Can Republicans beat the fringe? Can they find the middle?
Yesterday I blogged about liberals and the Left’s goofy expectation that Barack Obama would do, well, everything in his first two years in office.
Today, I want to wrestle with conservatives and with the Right’s very credible expectation that Republicans will attempt to do some pretty dumb things if they win a majority.
By dumb I mean scary. Like changing the US Constitution in order to satisfy some of the GOP’s loopiest, far-out supporters.
Case in point is the effort to amend or eliminate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees full citizenship rights to anyone born on US soil.
Here’s Sen. John Kyl talking about the proposal:
The 14th Amendment was pushed through by Republicans in 1866, part of the party’s efforts to end the evil of slavery and the disenfranchisement of African Americans.
Now, some conservative are convinced that a lot of illegal foreign workers are using their American-born children as “anchor babies.”
The idea that we will solve the illegal immigration problem by turning infants into criminals, and by revoking one of the bedrock standard’s of American democracy, is wrong-headed.
(For the record, the GOP’s own website still brags about its passage of the measure, pointing out that “all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats.”)
But rather than draw a bright line against this kind of wing-nuttery, flailing Republican leaders — hoping to appease an increasingly restless conservative base — have signed on.
George Washington is supposed to have said that the Senate would serve as the saucer to cool the tea. But the tea party is serving up a brew that the GOP can’t seem to resist.
In recent months, we’ve seen top Republican leaders repudiate many of their own best ideas, because angry voices on the fringe-right — and on talk radio — gave them the flutters.
Cap-and-trade energy policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? It’s a Republican idea, developed in part by our own John McHugh.
John McCain and Sarah Palin campaigned in support of the policy in 2008. Now the GOP is working to shred the proposal.
A requirement that all Americans with means pay for their own health insurance, so that the rest of us don’t have to pick up the tab? It was developed by the GOP, and supported strongly by Sen. Charles Grassley.
Under pressure from the right, he now calls the idea “unconstitutional.”
A requirement that doctors do end-of-life planning and counseling? It was a Republican proposal that Republicans later derided falsely as “death panels.”
Mainstream Republicans — including Ronald Reagan’s former budget director David Stockman — have ackowledged that cutting deficits will be impossible without boosting Federal revenues.
But the vast majority of GOP leaders won’t talk realistically about the damage being done by the Bush-era tax cuts.
Finally, and closer to home, Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio has signed on to the deeply un-American idea that a place of worship — yes, a mosque — shouldn’t be located near Ground Zero in New York City.
The mosque is supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who pointed out in a speech this week that the city’s Dutch administrators once rejected a proposal for a synagogue on Manhattan Island.
Here are the crux of Bloomberg’s comments:
“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.”
The problem here isn’t — as Rachel Maddow and others have suggested — that Republicans are flip-floppers or panderers.
The deeper worry is that senior Republican leaders are apparently so rudderless, and so politically vulnerable, that they’re willing to adopt really bad ideas — and drop good ones — whenever Rush Limbaugh or his ilk wag their fingers.
Historically, one of the main purposes of our two big political parties is establishing a broad consensus, filtering out the kookiest ideas, and bringing the dialogue and debate toward the middle.
Right now, that crucial piece of the GOP’s machinery is badly broken.
Tags: election10
Brian says,
“Rick Lazio has signed on to the deeply un-American idea”
——
Quinnipiac says that most New Yorkers must be un-American, too.
“A majority of New Yorkers oppose plans to build a mosque and Muslim cultural center two blocks from Ground Zero, according to a Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents said they did not want the mosque to be built at all, 31 percent are in favor of it, and 17 percent are undecided.”
The liberal / progressives count 31 percent as a majority.
It’s the way they do math.
And you’re un-American if you belong to the 52% majority of Americans.
Discrimination based on religion is about as un-american as it gets.
Islam is not based on Al Qaeda’s ideas alone, it is practiced by hundreds of millions of people with a broad range of ideologies.
Do we say Christian philosophy is based on southern baptist preacher’s sermons? Or the fundamentalist mormons? No, we have liberal Episcopalians and conservative catholics, and a broad range of ideas in between.
We don’t legislate based on popular opinion, we legislate based on law. And in this case, there’s no legal case for banning a house of worship simply due to its proximity to ground zero.
verplanck:
Can you imagine if Christians wanted to place a cross 600 feet from ground zero?
What about a Christian prayer meeting in school?
What about Merry Christmas?
