I vote for shit-show. Cluster-fuck implies some coordinated activity, jigging and poking and all that. There is no visible evidence, like virtually every other country in the world, there is any coordinated activity within the U.S. government.
How is it not possible to both believe that (1) "Dems are happily allowing excess illegal immigrants to permanently grow a demographic of reliable voters" while (2) simultaneously believing that the theory that "Jews are trying replace white people with brown people in order to weaken the country" is a stupid conspiracy theory? The media and the left is attempting to paint all the observers of the first fact to be painted crazy with the believers of the conspiracy theory. Sorry kids but I can see that the emperor is not dressed. Nobody is pushing legislation to solve the incentive problem.
The problem is. As always. Who is pulling the levers. Democrats are the party of unions. Lot of big unions pull democratic levers. Being pro immigration at a union rally isn’t making you any friends. If the great replacement theory gestated anywhere it’s within blue collar unions. Second one the list of problems within the democratic side of things on immigration is also that the “socialist” wing of the party. Who might talk a good game. But name for me the socialist countries that it’s really easy to emigrate to? Their house of cards economic policy requires limited immigration. At least in their minds. They don’t believe in the whole great replacement theory in general. But they have their own version where immigrants come in and are willing to work for less so they depress native wages. Sanders himself has literally called open borders a Koch brothers conspiracy to get cheap labor. So basically part of the party believes we should limit immigration for their own good so they don’t come here and get exploited by our “evil” capitalist overlords.
Like you said it’s a shit show. And no ones willing to be honest about it publicly. It’s just about how much you can use the issue to make the other side look bad. I don’t think republicans would be believing in the great replacement theory at the rate they do if Democrats hadn’t been using immigration as a sledgehammer to bludgeon republicans publicly so they look as much like racist xenophobes as possible. Not that they aren’t. But messaging is important.
Currently the parties are locked in a weird game of reverse chicken. Instead of running towards each other on an issue and colliding in the middle both sides have decided to see how far they can run in the opposite direction from each other before blinking. I think it’s a bizarre sorting issue. No one on either side wants to accidentally look like they hold a view from the other side. It plays out in immigration with republicans become more anti immigrant. Meaning Democrats become more open borders. Meaning republicans read too much into that and run further right. Then Democrats see them running and the they run further left.
On top of that. Don’t get me started on how stupid and absolutely ignorant most media coverage of immigration has been.
The Democrat's (and the media's) gaslighting on replacement theory isn't going to work given the paper trail of books like "The Emerging Democratic Majority" which tout exactly that.
OK, I'll buy that replacement theory is stupid but that's not what I hear at all. What I hear is that Democrats favor an open border so that zillions of immigrants can come in and obediently vote for Democrats. Replacing white people isn't supposed to be the goal; winning elections is.
The comment I want to leave under this article is the comment I want to leave under most articles of yours because I feel it explains most things about why the Dems are often politically ineffective.
Firstly, the Dem establishment is useless at actually conveying and defending its values in a way that resonates with people. Drew Westen wrote a great book about this which explains it much better than I could (and is tbh where I got the whole idea from).
Secondly, the establishment Democratic Party is not much less beholden (if at all) to corporate donors and lobbyists than the GOP, they just have the decency to be somewhat ashamed about it and therefore are much worse at the brazen lying and gaslighting required to confidently tell their base that what is not in their interest actually is. Instead they have to weasel around and avoid taking strong positions entirely, preferring vagueness and insincerity and generally failing to show any real leadership on the issues that actually matter to most voters. Issues one and two are probably closely related.
I think the lack of conviction is a significant factor in the Dem’s struggle for popularity. I think people want to see leadership; nobody feels good about voting for losers. The uk has the same problem, where the mainstream Labour Party can’t seem to offer anything except being a slightly less mean version of the Conservatives, rather than staking out their own alternative positions on things.
Democrats might be trusted less on "handling" immigration because of how people typically think of "handling" immigration; I feel like that term, in this context, connotes cracking down and restrictions. So a policy of handling immigration by fixing the immigration system so that it isn't capricious and clogged gets tacitly written off as not really "handling" immigration — only explicitly restrictionist and authoritarian policy gets counted as REALLY "handling" immigration.
Another piece of the puzzle might be durable stereotypes of the two big parties: Republican Party as stern white Anglo father, Democratic Party as nurturing minority immigrant mother. The minority- and immigrant-coded Democratic Party gets written off on immigration because the party of minority immigrants is automatically assumed biased on immigration. (That white non-immigrants could equally be said to be biased does not, I'd guess, enter people's thoughts so much.)
Compare how the Republican Party has a seemingly indestructible reputation for being more trustworthy on the economy, despite their shitty economic policy amounting to More Money For Us, Fuck You. Stern Father(land) Party gets trusted more on the economy, crime, and immigration; Nurturing Mommy Party gets trusted more on education, abortion, and equality (https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1225a12022Politics.pdf).
