Ever since health care reform passed, there's been an understandable "what now" amongst the chattering classes. First, Financial reform. Few aside from market fundamentalists and bankers themselves are against this, at least in principle.
Someone who knows more about the specifics may have good reasons for why this piece of legislation is rotten to the core, but the vast majority of us look at the shape of our economy, the narrative that got us here, and are unequivocal about being in favor of instituting a few rules to keep this from happening again.
I know next to nothing about what's in the financial reform bill, but the principle of the thing makes me an unhesitating yes. Having a strong, yet uninformed opinion on this issue has been really enlightening to me as someone who was steeped in every nuance of health care reform.
People can't be expected to follow every detail. It is wise to expect visceral reactions to public policy, not well-reasoned arguments. Knowing that, politics is about riding those visceral waves to the shoreline of reelection.
As a voter, are you honestly going to tell me that a vote for Goldman Sachs is a vote for America? This is clearly an uphill slither for even the most silvertongued politician.
Financial reform may flame out, burn out, get squashed, explode or otherwise disintegrate, but it's clearly a winning issue for those in favor, and a tough vote for those against. If your only concern is politics, it is wise to pick issues that are more likely to put you on the winning side. There's nothing novel about that. What's interesting is in when there's risk for you as well as the other guy.
After finance, the choice facing the Democratic caucus is between climate change legislation or immigration reform. Policy priorities aside, they'd be crazy not to make a run at immigration. For Democrats, climate legislation has few natural constituents, bad potential soundbites (climate tax?) costs a lot, and has abstract, tough to quantify outcomes at the other end. For Republicans, this is very easy to vote against, while it's not so easy for, say, a Democratic representative from Michigan to vote for.
Immigration reform galvanizes America's fastest growing constituency, costs relatively little for a big piece of legislation, and has very clear outcomes in its policy. The one thing running against it are the soundbites (amnesty), which clearly doomed the legislation when Bush made a run at it. Democrats face some fractious politics. This is not 'a heads I win tails you lose' proposition for them.
But they can spin this as a real, net positive, especially for working class whites who are increasingly alienated by their messaging and feel their livelihoods and way of life threatened by unchecked illegal immigration. When you take a step back, crying "amnesty" is pretty abstract, while "security," "American jobs," and "fairness" are pretty concrete.
On the other side, there is an increasingly emboldened and unhinged conservative apparatus. It's outside the control of any particular entity, Republican or otherwise. In a different scenario, the GOP could benefit from their energy, but without an ability to define what issues are taken up in congress, they are playing with fire. A majority in any chamber will give them a means to at least direct the fire towards the other side of the aisle.
The essential compromises of a humanitarian, constitutional immigration reform package are unacceptable to the current conservative zeitgeist. In other words, any policy forged out of good will and in the service of a democratic system will be abhorrent to them.
Looking towards November, who stands to lose more if congressional candidates have to take a position on immigration in the primaries? This is the moment where candidates must appeal to the nuttier side of their party over the interests of the general public. It's a terrible moment for Republicans to face a vote on immigration. Their base will elect nutcases with party appeal, and little chance to win a general election.
Visceral reactions to things can run for or against a particular political interest. Ask any gun control activist. With immigration, unless it is a purely military solution, there will be grown men in tri-cornered hats yelling about amnesty.
Meanwhile, Latinos, low-wage workers, law enforcement, and a dozen other groups will seek a solution to a problem that our country has spent decades in need of a resolution. Whose side would you rather be on?
