates what they would do to reach out to the party’s center. The recent midterms further illustrate how Karl Rove’s strategy of getting out the base on Election Day, while successful through three elections, has led to the party moderates being ignored or abandoned.

Perhaps the most intriguing question through all of this is: what should happen if this group of moderates resurfaces and is successful in nominating one of its own to the presidency? Rudy Giuliani is the current Republican favorite and possesses a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control record (though you wouldn’t know it now by asking him). Many on the right are cringing at the possibility of a Republican candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, or at the very least not go out of his way to try to overturn it. What then should happen if the two (or even three with Bloomberg) presidential candidates are all moderate or liberal on social issues? Would this lead to a Sam Brownback or a Pat Buchanan-like candidate bolting the GOP and running as an independent himself? It’s not nearly as far-fetched as it may at first seem: back in 2000 a Pat Robertson autodialer warned South Carolina Republicans not to vote for anybody if John McCain won the nomination.

As history (1912, 1964, and 1976) has shown, factional schism is poison to the Republican Party. It would seem in a race of such consequence that the Republicans have all hands on deck to beat whoever the Democrats come up with. I shouldn’t have to say again that the Democrats have a distinct advantage at this early point in the campaign. What’s more, 2006 proves the Republicans can’t simply rely on their conservative base alone to win, especially with that base becoming increasingly angry with the party itself. Furthermore, Republicans can no longer count on Democrats to beat themselves (or herself) and will have to win 2008 on their own merits with a candidate who is more than he is not. If Republicans hope to win with the right it needs first to reconcile with its center.

GOP Set to Party Like it’s 1993?

While I was in Canada I mentioned to a friend that I wanted to see Meech Lake, some 25 kilometers northwest of Ottawa. This was the site of the now infamous Meech Lake Accord, where Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tried to get Quebec to ratify the Canada Act in 1987. I told him that I wanted to see just where the Progressive Conservative Party ceased to exist as a national party, losing all but two of its 169 seats in the 1993 federal election. He then asked if I wanted to take a trip this summer to the Mexican border, where the Republican Party will cease to exist as a national party.

The more one looks at this ill-fated and even worse-conceived immigration bill the more it tends to resemble the Meech Lake Accord for the Republican Party. Both initially enjoyed the support of more than one party, both were hailed as compromises and the result of intense negotiations, both were geared at securing a certain group in an electoral coalition, and both (ironically) involved immigration in some form. Most importantly, however, both have severely alienated their party’s conservative base. In the case of Canada, this meant that more than half of the electorate switched parties in the 1993 elections. What’s more, the electoral coalition Mulroney built in his 1984 and 1988 landslides collapsed: Quebec nationalists voted for the new Bloc Quebecois while western conservatives chose Preston Manning’s Reform Party. Everyone else voted for the Liberals, who ended up winning big.

While there is as yet no third party or Manning-like figure to play Pac Man to the GOP’s traditional support, they do face a real threat from a rejuvenated Democratic Party. Today’s Democrats are proving what a difference two years can make with everything seemingly going their way. They have two rock star candidates for the presidency, the momentum of the 2006 midterm wave behind them, and a very unpopular lame duck president the Republicans have to stay away from to hope to win. Put simply, at this very early point in the campaign, the race is the Democrats’ to lose.

President Bush and a group of Senate RINOs aren’t making things any easier. To the contrary, they have taken to blaming “loud folks,” (you know, the ones who put them in power back in 2004) for their bill stalling in the Senate. They have taken to name-calling with “nativist” and “racist” being thrown around by Republicans to describe their most dedicated supporters less than three years ago. They have taken to praising Senate Democrats for their efforts in trying to push this bill forward against the efforts of its more conservative members. If the likes of Lindsey Graham think Democrats are so great for their efforts on this bill, then that’s exactly who his constituents might vote for in 2008.

There are even more immediate consequences for this bill, especially if your name is John McCain. While even being associated with the bill should hurt his campaign enough in the eyes of Republican primary voters, being a co-sponsor with Ted Kennedy could sink it. Even McCain admits it’s not a bill he would have written, which again seems curious when he’s a co-sponsor. If there are any beneficiaries on the right side of the aisle its Rudy and Romney for blasting the bill while proving they are more than single-issue candidates like Tom Tancredo.

While things aren’t nearly as dire for the Republicans now as they were for the Progressive Conservatives in 1993, there are some ominous signs on the horizon as well as some common mistakes in the past. President Bush’s second term can most-favorably be described as a series of unfortunate events. The nomination of Harriet Miers, the Charlie-Foxtrot surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and this current immigration bill stand out as some of the more devastating blows to his administration, to say nothing about the Iraq War. All we need now is a Goods and Services Tax to seal the Republicans’ fate.

By contrast, President Bush has no chosen successor as Prime Minister Mulroney did, and that’s probably a good thing. Mulroney’s heir apparent Kim Campbell was so inept a campaigner and her former boss was so unpopular that Liberal activists met her with chants of “Kim, Kim, you’re just like him!” wherever she went. Desperation time set in with the PC’s airing an ad for 24 hours showcasing Jean Chrétien’s Bell’s palsy. The gift of historical hindsight gives the Republicans roughly 18 months to change their fate for the better. The alternative is to be called upon to “bring out yer dead” on election night.