Bringing People Together

I like to think that people across America's ideological rainbow can agree that this Dan Balz article is terrible. It's one long extended whine about how congress' failure to pass an immigration reform bill "represents a scathing indictment of the political culture of Washington." Balz doesn't seem to have any particular provisions he'd like to see the bill contain. He just thinks there's a big "immigration problem" and that congress should "do something" -- anything -- about it. Most annoyingly of all, he dresses this quintessentially Beltway desire to see legislating qua legislating up in faux populist garb: "to those far removed from the backrooms of Capitol Hill, what happened will fuel cynicism toward a political system that appears incapable of finding ways to resolve the nation's big challenges." Why a failure of interest-group logrolling should fuel cynicism, I couldn't quite say. Nevertheless, we get this sweet evidence-free assertion:

The collective failure of the two parties already appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate for president in 2008 whose main promise would be to make Washington work. It is far too early to assess the viability of such a candidate, but it is easy to imagine the immigration impasse finding its way into a television commercial if someone such as New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg decides to run.

But. But. But. What would the commercial say? Would it accuse congress of failing by failing to clamp down harder on immigration or would it accuse congress of failing by failing to deliver relief to suffering undocumented aliens? This is the crux of the matter. There isn't a unitary "immigration problem" that Washington is failing to solve. Rather, various people see various different problems and there's not a consensus as to which problem is sufficiently problematic as to warrant action.

Comments

I don't trust a single thing the White House does anymore. So when I saw this bill start to get hijacked by business interests, I wanted it dead ASAP. Because, with this administration, the truth is always about 10 times worse than what they and the "MSM" let on.

Considering Congress will only return to this issue once every 5 or 10 years I'd rather have them do it when someone else is the President. I am glad its gone.

Posted by jf | June 8, 2007 1:08 PM

Yeah, and what would a "President Bloomberg" do about it? Would he bitch and moan, or just bitch? This is an instance where Bush supported what amounted to a bi-partisan plan (and which was opposed bi-partisanly as well) -- and they still couldn't get anything done. In any event, this precisely WASN'T 'partisan gridlock' in need of Unitiy 08, it was ultimately scuttled by competing interests within each party.

These people live in a demented state of unreality. If BUSH couldn't get his previously rubber stamping quisilings to sign on how on Earth would a 3rd Party president with NO goodies to hand out and no leverage to make promises affect a different outcome? Jedi mind tricks?

Broderism is to believe in magic bullets, bully pulpits and ponies.

Posted by Jay B. | June 8, 2007 1:11 PM

Oh it's that media gambit of "when faced with a 'crisis', action must be taken". The details of what action should be taken to fix 'immigration/social security/Iraq/Katrina' is irrelevant to those wishing to write their jourmanlism narrative about a daddy figure doing something.

Posted by Tom - Daai Tou Laam | June 8, 2007 1:15 PM

'Conservatimism' = cheap labor
-

Posted by QuentinCompson | June 8, 2007 1:25 PM

Maybe that's why we should have a third-party candidate...and a fourth...and a fifth...and so on. You know, because s/he would solve....something, ANYTHING!!! And the Establishment, of which obviously Dan Balz (heh) is part, could do SOMETHING except whine about the Vast Partisan Rift and the sensibility of centrism. Of course, they birthed and nurtured this partisan shrieking during the Clinton era that is responsible for serious people like themselves not seeing anything being done to address THEIR point of view.

Jesus Christ; it's enough to make one's head hurt, really. Matt, you're too smart and too perceptive to keep covering these idiots. My hat's off to you if you've not written off the whole damn American political class by now. I surely have.

Posted by speedtats | June 8, 2007 1:26 PM

Maybe that's why we should have a third-party candidate...and a fourth...and a fifth...and so on. You know, because s/he would solve....something, ANYTHING!!! And the Establishment, of which obviously Dan Balz (heh) is part, could do SOMETHING except whine about the Vast Partisan Rift and the sensibility of centrism. Of course, they birthed and nurtured this partisan shrieking during the Clinton era that is responsible for serious people like themselves not seeing anything being done to address THEIR point of view.

Jesus Christ; it's enough to make one's head hurt, really. Matt, you're too smart and too perceptive to keep covering these idiots. My hat's off to you if you've not written off the whole damn American political class by now. I surely have.

Posted by speedtats | June 8, 2007 1:26 PM

It's funny to me that no one stops to think about why the legislative branch fails to pass controversial legislation a majority of the time. It's not because politics have fallen to some low point, it's because THIS IS HOW THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED. It's SUPPOSED to fail. That's why the Senate was CREATED--to KEEP things from happening. The Founding Fathers, thankfully, didn't subscribe to the mindless "something must be done" line of thought which Balz & Broder swear by. They recognized that most ideas are bad ones, and set up a system where it was appropriately difficult to turn bad ideas into laws.

