Understanding The Politics Of AZ SB 1070

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:45:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NYTimes:

A majority of the people polled, 57 percent, said the federal government should determine the laws addressing illegal immigration. But 51 percent said the Arizona law was “about right” in its approach to the problem. Thirty-six percent said it went too far and 9 percent said it did not go far enough.

Many people, Republicans and Dems alike, seize on that 51% as meaning the measure is popular and therefore good politics. It is not meaningful and is bad politics.

The reason is simple, the measure's politics must be considered from the point of view of persuadables and how they react to this law. 80% of the 51% are almost certainly rock solid GOP voters who will never vote Democrat. Most of the rest probably will not decide their vote one way or the other because of the thinking behind this legislation. But a significant amount of persuadables, most of these Latino, will turn away from the GOP permanently because of this (see Prop 187.) Conservative Michael Gerson gets it:

The conservative writers who have uncritically supported the Arizona law share something as well: in general, they have never had to appeal to a voter, much less a Hispanic voter, in their lives. They have no direct responsibility for the political wreckage they leave behind. In fact, they tend to view indifference to political and demographic reality as a kind of purity test.

But unlike, say, a conservative magazine or blog, it is the purpose of a political party to win majorities within the broad bounds of its convictions. And each time a portion of the conservative movement demonstrates this particular form of ideological purity -- in California’s Proposition 187, the 2006 House immigration debate and now Arizona -- they create resentments toward the Republican Party among Latinos that will last for generations. In all these cases, Republicans have gained little, sacrificed much, and apparently learned nothing.

There is no question in my mind that this debate is a clear loser for Republicans. Because of that, Dems should be pushing this debate, now and for the foreseeable future.

Speaking for me only

< Calculations | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Understanding The Politics Of AZ SB 1070 | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

"The Southwestern Strategy"? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by lilburro on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:55:09 AM EST

Of course it's a loser (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Dadler on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:58:12 AM EST

Hispanics have been the one immigrant demographic that have consistently voted Republican. Then the GOP pulls this kind of bald sh*t, and many of those voters, quite understandably, bolt. When there is, relatively, so little difference between Democrats and Republicans on many issues, to make THIS issue such a no-brainer difference for Hispanics, the GOP is committing one of the more obvious and counfounding self-immolations in American political history. It is quite clear and convincing evidence, IMO, that the GOP is a party run by people terribly sincere, horribly prejudiced, and utterly incapable of informed self-criticism. Pun intended.

I will give the GOP credit... (none / 0) (#3)
by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:14:31 AM EST

for being honest to the point it hurts their election prospects...honest about their police state dreams. That's saying something in the dirty business of politics.


Racism is never admirable, honest or not. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Thanin on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:35:56 PM EST

I agree... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:39:16 PM EST

I didn't say they were admirable, just honest.

If someone is racist, prejudiced, bigoted, what have you...better out than in the closet, no?


Semantics I suppose... (none / 0) (#9)
by Thanin on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:44:42 PM EST

but I wouldnt give them credit or any other potentially positive qualifier. As for being obvious, that way leads to lynchings and attempted genocide, so no thank you.


I don't know... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:49:31 PM EST

at least I know where the KKK stand and can act accordingly...a closet KKK'er is a lot more dangerous.


: I would say... (none / 0) (#11)
by Thanin on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:53:45 PM EST

when racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. are too ashamed to be blatant, that demonstrates at least either some part of them acknowledges theyre wrong or they realize society is against them. So I know what youre saying, I just see it differently.

Yes, very good analysis (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:32:37 AM EST

This is what happened in California with Prop 187. In spite of large and vociferous opposition, it passed easily--by some 20 points as I recall.

But what happened is that all the "moderate" Democrats and Independents who were not all that interested in the issue but who voted for Prop 187 anyway, didn't become permanent Republicans because of the issue. But many former Republican Latinos broke for the Democrats in a big way. And Latinos will remember and care--when everyone else has moved on.

It is a matter of voter intensity. Those who are the strongest supporters of this type of measure are already firmly in the Republican camp. Those most strongly oppose bills such these are comprised of Liberals, and Latinos of all stripes. And Latinos will remember this for a generation. And, the percentage of Latinos firmly in the Democratic camp will jump by 20 points. It will be a permanent re-alignment in favor of the Democrats.

I suspect Prop 187 would again pass in California--even today. But on all other issues, the electorate is in favor of the Democrats. Before Prop 187, the Republicans actually had control of the state legislature.....

This law reverberates throughout the country (5.00 / 0) (#13)
by mexboy on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:53:33 PM EST

not only with Latinos, but with our friends and those who understand the danger laws like this pose to our democracy.

The Democrats would be stupid not to exploit this issue. I doubt they will because they just love defeat.

Dems are down... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:20:55 PM EST

with a police state, lets not kid ourselves mex...they just want us all to suffer under the jackboot equally, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or country of origin.