To quote you, “Discrimination based on religion is about as un-american as it gets.”
JDM, I thought conservatives were all about local control and states’ rights. The mosque issue wasn’t an issue until elitist furriners Gingrich, Palin and Beck made it one.
To them I say, Keep your oil-stained Alaska socialist pot-loving hands off our land!
Well if those Christians own the property 600 feet from ground zero they’d be able to put the cross there. The Christian prayer is a different issue entirely as the school is not private property but public (I’m assuming you refer to public schools in your example as private schools can utilize prayer).
The terrorists should be happy. They made 52% of us hate freedom of religion. mission accomplished
Huh, there already is a cross….on the site itself!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_cross
This is just an example of why the Republicans will continue to spin their wheels. The “anchor baby” issue is a problem and they don’t have any idea how to address it. Seems to me the answer is deporting illegal aliens before they have kids here they use as anchors. But the left fights that idea and so do some on the right that are more interested in cheap slave labor and Hispanic votes.
The Mosque? It’s in very poor taste IMO. More importantly than how we see it it how the Islamic Fundamentalists see it. For them its just another example of American weakness. We simply don’t have the backbone to say no in their view. Same with the illegal alien issue with Mexico- if we treated our illegals like Mexico treats it’s illegals we’d be accused of genocide and war crimes against humanity! But that never gets mentioned, we’re white and wealthy so we’re guilty.
Look, truth is the vast majority of politicians in Albany and Washington would sell their childrens eyes to stay in office. Why do we expect anything else from career politicians? That’s what we always get and until we start tossing the bums out, cutting the perks and making it a sacrifice to SERVE the people we’ll continue to get the same ol’, same ol’.
Bret,
An article in the Washington Post on this issue said that the people who come to have anchor babies pay up to $40k for the trip. Personally, I would WANT to have people who can afford that to come here and live/work/pay taxes. This is just another conservative scare tactic to work up the rubes over the “foreign takeover of our country”. Unless you have some studies that show how big of a problem this is?
re: mosque in NYC. Please tell me the appropriate setback from Ground Zero that a mosque could be built. 1000 feet? A mile? Ten miles?
My take on it is that by approving it, we are confirming that we are a diverse, tolerant society that accepts all who live under our laws. If we say ‘no’ to the mosque, we hand Al Qaeda a victory, since we’re playing right into their stereotype as Christian Crusaders bent on destroying Islam.
A few days ago E.J. Dionne asked “Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?” I think that is an excellent question.
Conservatives have been successful in getting elected by playing on the fears of their base. It used to be sex, abortion and Cadillac welfare mothers, which part of the conservative base grew wise to.
Now its terrorists, muslims, illegal aliens, President who is not a citizen, President who is a Nazi, President always on vacation, President planned gulf oil spill, the government “owns everything”, death panels, climate change denial, black racists, Mexicans taking over ranches in Laredo, bike paths and one world government, I don’t know how many Constitutional amendment proposals, filibuster everything, say no to everything, and some other crazy thing everyday.
Conservatives readily admitted that they wanted to drown government in a bathtub. They may actually get their wish.
As for the Mosque (community center) in New York city, whatever happen to conservative support of property rights?
PNElba writes:
“Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?” I think that is an excellent question.
So do I.
So by upholding freedom of religion (one of our founding principles) we are “weak” but if we behave more like Saudia Arabia or Al Qaeda, we are some how more American?
Please show me the logic in that.
i think the real way to show weakness to “islamic fundamentalists” is by being overly concerned with their feelings. wouldn’t a strong, confident country just basically ignore them?
So, hermit, a weak country upholds its core values, like freedom of religion, and a confident country ignores fundamental, constitutional rights. Got it?
Then I am happy to live in a weak country. If you want a “confident country”, there are several to choose from in the middle east.
Hey, we all know it’s really freedom for some religion…not necessarily all. And referendum doesn’t work if fueled by demegaguery(?).
When fear is used to produce law, there is a major problem. How many Americans would have voted to push Native Americans off their land 100 years ago? Would that have made it “right”? Think of other examples…I know you all can.
As long as Muslims are willing to abide by our laws and don’t try to change any of our laws so that it is no longer illegal for them to prevent women from driving a car, going out on their own and wearing a bikini without fear of being stoned to death, I really don’t care where they want to build a Mosque.
And as long as we are on the subject of religion, I feel the same way about any religion. None should be trying to use any government to enforce their laws. That goes for all the so called Christian religions. I don’t recall Jesus ever trying to get Rome to enforce any of the Jewish laws of his day.