Posted by Jake H. | June 8, 2007 1:26 PM

Juan Williams was just on some NPR show in Boston saying just what Balz is saying -- big loss for Dems, do-nothing congress, "where are the Democrats who can step up to the plate and make compromises?!" Williams presumed that the bill was a great social good defeated by nasty partisanship. Schmucks.

Posted by david | June 8, 2007 1:27 PM

"Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

Posted by Bearpaw | June 8, 2007 1:32 PM

Where Balz truly misses the Ball(z) is the fact that a lot of people are *really happy* the bill failed, on both the left and the right. So, it goes beyond MY's argument.

Also, how the hell would Bloomberg "fix" Washington by getting the two parties to work together. He works in New York by legislating as the DLC-clone he is, with support of Republicans who have nowhere else to go. Who's getting Coburn and Mikulski to agree on stuff. Nobody.

Posted by Dave B. | June 8, 2007 1:40 PM

Simple: Cut people in half before they enter, and allow only one-half of them in.

When analyzing Unity 08 solutions, just think: WWKSD?

Posted by Alan in SF | June 8, 2007 1:40 PM

Tony Judt's recent lament in the Times on the passing of Chirac from the world stage points to the value of seizing opportunities to do nothing (in Chirac's case, Iraq). All the more relevant since the immigration blather was ginned up to get folks thinking about something other than Iraq.

What's that example from the prohibition era?: if you are talking about the drink that wrecks homes and ruins lives, then I am against it; if you are talking about the drink shared between friends invoking the spirit of community and glad tidings, then I am for it...and on this I remain solid as a rock.

Posted by rickhavoc | June 8, 2007 1:46 PM

I'd imagine that Bloomberg, a pro-business moderate, is probably as happy as anyone with keeping the status quo on immigration.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 1:46 PM

Why is no one looking at the failure of Mitch McConnell to twist the arms of enough Republicans in the Senate to end debate on this bi-partisan bill. The bipartisan bill didn't fail because some Democrats failed to vote with the party on the cloture motion. It failed because, even if the Dems had been unanimous in their vote, there still would not have been enough Republican votes to get cloture .

Posted by crabgrass | June 8, 2007 1:50 PM

My god, but Juan Williams is useless.

Actually, I take that back. Juan Williams is *very* useful to the beltway chattering class, and the GOP, insofar as those two aren't already overlapping and figuratively fellating each other.

He's useless to anyone else, though.

Posted by Chris | June 8, 2007 1:56 PM

This is the other half of the "he said/she said" or "there are two sides to every issue" chant. When it comes to facts, the MSM claims it has to look at both sides, such as that Saddam Hussein might have sponsored 9/11. When it comes to future policy, over which there are genuine differences, the same chorus fails to understand that there are two, very conflicting, possibly irreconcilable, sides.

Posted by baldguy | June 8, 2007 1:56 PM

Bloomberg's commercial:

"Congress is closely divided between Democrats and Republicans. This makes it extremely difficult to pass legislation on which the parties are sharply divided, such as the recent immigration bill. Therefore elect me President."

Posted by blah | June 8, 2007 1:59 PM

Yeah, I can see Democrats and Republicans tripping over each other to rubber stamp initiatives proposed by a third party President, thereby uniting the country and showering all with unicorns and ponies.

Posted by steve duncan | June 8, 2007 2:13 PM

Simple.

The ad would say that the Thrd Way President would provide chips and coke to the illegal aliens while they are being deported.

Posted by gregor | June 8, 2007 2:14 PM

I had a similar reaction to seeing the headline on the argument (and didn't read the article for that reason). But your critique of the third party argument depends on the assumption that voters are convinced by good arguments. That seems to be a questionable assumption.

While I don't see a third party rising out of this issue, any more than I take seriously Broder's recent suggestion that it would arise out of people's perceived need for a sensible withdrawal from Iraq between what the Dems and Repubs want, there has never been a requirement in political campaigns that the person on the outside actually presents a workable alternative to the view that is being criticized.

That is one reason that governors have an advantage over senators, namely that govs have not had to deal directly with the issues the senators have and so can take potshots from the sideline (as Edwards is now doing from a position of private citizen).

People may not know what a good way out of Iraq is, or what a good immigration bill would look like. But it does not follow from this that they do not blame politicians who do not find a good way to get us out of Iraq or to pass a good immigration bill. It is also does not follow that they will not be drawn to a candidate who does not put forward good solutions, but instead amplifies their criticism of legislators for not solving the problems.

Posted by Lon | June 8, 2007 2:37 PM

Matt - I'm afraid you're falling sway to a kind of beltway anti-beltwayism.

The Medicare Drug Benefit is now widely liked by its constituency, despite the obvious flaws.
Likewise the absence of an immigration bill to do something -- even cheap symbolism -- about 12 million undocumented aliens will come back to haunt the current congress.
People want to see accomplishments, and if the accomplishments are less than stellar -- well, they can always be fixed later.