All in all I'm doubtful a few months of messaging changes before the midterms would make much difference; it occurs to me that activists trashed Obama as the "deporter in chief" and that seemed to have convinced approximately zero people that the Democratic Party isn't the Open Borders party.
"Which all brings me here: I think when Democrats talk about legal immigration, we win. And when we talk about illegal immigration, I think we lose."
No offense, but isn't this only true if you pretend America works by American Idol rules? If everything was decided on popularity lines, the democratic party would be the only game in politics town (which I suppose is DC). Whenever I read posts like this, I always think: "Time to pretend the Senate isn't real."
Also I did some Fermi calculations and a mineral deposit of salt the size of the rock of Gibraltar would be at least a million tons (probably more like a billion), and let's say it's only road salt quality ($58/ton), so that's still asking me to ignore the Associated Press poll for $58,000,000, which I will gladly do.
Isn't one of the big issue is that asylum seekers are legal immigrants under a technical definition, but that this isn't necessarily how it's understood by the public?
It feels like the major issue is basically about being pragmatic -- "we can't help anyone if we don't win elections, and getting too far ahead of public opinion on this issue will cause us to lose elections."
Here's my "galaxy brain" idea. I've noticed that the immigration debate obsesses about who is coming in. Why don't we have the opposite of immigration? A mechanism for native-borns who are bad at citizening to be banished from the U.S.?
Like, we would keep our carceral state for the truly worst individuals who must be removed from society for the sake of humanity. But, there are some people caught up in this system who really don't deserve harsh punishments, yet are so bad at life that their minor transgressions add up like a poison in low doses over a long time and become a different kind of burden? These are the people being outcompeted by immigrants.
Why not send American-born ne'er-do-wells and see if they can make a go of it in a Central American slum or a Syrian war zone?
OK, the replacement theory is stupid. But I don't hear that at all. What I hear is that Democrats want the border open so that zillions of immigrants can come in and vote obediently for Democrats.
“legal good, illegal bad”. If only we could start there, we might get somewhere. But the “reverse chicken” situation suggested above by Steven Rodriquez precludes it.
Speaking of bad messaging on immigration, when Democrats say that "we are a nation of immigrants," do they ever stop to think about how that might sound to the indigenous Americans?
I vote for shit-show. Cluster-fuck implies some coordinated activity, jigging and poking and all that. There is no visible evidence, like virtually every other country in the world, there is any coordinated activity within the U.S. government.
How is it not possible to both believe that (1) "Dems are happily allowing excess illegal immigrants to permanently grow a demographic of reliable voters" while (2) simultaneously believing that the theory that "Jews are trying replace white people with brown people in order to weaken the country" is a stupid conspiracy theory? The media and the left is attempting to paint all the observers of the first fact to be painted crazy with the believers of the conspiracy theory. Sorry kids but I can see that the emperor is not dressed. Nobody is pushing legislation to solve the incentive problem.
The problem is. As always. Who is pulling the levers. Democrats are the party of unions. Lot of big unions pull democratic levers. Being pro immigration at a union rally isn’t making you any friends. If the great replacement theory gestated anywhere it’s within blue collar unions. Second one the list of problems within the democratic side of things on immigration is also that the “socialist” wing of the party. Who might talk a good game. But name for me the socialist countries that it’s really easy to emigrate to? Their house of cards economic policy requires limited immigration. At least in their minds. They don’t believe in the whole great replacement theory in general. But they have their own version where immigrants come in and are willing to work for less so they depress native wages. Sanders himself has literally called open borders a Koch brothers conspiracy to get cheap labor. So basically part of the party believes we should limit immigration for their own good so they don’t come here and get exploited by our “evil” capitalist overlords.
Like you said it’s a shit show. And no ones willing to be honest about it publicly. It’s just about how much you can use the issue to make the other side look bad. I don’t think republicans would be believing in the great replacement theory at the rate they do if Democrats hadn’t been using immigration as a sledgehammer to bludgeon republicans publicly so they look as much like racist xenophobes as possible. Not that they aren’t. But messaging is important.
Currently the parties are locked in a weird game of reverse chicken. Instead of running towards each other on an issue and colliding in the middle both sides have decided to see how far they can run in the opposite direction from each other before blinking. I think it’s a bizarre sorting issue. No one on either side wants to accidentally look like they hold a view from the other side. It plays out in immigration with republicans become more anti immigrant. Meaning Democrats become more open borders. Meaning republicans read too much into that and run further right. Then Democrats see them running and the they run further left.
On top of that. Don’t get me started on how stupid and absolutely ignorant most media coverage of immigration has been.
The Democrat's (and the media's) gaslighting on replacement theory isn't going to work given the paper trail of books like "The Emerging Democratic Majority" which tout exactly that.