Verplanck, shouldn’t the question be, “If they have $40K to use to take the trip to have the anchor baby, then why wouldn’t they just immigrate legally?” Who is footing the bill? Now I’ve never heard of this before so it’s a new one on me, but it seems like it raises some questions, doesn’t it?
Set back for a Mosque? Probably if you asked the widows, widowers, and other loved ones of those lost on 9/11 it would be some distance. I have no answer, it’s not that big an issue to me. But I think it’s a victory no matter how it ends up for the radical Muslims- either we hate them or we’re too weak to stop them.
Funny, you mention our being a diverse, tolerant society who accept all who live under our laws, yet Rush Limbaugh was barred from partial ownership in a sports franchise because of his political stance. Now personally I don’t care what Ol Rush/Mr. RNC spokesperson does with his money. But that doesn’t prove out your theory too well IMO.
PNElba, liberals have been using the same fear based reasoning for decades! Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten the “Republicans want old people to have to eat cat food” mantra of the 80’s. For everything you can list there is a fear based liberal response from the left. That argument is full of hot air and has no basis that isn’t also at play on the left.
Has no basis? Which of what I listed is not based in fact? And, as a matter of fact I don’t remember that particular “mantra”. I do seem to remember something about Reagan and ketchup though.
Maybe in your view liberals have been using fear based reasoning to win elections. I don’t buy it and it wouldn’t work even if they did try it. The fear technique is aimed at “the base”. The liberals are a very small part of the Democratic “base” compared to the Republican conservative base. Conservatives tend to march in lockstep. We could only wish that Democrats could do the same.
“For everything you can list there is a fear based liberal response from the left.”
Ok, let’s see them.
mateo,
i think you misread my comment. if i’m not misreading yours, then we’re basically in agreement about all this.
Brian Mann,
That was an extremely liberal rant. How about being a little more balanced?
Well at least they are building something there, what happened to all of the plans and drawings and all of that stuff about re-building? I remember the big contests and fancy architects they were choosing and the hoopla and controversy, and huge wonderful towers soaring above in those drawings; and what do we have in that hole going on ten years since this happened? Might as well be a Mosque it is somehow fitting.
But anyway that is a side issue if they own the land they can build whatever they want including a Mosque, and we Christians can build whatever we want on land we own as long as it is legal.
I don’t think the fringe is as fringe as you are saying Brian. The fact is we are in the middle of the largest migration on the planet right now between Mexico and the United States, somewhere between 1/2 million to one million people a year illegally entering and staying in this country. The Republicans are not crazy for making this the huge issue that it is, all of the immigration reform in the world is a bogus sham if we can’t control our own borders. I don’t think people will stop coming here illegally if we deny their babies citizenship but it is certainly not what the 14th amendment was about. If my wife and I fly to Paris when she is pregnant and she has the baby early in Paris is the baby a French citizen? Of course not as it is totally ridiculous on its face. It’s an issue Republicans can win on because it makes sense.
The Republican middle is a loser, most people myself included will take a conservative Democrat over a middle of the road Republican every time. Ronald Reagan was considered far to extreme for the Party when he first ran.
Moderate republicans seem to do well in Maine and NH. They also seem to do well in NNY. In the same places it seems moderate democrats do well. I’d pick moderate dem or rep over a left wing nut or a right wing nut. There are plenty left wing nuts in very liberal parts of the country and right wing nuts in heavily conservative places. I have lived in both types of places and NNY is neither. the righty’s seem to be the only one trying to push their side to the extreme.
Well Brian, I predicted months ago that far-right loopyness would prevent a take-over by Republicans November. From what I see here the loopy right is alive and well and the election is still months away. Plenty of time for things to get weirder.
On the mosque issue, I would suggest that they put a mosque AT Ground Zero, and a church, a synagog, whatever…you guys are really weird about religion. Take it from an atheist, religions are all the same because people aren’t all that creative. You create your gods in your own image and it often isn’t a very pretty image.
khl says,
“I predicted months ago that far-right loopyness would prevent a take-over by Republicans November.”
The ace-in-hole is that we have seen two years of the far left loopyness.
JDM, you haven’t seen far left loopyness because the far left doesn’t control anything. When was the last time you saw Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, or Noam Chomsky in the news?
The really strange thing is that after Bush/Cheney a large segment of the electorate believes that slightly- left- of -dead- center -but-still-solidly-in-the-mainstream politicians are radical socialists out to bring the USofA to its knees. You guys should spend some time in Ithaca, or Boulder, or Berkeley.
