The False Promise of Restrictionism

Dave Weigel has a solid column out on the trajectory of the Ron Paul revolution, highlighting the ultimate failure of Paul's decision to run as more of an immigration-hating paleocon than a government-limiting libertarian:

When Paul did talk, he focused on the idea of radically limiting government—a message nowhere else to be found on either side of the aisle during this campaign. No other candidate was even questioning the wisdom of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Homeland Security; Paul vowed to abolish both. No other contender ran a commercial blasting the idea of a national ID card. Not coincidentally, nobody else was generating more than $6 million via single-day online “money bombs.”

But after a spike in fund raising and polling, Paul pivoted to the more crowded anti-immigration field, with mailers showing a work boot stomping on the Constitution and the legend: “Illegal immigrants flaunt [sic] our laws.”

This lunge for the Minuteman vote didn’t work. According to exit polls, Paul won only 8 percent of Republican voters who want to deport all illegal immigrants. That was 16 points less than immigration compromiser John McCain, six less than amnesty waffler Mike Huckabee, and even one point less than “sanctuary city” mayor Rudy Giuliani. Paul finished a poor fifth among voters who cared about immigration but came in a strong second place among voters angry at the Bush administration. In other words, he came in second among his natural constituency and fared poorly on an issue every candidate was already scrapping over.

Time and again, I think you see that the issue of immigrant- and immigration-bashing just doesn't carry the political force that its advocates are constantly claiming and that all-too-many of its opponents seem to fear. I recall when it started to seem like maybe Mike Huckabee could be a serious contender and he, notwithstanding a sensible record on immigration, decided to go hire hard-core restrictionist Jim Pinkerton. Just before going to work for Huckabee, Pinkerton was going around Washington talking about how despite Iraq and the economy, immigration was going to deliver the election to the GOP. It turned out that restrictionism couldn't even win a Republican primary.

Photo by Flickr user Jayel Aheram used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

"It turned out that restrictionism couldn't even win a Republican primary."

A clear majority of Republicans voted for candidates who were against unlimited unskilled immigration. There are two reasons why this still resulted in a pro-amnesty candidate:

1) Democrats voted in Republican primaries.

2) The anti-amnesty vote was split between more than one candidate.

Posted by Juan | March 11, 2008 12:24 PM

Uh, what candidate in any party was in favor of unlimited unskilled immigration?

Posted by Juanita | March 11, 2008 12:42 PM

"No other candidate was even questioning the wisdom of the Federal Reserve or the Department of Homeland Security; Paul vowed to abolish both. No other contender ran a commercial blasting the idea of a national ID card. Not coincidentally, nobody else was generating more than $6 million via single-day online “money bombs.”"

No other candidate was talking about trying to run a $12 trillion economy on the basis of yellow metal because the idea is batshit crazy. Talk to the McEnroe on this one.

No other candidate ran a commercial blasting the idea of a national ID card. No one ran commercials blasting Republican complacency in the face of the resurgent Soviet threat. No one ran commercials about the pressing of American merchant marines by the British navy. No one ran commercials sounding the alarm about the fungi from Yuggoth. There are very sound reasons for all of these non-events.

Oddly enough, two candidates who are not Republicans have been raising money by the metric truckload over the internet, not on one-off events, but as part of sustained campaigns over a period of months.

Posted by Doug | March 11, 2008 12:49 PM

"There are two reasons why this still resulted in a pro-amnesty candidate:"

Really, the big one was that the money on the republican side comes from wealthy folks who like to see wages and benefits kept low by a large labor pool.

Posted by Dan F | March 11, 2008 12:51 PM

No other candidate was talking about trying to run a $12 trillion economy on the basis of yellow metal because the idea is batshit crazy....No one ran commercials sounding the alarm about the fungi from Yuggoth.

Coincidence? I think not. Ron Paul's insanity is clearly the result of an unhealthy interest in stones better left unturned.

I would write more, but I dare not for fear of attracting the attention of Blog-Sothoth--He Who Must Not Be Commented On. Already many commenters have suffered dark and unspeakable fates.

Posted by James Gary | March 11, 2008 12:57 PM

To say that pro-restrictionism isn't powerful enough to get rebpublican primary voters to overlook Paul's stance on the War, or his gold-buggery and other 'eccentricities' doesn't really say all that much.

Posted by Jeff R. | March 11, 2008 1:03 PM

The fungi from Yuggoth is the elephant in the room of this election that no one is talking about. Its obvious that both major parties are deep in the pockets of Big Fungus. I would have expected better from Obama.