Talk about harshing my buzz (none / 0) (#15)
by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:43:27 PM EST

That is a brutal statement, K-Dog. I thought I could rebut it, but mebbe not. Not today, at least.


: Sad to agree, K-Dog. (none / 0) (#17)
by mexboy on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:46:38 PM EST

At least I'm no longer part of their party.

Not a clean-cut issue (none / 0) (#5)
by abdiel on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:34:52 PM EST

I don't think you can frame it as purely a Dem v GOP issue. I don't see how you can be "almost certain" of how a poll majority breaks down. Also, the number isn't 51%, it's 60% - you have to add in the 9% who didn't think the law went far enough.

I think it's good politics for the Democrats to make this a racial issue. But Latinos have been disillusioned by the Dems for decades now, who are no more interested in meaningful immigration reform than the GOP.

In short, I think it's a bad law because it seems to codify racial profiling. But anything beyond that, and you're skating on thin ice.

the numbers are meaningful! (none / 0) (#7)
by seabos84 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:38:50 PM EST

In 1980, raygun had 43,643/86,497 million votes cast for president.

see table table 385, 2010 statistical abstract of the united states.

by table 408, that was appx. 52.8% of the voting age population.

(43,643/86,497)*.528 = appx. 26.64% of voting age population voted for / checked off raygun's name,

AND they declared victory,
AND they have NOT stopped since.

since there have been agricultural surpluses there have been parasitic classes focused 110% on capturing that surplus, and using the surplus to keep power to keep control of future surpluses, AND, by the way, to live like kings.

Our current set of parasites, corporate-fascist-racist-whatevers, come from a long heritage, and, they'll probably always exist. They are actually NOT the problem.

THE PROBLEM is the diaper poopers who've been "leaders" of the opposition for the last few decades, and who mess their nappies every time some 27% liar is declared victor, or some racist lie is bandied about as the truth, and our fake "leaders" are too busy selling out to reframe and repackage and effectively sell some basic truths.

rmm.

I'm curious BTD... (none / 0) (#12)
by DaveCal on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:36:52 PM EST

How do you support this statement?

"But a significant amount of persuadables, most of these Latino, will turn away from the GOP permanently because of this (see Prop 187.)"

First, I hope you are not suggesting that all Latinos, or even a "significant amount" of them, think the same and have the same political views? That's quite a generalization.

It's also the biggest problem I have with all the hubabaloo about Arizona SB1070. Too many people in this country seem to think that our policies and views are dictated by our race. I refuse to accept that premise. And I don't see anything in the polling to which you refer that would suggest this.

Secondly, even if you think that these people would turn away from the GOP over this issue, how can you conclude that it would be permanent? If they will turn away from one political party because of this issue, why wouldn't they turn away from the other political party because of another issue? Why does their party affiliation become permanently fixed over this issue?

I think political parties and their leaders have an amazing propensity to misunderstand, alienate, or outright ignore their party members, leading to switches in party affiliation, and what I see as the recent trend for many toward "unaffiliated" status.

No need to speculate (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by MKS on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:49:29 PM EST

We have the precedent of Prop 187 in California to go by. And what happened there is exactly what BTD is talking about.

No, not all Latinos will vote alike. But a lot of Latinos will change their voting pattern over this--a shift of some 20 odd points in Arizona already....

It is personal to very many Latinos....that is why it will endure as a blunder of behemoth boundaries. Bush and Rove knew not to go there....


is the premise true? (none / 0) (#18)
by diogenes on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:15:00 PM EST

Why does everyone assume that Latinos who are in the US legally and suffer from the same 10% unemployment rate and recession as the rest of us do will support open borders which will bring in yet more laborers to undercut them?


: Yes (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:18:21 PM EST

The premise is true.
But you Republicans seem unable to accept that fact.

It's not even that, it's the likely voter #'s (none / 0) (#20)
by Addison on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:59:21 PM EST

There's also the motivation gap.

Let's say that I, a white American, am in favor of this law and say so to the pollster. I get counted as a "yes." But in all likelihood this is not going to be THE issue that gets me to the polling station.

Now let's say I'm a Latino/a who dislikes the law and says so to the pollster. I get counted as a "no." Unlike "white" Addison, however, this poll response has a direct bearing on whether or not I'm now a likely voter or not.

The yes's here mean almost nothing in terms of the only thing that matter (elections). The no's are significant vis-a-vis elections.

: In the above... (none / 0) (#21)
by Addison on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:03:49 PM EST

...I have used the terms "white American" and "Latino/a." Not to go into it too deeply, but I just want to note that in this context those terms could be viewed as perjoratively stating that Latinos are not "American" in some way. Not my intent by a long shot, obviously. "Latino American" looked weird, since it's not a part of our lexicon, and I didn't change "white American" to read "Caucasian" or some other analogue to "Latino." I wanted to just state that I realized the labels here could be taken the wrong way, and that I recognize that and want to clarify since the importance of these sorts of definitional issues has become even more manifest.