Vive la differance! Wish I could spell in French (like a socialist).
PNElba- Liberals do use the same fear based tactics. By liberals I mean the Democrats and the left in general if that clears things up. If the right says the lefties want to outlaw prayer the lefties say the right wants to force religion on people. If the lefties say the right wants to outlaw abortion the right says the left wants to offer abortions through schools. If the right says it wants common sense budget cuts the left says the right wants to give tax cuts to billionaires. If the left says it wants to legalize gay marriage the right says the left is out to destroy the family.
There’s a little bit of truth in everything, but the politicians use fear to propel their argument. You’re smart enough to see that, take your blinders off.
I agree with Bret (yet again), liberals do use fear tactics, often to raise money. You should see my mail, “Stop the Republican…” “send us $25”.
But the right uses fear tactics in a slightly different way. I feel (see, we liberals “feel” stuff, we’re touchy-feely) that the right uses fear to divide us. Divide and conquer.
Bret…
I think you are right. Both sides use these tatics because it’s all about winning the election. We need term limits.
khl says,
“When was the last time you saw Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, or Noam Chomsky in the news?”
The left controls the news! That is why we must all do our own due-diligence.
Some people really believe what they believe, because they believe it.
Some people are mind-numbed robots, and only believe what they believe because they are programmed by the media.
Unfortunately, fear works. It’s far easier to frighten the electorate than it is to educate them.
Especailly when educating really means “getting them to believe the things and the way I do.”
“The left controls the news!”
Evidence please.
mervel,
re: immigration
I’d be more inclined to believe the GOP is doing something more than demagogue-ing the issue if their solutions were effective. But as long as employers do not face any serious repercussions for hiring illegal immigrant labor, we are not going to get anywhere in solving the problem. Fences, AZ’s new law, and increased ICE raids are about as effective as our attempts to crush the drug trade.
kill the demand, kill the problem. Jail/severe fines for those hiring illegal immigrants.
I think the brilliance of the Democratic Party has been to allow and make room for some pretty conservative Democrats in their ranks. Conservative Democrats today are often more conservative on social issues than liberal Republicans, they are also often fiscally conservative but are not obsessed with cutting taxes. So what is the distinguishing characteristic of a moderate to liberal Republican?
Verplank,
I agree, I would add though that it takes both.
Areas along the border that have implemented tougher border security have indeed seen decreased traffic, including areas that have the border fence. It is one of the reasons that traffic has shifted to the desert trafficking routes.
Routes into the US are controlled by the Mexican Narco traffickers, thus people and companies who hire illegal immigrants are effectively doing business with Mexican drug mafias. It is not a victimless crime people are not just wandering up to the border and crossing for a new life, they are being brought to the border by human traffickers those traffickers operate under the protection of the drug mafias who control the routes they charge the families huge payments that they have to borrow and then of course they are trapped. Guest worker programs will not if you have a steady stream of people coming in illegally to undercut those workers who are in the guest program. It all goes back to control of the border at some level.
I totally agree though as long as the demand is there they will come. Very powerful interests on the Left and on the Right benefit from illegal immigration.
But I would just add that I think it is an issue that Republicans can win on, including the 14th amendment repeal.
Good conversation. A couple of points.
My argument here is hardly liberal. Indeed, the argument in almost all of these cases is between Republicans.
From cap-and-trade to mandatory insurance coverage, these are the GOP’s ideas.
Regarding opposition to the mosque at Ground Zero: Republicans have been staunch advocates of religious freedom and tolerance.
They’ve also been strong advocates for governments staying out of the business of restricting religious worship.
That’s not a liberal position.
Finally, the point made here about insta-polls on this issue goes directly to the heart of my point.
The reason we have big parties and a representative government — not to mention a United States Senate — is that we use those mechanisms to think twice about our public passions.
Currently, I’m not sure the GOP has the leadership or the institutional stability to do that.
–Brian, NCPR
JDM,
Yeah, I see those lefties over at FoxNews and on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. You probably believe the NY Times is far left and if you do then you don’t know what far left is.
And this thing on Anchor Babies. I thought it was wrong when the Irish were eating their babies, but at least you could understand it; they were very hungry. But Anchor Babies!? Hasn’t anyone told these people that babies float?
Brian, I agree with much of your last post with a couple of qualifiers. Those on the right, and a few on the left, have also noted that Islamic extremists bear watching. Religious freedom is one thing, importing Sharia law or allowing special rules for a certain group isn’t a wise idea in that area.
The GOP has a nasty habit of opening it’s mouth and inserting both feet up to the hips on a regular basis.
I don’t really agree though with the move to the center strategy for the Republican Party. Gerald Ford was the center and Reagan was the extremist in that time period. The same things were said about Reagan being a right wing extremist, and on some issues he WAS and people voted for those “right wing” stands.
Some of the things which sound crazy to some sound very normal to others. The average person on the street you ask them if a tourist passing through who unexpectedly has a baby in a US hospital if that baby should become a citizen they will probably say no that is simply stupid. It is not a crazy thing to change or amend and it is not some far right wing plot. Just things like that I think the conservatives within the party can win on if they make a good case.
“The average person on the street you ask them if a tourist passing through who unexpectedly has a baby in a US hospital if that baby should become a citizen they will probably say no that is simply stupid.”
And the average person in the street has no idea what’s even in the Constitution.
“From cap-and-trade to mandatory insurance coverage, these are the GOP’s ideas.”
Liberal republican ideas. The individual mandate is why the health care bill is so controversial. Opposition to forcing people to buy private health insurance cuts across ideological lines. The only people who really like it are a few centrist technocratic policy wonks and the big insurance companies.
14th amendment…Corporation Personhood.
Maybe this will raise something that has latched on to an otherwise great amendment.
Individual mandate is a conservative idea. McCain supported the individual mandate, Bill Frist supported the individual mandate, Romney instituted the individual mandate in MA. Sen. Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri all supported an individual mandate back in 1993. Be that as it may, what’s the GOP’s alternative idea? How do you do away with the preexisting condition problem without a mandate? Let’s hear the alternatives rather than just saying no and trying to destroy the current government.
As for the 14th amendment….again, let’s hear some ideas. I’d love to hear from 14th’ers on how it should be rewritten. If your grandparents came here illegally, gave birth to your father who then married and had you…..would you be an American citizen? But conservative ideas will not be put forth because then there would be a debate on the pros and cons of the idea. It’s much easier to be in favor of changing the 14th amendment (without specifics) just so you can rile up your base and get votes. That’s not governing.
The individual mandate violate the conservative principles of individual liberty and limited government. It could be considered a centrist idea between laissez faire and single payer, but a federal individual mandate is neither conservative or popular, and may even be unconstitutional. Many in the GOP do not want to do away with pre-existing condition problem; they favor laissez faire.
PNElba, sorry, but none of the people you names is even remotely conservative, so while the ideas may have been Republican, they most definitely were not conservative.
As I understand it the problem with the “anchor baby” issue isn’t with the 14th Amend. as written but a later court decision that found it covered anyone who just happened to have a kid while in the US. If that is true then it would seem the decision should be reviewed to see if the intent was there to cover purposeful birthing on US soil.
Is the Heritage Foundation conservative? They were in favor of the individual mandate as well. Conservative Union life ratings: Grassley 84; Hatch 89; Bennett 84; Bond 82, pretty high conservative ratings. Now I know the above listed guys are not a Kyl or a Crapo or a Vitter or an Inhoff but they are indeed conservative. I guess just not conservative enough for ol Bret.
And, sorry, but everyplace I read, conservatives are saying the 14th amendment needs to be amended to prevent “anchor babies” from becoming citizens. BTW, just who is a true conservative besides you Bret?
No, I don’t find the Heritage Foundation to be particularly conservative. They seem to be another mouth piece for the RNC. A Republican or Democrat may occasionally make gestures to conservative ideals, but that doesn’t make them conservative.
The 1993 bill that you speak of, as I understand it, was in response to the Clinton plan requiring employers to provide healthcare. I also understand it was to provide incentives to reward those who provided their own insurance. (I can’t find the original wording in 10 pages of searching, the curse of over-information.) So, I find it more than a bit inaccurate to say that what they were speaking of then is exactly the same as what we speak of today. We’re talking about political dodge and parry here, not actual proposals they seriously looked at. That was Republicans working for their donators.
I offer an opinion that messing with an Amendment is a dumb thing to do when it’s one lower court ruling that caused the problem and you get snarky over that? Wow, consistency isn’t your strong point, eh? And what you’re seeing with all the people talking about repealing the 14th is politicians trying to gain face time and appear to be doing something. You should be used to that with your liberal pals, it’s their playbook. The problem may be able to be addressed, if it can be addressed, through court review.