Posted by Spike | March 11, 2008 1:29 PM

My sense is that combining anti-war libertarianism with anti-immigration messages was never going to work well for Paul, primarily because a fair amount of the anti-immigration sentiment in the Republican party comes from the same attitudinal sources as pro-war sentiment.

Support for the Iraq war, support for torture, fear of immigration - for at least some voters, they all stem from basic authoritarian tendencies, and from a more specific belief that strong leadership involves the use of violence to protect America from a scary, dark-skinned other. So, you won't get very far by trying to appeal separately to immigration fears while simultaneously attacking the DHS and the war.

Of course, sticking with pure libertarianism wouldn't have done much for Paul either.

Posted by N | March 11, 2008 1:29 PM

Andrew Sullivan delivers this:

"Can the Paulites make lasting change? Eve Fairbanks of The New Republic described Paul’s supporters as “the closest thing this race has to the Deaniacs of ’04.” Those Web-savvy, young, and excitable supporters of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean may not have powered their man to the White House, but their influence remains a potent force in Democratic politics. Dean’s Web team, including Matthew Stoller and Jerome Armstrong, became some of the loudest voices in the lefty blogosphere and go-to gurus for all Democratic Internet campaigns. Ex–Dean staffers populate the Courage Campaign, a liberal activist group in the MoveOn.org mold. And Dean himself has run the Democratic National Committee since 2005. If Paul’s people wanted to copy a movement, they could do a lot worse."

The Elder Gods won't be this good to the Democrats, will they?

Posted by Doug | March 11, 2008 1:41 PM

At least when it comes to immigration, no one should trust MattY's thinking abilities, and I'm going to show you why.

First, Weigel fails to note - and MattY doesn't correct him on it - that Ron Paul didn't feature immigration matters as a major part of his platform. He didn't explain why the issue matters, and in the debates I saw he only challenged one of his opponents on it once, and that was regarding the related issue of a NationalID.

So, yeah, if all you do is put out a TV ad without explaining why that position is right and your opponents' is wrong, then it doesn't work.

Did MattY factor that in to his "analysis"? Should you trust his thinking on this issue?

Moving on to Huck, very few people bought his last minute conversion to supporting our laws, with many people raising questions about his previous support for illegal activity (like me: youtube.com/watch?v=1KxDhesWutc). So, most people realized he was full of hot air, despite the MSM allowing him to lie: youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM

Did MattY factor any of that in to his "analysis"? Should you trust his thinking on this issue?

And, needless to say, very few candidates engage in "immigrant- and immigration-bashing", so MattY is lying to you.

The bottom line, and something that MattY might want to communicate up the food chain to those in the DNC, is that, when presented properly, this issue will have a great deal of saliency. It just requires someone to point out why it's important and to hold those who support illegal activity accountable for their statements and actions.

So, for instance, take a look at this McCain exchange:

youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg

Now, imagine that someone who's much more familiar with the issue - and someone with more of a "prosecutorial" mindset - had asked a better question and had pressed the point as much as possible. A few hundred thousand Youtube views later, the GOP would be looking for an alternative to McCain.

Now, imagine how Obama or Clinton will fare in that same scenario.

Posted by TLB | March 11, 2008 1:49 PM

Also of note: restrictionist Jim Oberweis's defeat in Hastert's old district in Illinois, which was a strongly Republican district but also one with a good number of immigrants. Anti-immigrant voters aren't numerous enough or simply don't care enough to make this a winning issue, but immigrant-sympathetic voters care enough to make it a losing issue.

Posted by yave begnet | March 11, 2008 1:51 PM

Uh oh, Lone Wacko's in the house. Tell it to President Obama, Clinton, or McCain, TLB. I think they'll be receptive. In the meantime, keep explaining why it's essential that we deport 12 million people and enclose the country in concrete and steel--it's sure to catch on any day now with the voters ...

Posted by yave begnet | March 11, 2008 1:57 PM

yave begnet is correct -- immigration crackdown is to republicans what gun control is to democrats: something that LOOKS like it has wide support among voters but doesn't actually generate more votes at the polls-- it just motivates the opposition to turn out in greater numbers against you.

TLB, meanwhile, treats anti-immigration rhetoric like a bereted marx-reading college student treats communism-- "Anti-immigration campaigning failed because it was never really tried!"

Posted by Tyro | March 11, 2008 2:14 PM

If there weren't a broad-based, grass-roots opposition to amnesty and open-borders, the McCain-Kennedy 'comprehensive' immigration reform would have passed and been signed into law last year.

