Chicago Sun Times (Illinois, Opinion)
By Linda Chavez
April 1, 2016
Will
Republicans learn the right lessons from the debacle that is the Trump
candidacy? I am doubtful, because for many, it requires a good, hard
look in the mirror.
Donald
Trump didn’t create the masses supporting him, he simply played into
their fears and prejudices, which have been nursed for the last decade
by conservative talk show hosts, cable news
programs, websites, grassroots groups and not a few GOP elected
officials.
Like
Trump’s presidential campaign announcement, it began with immigration.
It seems like an eon ago that Trump declared, “When Mexico sends its
people, they’re not sending their best … They’re
sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those
problems with us [sic]. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime.
They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
This sweeping denunciation — not of illegal immigration, mind you, but of
Mexicans and the government of Mexico — would have been enough in
normal times to sink most candidates. But the media gave him a pass,
and many on the right embraced his supposed candor.
National
Review’s editor Rich Lowry wrote a column “Sorry, Donald Trump Has a
Point,” arguing, ”For all its crassness, Trump’s rant on immigration is
closer to reality than the gauzy cliches
of the immigration romantics unwilling to acknowledge that there might
be an issue welcoming large numbers of high-school dropouts into a
21st-century economy.” I responded immediately with my own NRO piece,
“Stop Defending Donald Trump.” But it took the magazine
months to decide that Trump was unhinged and a danger to the
conservative movement.
The right has made opposition to immigration — increasingly legal immigration as well as illegal — the
sine qua non of conservatism for some time now. Conservatives who
argue, as I do, that our immigration system needs a dramatic overhaul
are routinely denounced as open-borders traitors because we favor making
it easier for workers with needed skills
to immigrate legally and giving legal status to those illegal
immigrants whose labor we depend on — and who have paid taxes and broken
no other laws.
There
is certainly room for legitimate debate about immigration policy among
conservatives. One can argue for lower immigration levels, more
diversity among the immigrant pool and certainly
for better border security in good conscience. But suggesting that
immigrants are “taking jobs from Americans” and that they have “high
rates of criminality” — neither of which is true — feeds into a
narrative that was ripe for the extremism that Trump has
spouted.
Organizations
like the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American
Immigration Reform and NumbersUSA pump out mendacious studies purporting
to show that all the jobs that
have been created in the last decade have gone to immigrants, and that
immigrants disproportionally fill our prisons. These, in turn, make
headlines on Drudge, fill hours of rant on talk radio, get serious
treatment from conservative news outlets and then
turn into direct mail fundraisers from grassroots conservative
organizations.
Is
it any wonder then, that when Trump comes along and spews his venom, it
comes back to bite conservatives who would never think of talking about
the issue in Trump’s vulgar, hate-filled
rhetoric?
But
the problem isn’t only immigration. Government itself has become the
enemy for many conservatives. Instead of arguments for limited
government and smaller bureaucracies, many on the right
have begun to sound more like anarchists than Burkean conservatives.
Republican elected officials — even staunchly conservative ones — get
labeled as Republican In Name Only, so that all who serve in public life
become immediately suspect. If you can’t trust
anyone who holds office now, an outsider like Donald Trump has a
natural opening.
It
is difficult to see an easy way out of the morass that has become the
conservative movement. Conservatism has managed to hold together despite
the inherent strains among its various elements,
in large part because winning elections was considered important enough
to minimize differences. Libertarians and economic conservatives might
not have embraced social conservatives’ agenda, (and vice versa) but
they were willing to make peace in order to
elect representatives who were at least marginally better than the
alternative Democrat. Deficit hawks might have worried that defense
conservatives would pile up more debt, but they knew prospects were
worse if Democrats were elected. Paleo-cons could sit
side-by-side with neo-cons with some uneasiness, but not outright
enmity.
No
more. These arrangements now look like quaint relics of a genteel past,
not the realpolitik of election victory. We conservatives are likely to
lose the 2016 election as a result, and,
frankly, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment