[Dialogue] Bush's Hispanic Problem

[FacilitationFla at aol.com]

Sunday Times
Sheriff  Bush blinks in a Mexican Stand-off
Andrew Sullivan  
When  President George W Bush visited Mexico last week for a summit with  its 
president, Vicente Fox, it was just like the good old days. Before 9/11  Bush’
s primary foreign policy focus was going to be Mexico.  He knew the place 
well, having been a border-state governor. He’d also crafted  an electoral 
strategy in Texas and nationally that could appeal to  Hispanic immigrants, legal 
and illegal.  
He  would appeal to their religious faith and their social conservatism by 
repeating  such platitudes as “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”. He 
would dole  out federal funds to Latino pressure groups and churches. He would 
appoint a  Latino attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales. He would propose humane 
measures that  would help guide the 11m or so illegal immigrants to eventual 
American  citizenship.  
That,  indeed, is still the goal. And so far it’s worked well. Bush lost the 
Hispanic  vote to Gore in 2000 by a margin of 30 points. By 2004 Bush lost the 
same vote  to Kerry by a mere eight. That’s a big political achievement in 
four years — and  given the potential growth of Hispanic voting it may mark a 
historic  realignment.  
The  trouble is: like many other first-term alliances this 
Hispanic-Republican  coalition has begun to creak dangerously in the second. What Bush has 
discovered  is that it’s hard to hold on to an extremely conservative white 
Southern base,  and yet also reach out to minorities, like African-Americans, 
Muslims, gays or  Latinos, that have long been part of the Democratic party spectrum. 
Muslims were  lost not long after 9/11. Gays disappeared after the federal 
marriage amendment.  Blacks baled out after Katrina. Now Latinos look antsy with 
the prospect of  serious immigration reform.  
And  you can see why. The rhetoric coming from the Republican right on 
immigration is  not something likely to warm the hearts of Latino immigrants — legal 
or illegal.  Listen to conservative talk radio, or watch the big cable news 
populists, and  you will soon hear about our “broken borders”, the “hordes” 
of “illegals” who  are coming to America to deprive Americans of  well-paid 
jobs. You’ll hear demands for a Sharon-like wall to keep the Mexicans  out; or 
support for vigilante groups who track down illegal migrants.   
You’ll  hear demands to deport all illegals, imprison employers who hire 
them, and  criminalise the activities of those groups, like many Catholic 
churches, who  provide aid and services to illegal entrants. Yes, these demands are 
about  illegal Latinos, not legal ones. And the case for law enforcement is a  
legitimate one. But it’s hard to avoid hearing racist generalisations,  
xenophobia and paranoia.  
Hence  Bush’s problem. Any concession to the Latino bloc, such as the 
sensible plan to  give 11m illegal residents of the US some kind of guest-worker 
status,  is regarded by the right as rewarding illegal activity. Any concession to 
the  white base, such as beefing up the border fence and patrols, can be spun 
as  anti-Hispanic.  
Republican  establishment types remember what happened to Pete Wilson, the 
former Republican  governor of California, who won re-election by campaigning  
against illegal immigration. The catch was that his anti-immigrant rhetoric  
subsequently decimated Hispanic support for the Republicans and handed  
California to  the Democrats for a generation.  
Bush’s  predicament was only worsened last weekend when hundreds of thousands 
of  immigrants and immigrant-supporters rallied across the country to protest 
at a  potential tightening of immigration laws. This not only rallied the 
Democratic  base, it also outraged base Republicans. They focused on what seemed 
to be  anti-American sentiment in the parades, on public defence of 
law-breaking, and  on visual images that seemed to summon up the very rhetorical “hordes”
 the talk  show hosts fear.  
The  president in the past has benefited from polarising the electorate with 
inflamed  culture-war debates. But Hispanics are not like gays. There are 
many, many more  of them. And they cannot be written off as an iffy constituency 
in order to  solidify another, more reliable one.  
So  what can Bush do? The rational solution is a pretty obvious one: beefed 
up  border control and a guest-worker programme. The trouble is that Republican 
 congressmen in the House of Representatives are increasingly vulnerable at 
the  polls this November. They need both to shore up their base, and to 
distance  themselves a little from an increasingly disliked president during a 
troubled  war. Most of them have few Hispanics in their own districts, and little  
incentive to compromise.  
Yes,  you can try to appeal to the religious right by citing Hispanic social  
conservatism. But that’s not what really motivates the base to vote. They 
tend  to vote against people and things: against terrorists, against gays, 
against  Hollywood,  against liberals, against immigrants. This is the base Bush has 
built; and it is  a hard one to build a progressive, inclusive immigration 
policy on top of.   
The  president will try. He has Republican allies in senators like Arlen 
Specter and  John McCain. The Republican business establishment will back him too —
 it needs  and likes the cheap, exploitable labour of illegal immigration. 
With  unemployment at less than 5% it has a point. But no solution this year 
will  avoid a damaging split of the Republican coalition that has emerged under 
Bush.   
If  the president is lucky, the issue will get kicked down the road, as 
Senate and  House fail to find a compromise, and he’ll keep most of the Hispanic 
inroads he  has so far achieved. But any other development will hurt the 
president badly.   
The  debate itself wounds his party. Every time a Republican congressman 
stands up to  inveigh against illegals the Hispanic vote veers to the Democrats. 
Every time a  Republican senator speaks in favour of guest-workers and 
inclusion, a white male  Southerner decides not to bother voting this November. It’s 
lose-lose for  Bush. 


Cynthia N.  Vance
Strategics International Inc.
8245 SW 116 Terrace
Miami, Florida,  33156
305-378-1327; fax  305-378-9178
http://members.aol.com/facilitationfla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20060504/1502dd21/attachment-0001.htm