Posted by Fred | March 11, 2008 2:32 PM

Regarding Foster's win, see this post, the previous post on the same topic, and the comments from a local; you'll end up not trusting anything yave begnet says. On a side note, I believe he's also an immigration lawyer.

And, begnet also trots out the same old tired FalseChoice, implying we must choose between MassDeportations and a MassiveAmnesty when in fact there are other choices, such as simply enforcing the law. And, needless to say, having SecureBorders doesn't mean there aren't "doors", only that there are "walls".

Posted by TLB | March 11, 2008 2:32 PM

That's right, I'm an immigration lawyer for a nonprofit organization ... I used to work for a corporate law firm but I took a big pay cut to work here because it's an issue I believe is important. You'll find there are passionate people on both sides of this issue, and I think election data in the last 2 years shows that restrictionists have overplayed their hand. The issue is getting more visibility among mainstream progressives, and ICE's increasingly draconian tactics are also giving restrictionists a bad name.

The article linked to isn't much of a debunking. References to the threat of "anchor babies" and ties to the government of Mexico will get you mileage with some people, but not enough to get where you want to go. Tell me, has Oberweis' lawsuit been successful? To my knowledge, it's not.

As far as "simply enforcing the law," if immigration law were less manifestly unjust and more predictably and consistently enforced, that would give restrictionist arguments more heft. But "rule of law" is not so meaningful in the near-complete absence of due process, and real alternatives to skirting the laws simply don't exist for most people here unlawfully now. So other commenters can evaluate what TLB and I have written on the subject for themselves and make their own decision as to who to trust, god knows we've both written about the topic ad nauseam (TLB being more prolific and omnipresent, though).

Posted by yave begnet | March 11, 2008 3:23 PM

Omnipotent as well.

As for the Mexico link, the person in question is married to someone who used to head an organization that is/was collaborating with the MexicanGovernment. She also pushed through an IDCard program in NewHaven, and he was the campaign manager for the mayor of that town. The latter might have a financial interest in the cards scheme due to a link to a bank.

And, there are plenty of other people and organizations with closer links to that government. FelipeCalderon recently told Mexican immigrants to push Mexico's agenda inside the U.S., and he also said that they're going to be using U.S. NGOs to push their agenda inside the U.S. And, several of the main organizers of 2006's ImmigrationMarches have links to that government, with one being a former consul and another being an official with the PRDParty.

Few other people know about that because the MSM is too corrupt to discuss it.

As for Oberweis' lawsuit, that only happened a few days ago; they don't seem to have much of a case against the DCCC, but, unlike the DCCC, the first person discussed above was much less circumspect in his language, although I don't know whether they even know about what's just a TP blog post.

As for ICE's activities, MichaelChertoff has made some interesting statements that I've interpreted as him possibly staging ham-fisted raids in an attempt to inflame the left and use them to push for what the BushAdmin - and hacks like MattY - want.

As for millions of unskilled laborers being able to come here, the fact that our laws try to prevent that is an explanation for why there are so many IllegalAliens, but it isn't justification. If you want millions of unskilled laborers to come here, then make it part of the laws and have a fair debate about it, don't try to justify it.

Posted by TLB | March 11, 2008 3:38 PM

I liked TLB's argument about dangerous creepy crawlies better in the original Lovecraft version when it was ostensibly about the Fungi from Yuggoth.

(Seriously, if you go back and read any Lovecraft, it's all clearly about fear of the subhuman Other coming up here and taking over. Sometimes he doesn't even really bother to disguise it. Of course, at that time Lovecraft's creepy crawlies were from Eastern and Southern Europe more than Mexico, Asia or Africa, but some things never change.)

Posted by Ben | March 11, 2008 4:39 PM

And, I liked collaborationist/useful idiot lefties better when it was about communism. I mean, wrong as they were, at least they had noble ideals rather than the current case with them presenting objectively wrong arguments to support the crooked leaders of Mexico.

Plus, SocialistRealism is still cool today.

Posted by TLB | March 11, 2008 5:16 PM

Perhaps Paul would have been more successful if he'd disdained TheSpaceBar, and hidden under his bed for fear of TehBrownMenace.

Nah.

Still, I'm sure that WhackOMole Kelly can console himself with his white supremacist friends while preparing the next day's 14,000 blogwhores on his piece-o-shit FearTheBrown wiki.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 11, 2008 8:27 PM