Posted by dukej | June 8, 2007 2:54 PM

A true transpartisan president would know what to do: create an 'immigration czar' to head up a new Department of Immigration to improve communication between the various agencies. And then order a four-star general to fill the position.

Posted by Ben | June 8, 2007 2:55 PM

A third-party anti-immigration candidate, what an excellent idea!

He or she is going to need a platform. I suggest:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, so I can throw their miserable asses in Guantanamo."

Posted by Brautigan | June 8, 2007 3:04 PM

A winning ad would simply reinforce Balz's points. It would take Washington or some suitable form of THEM to task for not doing something (unspecified, of course) about the immigration problem. The ad would leave it up to the viewer to supply the actual problem and the solution.

The key to electing a president is to not allow a candidate's specific positions to get out there (to the extent possible). Your candidate must be a cypher that as many people as possible will fill in with their own desires. GWB is the quintessential example of this theory in action.

Posted by stand | June 8, 2007 3:26 PM

The only solution to illegal aliens crossing our border is 'If you hire an illegal alien, you go to jail!' That will stop all illegal immigration.

Posted by Wil Burns | June 8, 2007 3:57 PM

There isn't a unitary "immigration problem" that Washington is failing to solve.

Is there any immigration problem at all?

Posted by Ralph | June 8, 2007 4:30 PM

Good minds think alike!

Good post on the Dan Balz column, Matt. Mickey Kaus and Steve Sailer already offered similar reactions to it.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 5:03 PM

Wil Burns hit the main point on this issue and I would go a step further.

If they really want to win the support of "middle class" Americans the person who would go to jail would be whoever is at the top of the organization. If Wal-Mart hires an illegal alien the Wal-Mart CEO does jail time.

Believe me, that's a bill Americans could get behind in a big way.

Posted by Lindsey | June 8, 2007 5:52 PM

>appears to have stimulated interest in a third-party candidate

This isn't "evidence-free"- it's what all the right people at the right Inside-The-Beltway parties are saying.

Hell, I think that's the only place in America that even the concept of this third party is on the radar. It's their only salvation, the only way they can keep their little bubble inflated. Because notice this so-called party never seems to have that most common feature of third parties in America: new faces. No Perot, no John Anderson... just the same "regulars" so the cocktail circuit can continue unmolested by the rest of us.

Posted by doesn't matter | June 8, 2007 5:53 PM

BTW, Isn't there some point when people start to talk about the irrelevance of the Post when they continue to publish drek like this? Honestly, other than ample opportunity for snark and derision what exactly is the WaPo's editorial page adding to the national discussion? Shouldn't it have to be more than a punching bag and source for comedic material for bloggers?

Posted by Lindsey | June 8, 2007 5:57 PM

At least the WSJ, though still wrong on this issue, has throttled back on the smug condescension (judging by Henninger's column yesterday, and the lead editorial today which at least tried to address the fiscal issues of low-skilled immigration instead of accusing opponents of nativism or racism). Maybe the WaPo will eventually feel chastened?

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 6:08 PM

Lindsey -

No, there isn't; nothing; and no, it doesn't.

One goes with what one is most skilled at, and, as the sayings go, you can neither polish a turd nor put lipstick on a swine.

Choose wisely :)

Posted by speedtats | June 8, 2007 7:19 PM

I don't think what Balz did in that article was as bad as he did in this one on the recent Republican debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060601484_2.html

Balz says "Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said the United States was " underprepared and underplanned for what came after we knocked down Saddam Hussein."
Immediately prior and after that quote Romney lied about Saddam removing the inspectors. Balz picks out his quote from a blatant lie immediately before and after, and never reported the lies.

Posted by NYT | June 8, 2007 8:30 PM

Re: Romney lied about Saddam removing the inspectors.

Was he lying or is it possible that he really thinks this is what happened? Let's not overestimate the extent of the man's knowledge. Someone somewhere may well have told him that version of events.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2007 9:50 PM

Re: Romney lied about Saddam removing the inspectors.

Was he lying or is it possible that he really thinks this is what happened? Let's not overestimate the extent of the man's knowledge. Someone somewhere may well have told him that version of events.

Posted by JonF | June 8, 2007 9:50 PM

As Kevin Drum points out, saying that the bill's failure is "the fault of both major parties" is idiotic anyway -- 77% of Senate Democrats voted FOR ending the filibuster, and 84% of Senate Republicans voted AGAINST it. So Balz -- along with Charles Gibson, Stephanopoulos (who should know better), and no doubt soon David Broder -- is continuing to sing that idiotic "Both parties are equally at fault" song that we have become so drearily familiar with. (I doubt we'll ever hear the end of it, either -- it's the press' eternal Lazy Man's Way Out.)

Still, anything that generates more fault lines in the current GOP is likely to meet with my approval overall.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | June 9, 2007 3:31 AM

Juan Williams was useless when he was at NPR. He's just more visible useless now. Some people are just born useless, it would seem. Just ask David Broder.

Posted by Christian in NYC | June 9, 2007 11:27 PM