Except that this isn't good politics. Sure, Democrats have something to lose on immigration, but there's something to lose on taking a bold stand on every issue. And all I know is that every time the words "immigration" and "McCain" appear in the same sentence, John McCain's conservative base--folks that generally like him otherwise--are going to remember that "amnesty" bill that he cosponsored with Ted Kennedy. They'll remember how Bush and his friends made subtle insinuations of racism about those who didn't support their bill, and they'll remember how the Senate almost passed an immigration bill that they, frankly, hated. And the fact that he has come pretty far from disavowing his earlier effort--"the people don't want it" is hardly a statement of changed principle--makes the issue still touchy for him. Put simply, every time immigration is in the news, it hurts John McCain. Simple.
So, why don't Democrats want to hurt John McCain?
It seems fairly obvious that Hillary Clinton is deathly afraid of this issue. These days, most issues tilt in favor of the Democrats by big margins, if the polls are to be believed. Immigration does, too, but not by much. Hillary believes, maybe rightly, that this is an issue on which conservatives have some juice, where the public generally agrees with them on a gut level, and where those with the "liberal" position are going to be endlessly smeared by the right-wing machine. At the risk of getting psychological, it is possible that Hillary Clinton is having flashbacks to her husband's disastrous health care fiasco, which seems to bear some similarities in terms of the reaction to that effort. Before Bush's plan, comprehensive reform was widely popular. Its popularity has greatly diminished, and Bush's immigration disaster was the last seminal moment in his presidency, in the sense that it effectively ended his presidency. The conservative grass-roots anger about immigration couldn't help but rattle the very same woman who saw health care go down in flames in a not dissimilar manner. Hence, the high-profile prevarications on driver's licenses and such. So, she's probably happy at just being able to ignore the issue if she becomes the nominee. Actually, this sort of pattern was pretty evident during Clinton's presidency on a whole host of issues. Conservatism was on the march, led by a grass-roots movement of angry people all too eager to rip the Clintons to shreds.
Disagree with this if you will, but I think it contains a certain amount of logic. Conservatives cannot call down on an angry, center-right populace any more. Bush has ruined that. But the immigration issue certainly has that kind of feel, doesn't it? Why bring up an issue that isn't going to help anyone?
What Hillary doesn't seem to realize is that the battle lines have effectively been drawn: the GOP base has already become largely anti-immigration, while the Dems are generally pro-comprehensive. Exceptions are rare. I doubt too many people are confused as to where the parties lie. The fact that the public is fairly evenly divided on this issue, then, ought to be a clue that the anti-immigration folks don't really have a stranglehold on this issue. And it can really work out for the Democrats. Consider these points:
- During last year's immigration fiasco, anger at the Bush bill and calls to action were largely facilitated by conservative talk radio. Which, of course, McCain has already alienated. So, a couple attacks from the Democratic nominee on McCain that he's pro-amnesty would be unlikely to provoke a spirited defense from these elites. If anything, they'd be likely agree with Hillary/Obama. So, McCain would be fighting a two-front war, which is much harder to fight than just a single-front war. Just ask Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, etc.
- But why would the Democrats want to say McCain's pro-amnesty? Aren't they pro-amnesty too? Well, since the word has largely become divorced of any real-world meaning, Clinton or Obama could just accuse McCain of supporting amnesty while saying that they don't support it. This would merely reinforce the pre-existing conceptions. For example, Hillary could just say in a debate, "Well, Senator McCain's solution to the immigration problem is amnesty. And I think that's a reasonable opinion to have. I just don't share it." All McCain would be able to say in response is that the Bush bill didn't support amnesty, which nobody is going to buy anyway, and maybe that Clinton really does support amnesty and that she's lying. But since her statement would actually be factually correct, according to most people, it would probably still hurt him more since calling Hillary Clinton a liar just seems played out, y'know?
- Hillary could easily move to McCain's perceived right by talking about the need for border enforcement without mentioning earned citizenship or anything like that. At this point, I think that border absolutists so distrust John McCain that just hearing the other candidate make one or two of their arguments, even if it's that much-hated Hillary Clinton, would greatly increase their predisposition toward her. I'm sure this could be done without offending Latinos.
- McCain's support among war enthusiasts who hate immigration on one hand and moderates who love it on the other is going to box him in pretty good in the general election--he'll keep talking about how he's learned his lesson or whatever. Clinton or Obama, on the other hand, would have a great deal of freedom to operate and try to drive apart his coalition. I mean, wouldn't an argument like, "Well, Senator McCain believes deeply in a multicultural America, as do I. And he believes in relatively loose immigration, just like I do. But he still believes in amnesty, which I don't agree with, and he also wants to militarize the border with Mexico, which I don't think is wise," hurt him with both groups pretty well? Clinton could probably pull this sort of thing off smartly, as she's already popular with Latinos and her muddled record is actually an asset here, as she can basically claim that she's on either side of the debate. McCain's stuck on one side. But Obama could probably do a pretty effective job of pointing out areas of agreement between himself and McCain, which would probably do a good job of disenchanting McCain voters.