OK, I'll buy that replacement theory is stupid but that's not what I hear at all. What I hear is that Democrats favor an open border so that zillions of immigrants can come in and obediently vote for Democrats. Replacing white people isn't supposed to be the goal; winning elections is.
The comment I want to leave under this article is the comment I want to leave under most articles of yours because I feel it explains most things about why the Dems are often politically ineffective.
Firstly, the Dem establishment is useless at actually conveying and defending its values in a way that resonates with people. Drew Westen wrote a great book about this which explains it much better than I could (and is tbh where I got the whole idea from).
Secondly, the establishment Democratic Party is not much less beholden (if at all) to corporate donors and lobbyists than the GOP, they just have the decency to be somewhat ashamed about it and therefore are much worse at the brazen lying and gaslighting required to confidently tell their base that what is not in their interest actually is. Instead they have to weasel around and avoid taking strong positions entirely, preferring vagueness and insincerity and generally failing to show any real leadership on the issues that actually matter to most voters. Issues one and two are probably closely related.
I think the lack of conviction is a significant factor in the Dem’s struggle for popularity. I think people want to see leadership; nobody feels good about voting for losers. The uk has the same problem, where the mainstream Labour Party can’t seem to offer anything except being a slightly less mean version of the Conservatives, rather than staking out their own alternative positions on things.
Democrats might be trusted less on "handling" immigration because of how people typically think of "handling" immigration; I feel like that term, in this context, connotes cracking down and restrictions. So a policy of handling immigration by fixing the immigration system so that it isn't capricious and clogged gets tacitly written off as not really "handling" immigration — only explicitly restrictionist and authoritarian policy gets counted as REALLY "handling" immigration.
Another piece of the puzzle might be durable stereotypes of the two big parties: Republican Party as stern white Anglo father, Democratic Party as nurturing minority immigrant mother. The minority- and immigrant-coded Democratic Party gets written off on immigration because the party of minority immigrants is automatically assumed biased on immigration. (That white non-immigrants could equally be said to be biased does not, I'd guess, enter people's thoughts so much.)
Compare how the Republican Party has a seemingly indestructible reputation for being more trustworthy on the economy, despite their shitty economic policy amounting to More Money For Us, Fuck You. Stern Father(land) Party gets trusted more on the economy, crime, and immigration; Nurturing Mommy Party gets trusted more on education, abortion, and equality (https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1225a12022Politics.pdf).
All in all I'm doubtful a few months of messaging changes before the midterms would make much difference; it occurs to me that activists trashed Obama as the "deporter in chief" and that seemed to have convinced approximately zero people that the Democratic Party isn't the Open Borders party.
"Which all brings me here: I think when Democrats talk about legal immigration, we win. And when we talk about illegal immigration, I think we lose."
No offense, but isn't this only true if you pretend America works by American Idol rules? If everything was decided on popularity lines, the democratic party would be the only game in politics town (which I suppose is DC). Whenever I read posts like this, I always think: "Time to pretend the Senate isn't real."
Also I did some Fermi calculations and a mineral deposit of salt the size of the rock of Gibraltar would be at least a million tons (probably more like a billion), and let's say it's only road salt quality ($58/ton), so that's still asking me to ignore the Associated Press poll for $58,000,000, which I will gladly do.
Isn't one of the big issue is that asylum seekers are legal immigrants under a technical definition, but that this isn't necessarily how it's understood by the public?
It feels like the major issue is basically about being pragmatic -- "we can't help anyone if we don't win elections, and getting too far ahead of public opinion on this issue will cause us to lose elections."
Brother you could not be more right.
<satire>
Here's my "galaxy brain" idea. I've noticed that the immigration debate obsesses about who is coming in. Why don't we have the opposite of immigration? A mechanism for native-borns who are bad at citizening to be banished from the U.S.?
Like, we would keep our carceral state for the truly worst individuals who must be removed from society for the sake of humanity. But, there are some people caught up in this system who really don't deserve harsh punishments, yet are so bad at life that their minor transgressions add up like a poison in low doses over a long time and become a different kind of burden? These are the people being outcompeted by immigrants.
Why not send American-born ne'er-do-wells and see if they can make a go of it in a Central American slum or a Syrian war zone?
</satire>
Or... now hear me out... or stop making it a platform point / point of contention and just led the shadow congress deal with it?
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-rise-and-importance-of-secret
Would that work? If you stop arguing over immigration would the other party also stop and therefore make it eligible for shadow congress action?
OK, the replacement theory is stupid. But I don't hear that at all. What I hear is that Democrats want the border open so that zillions of immigrants can come in and vote obediently for Democrats.
Using libtard soy boys and Gila monsters in an on point critique- I’m impressed.
“legal good, illegal bad”. If only we could start there, we might get somewhere. But the “reverse chicken” situation suggested above by Steven Rodriquez precludes it.
Speaking of bad messaging on immigration, when Democrats say that "we are a nation of immigrants," do they ever stop to think about how that might sound to the indigenous Americans?