A New Myth of ‘06
Throughout the primaries, John McCain instructed us that the Republicans’ congressional ass-whipping in ’06 had nothing to do with the war, nothing at all, and that it was in fact those nefarious earmarks, symbolized by the “bridge to nowhere,” that did them in. While attending this Tuesday’s immigration conference put on by the Manhattan Institute, I witnessed a new “myth of ’06” taking shape, this one just about as plausible as McCain’s. The progenitors of this latest whopper were the leading lights of open-borders conservativism, including Michael Barone, Alan Ehrenhalt, the executive editor of Governing, and Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. The outlines of the myth are as follows: 1) the leaders of the anti-immigration movement are the ultra-conservative “Social Right”; 2) the Republicans lost because the good-hearted American public was sick of all the mean, nasty anti-immigrant rhetoric.
I very much wish that the Religious Right, Catholics, and Pro-Lifers were all solidly against amnesty in ’07 and supportive of restrictionism now; however, the fact is, they weren’t and they’re not. Within social conservatism, the status of immigration is actually very equivocal. On issues like abortion and the war, “social rightist” Sam Brownback stands as the bogeyman of secular progressives everywhere (the good senator’s even been linked to Opus Dei, oh my!) and yet, on the issue of immigration, Brownback’s basically indistinguishable from George Clooney or Nancy Pelosi (or Dubya or McCain for that matter).
What Barone & Co. don’t want to admit is that immigration reform actually isn’t one of those Republican wedge issues that backfired, much like Congress’s grand standing during the The Shaivo affair; to the contrary, it has appeal across the board and is used by Republicans and Democrats alike. (Whether this bipartisan opportunism will actually lead to any good is another question altogether.) This past summer’s anti-Amnesty rebellion against Bush, Kennedy, and McCain was by no means simply a conservative movement thing. Rush Radio might have gotten people angry, but it was non-partisan, and by no means manifestly “conservative” groups like NumbersUSA that were organizing the mass faxing and phone calling of senators. Today the SAVE Act actually has a fairly good chance of going through because of its support among liberals.
Barone actually cites some evidence for his myth, mentioning that border hawk J.D. Hayworth was ejected in Arizona due to his insensitive anti-immigrant tone. Well, the fact is, Hayworth’s opponent, Harry Mitchell, promised to “Station more Border Patrol agents along the border,” “Extend existing fencing in urban areas,” and “oppose amnesty and will not support it.” Put simply, Mitchell deftly neutralized the immigration issue by promising to be just a Hayworthian as Hayworth. In multiple cases in ‘06, Democrats would prevail even when their districts would approve of tougher immigration laws in a series of related state referendums.
Whether Barone & Co. admit it or not, immigration is not some extreme conservative issue that killed the Republicans in ’06, it’s perhaps the only the thing the GOP has going for it.
Comments
Good article. Why do they tell these lies? Because crooks always lie about their crimes. They have sold us out for money in one form or another.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The reason for the 2006 debacle was largely the war. You can add the Foley and Abramoff
scandals, the loss of morale from Bush’s domestic spending policies that were indistinguishable
from the Democrats, conservative anger at the look the other way Bush illegal immigration
policy, and just plain weariness. Now you can add to the mix inflation, especially
the gasoline price explosion, a turn of events that Americans who commute are forced
to acknowledge on a daily basis.
I can’t figure out Barone. He worked for the second-to-last white mayor of Detroit(name
escapes me) who was a typical liberal. His Almanac of American Politics had a liberal
bent at the beginning. Then his liberal wife died at the same time he became affluent.
Money changed him. And now he is as fervent a neo-conservative as the Kristols and the
Podhoretzes.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Barone also fails to mention Hayworth’s connections to Jack Abramoff are generally considered by most observers to the primary reason he lost, coupled with the general drop in support nationwide for the Republicans in the wake of the intensification of violence in Iraq in early 2006.
The only reason the Republican establishment can get away with spinning these idiotic tales as to why the party lost in 2006 is because the vast majority of Republicans want to believe in them, as it delays the inevitable facing of reality about Iraq. There’s absolutely no empirical data from any poll ever taken over the past two years that suggest that earmarks or this supposed “hard line” (where?) stance on immigration did much at all to kill the GOP.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Barone worked for Mayor Jerome Cavanagh back in the late 1960’s if I remember correctly.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.