The Possible and the Actual

I think Reihan Salam makes the interesting point here that in many ways Hillary Clinton's coalition of working class whites and Latinos is actually more novel than Barack Obama's "McGovern coalition" of bien pensant white liberals and black people. That said, this seems off-base to me:

Can we imagine, say, a right-of-center Mexican American candidate effectively arguing that some form of moderate immigration restriction will prove beneficial to Mexican Americans? Yes.

Now of course we can "imagine" that in some sense. And, indeed, the evidence suggests that a very large proportion of the people whose interests are actually harmed by large levels of immigration are recent immigrants or the children of recent immigrants. But this just underscores the extent to which anti-immigration sentiment is not, in practice, driven by a rational response to economic problems. The evidence suggests that high levels of immigration do indeed have a deleterious effect on the wages of Americans who lack a high-school diploma.

But the locus of anti-immigration political mobilization isn't among America's dropout community, it's among middle class people who live in areas that are newly experiencing large levels of immigration. It is, in other words, primarily driven by cultural anxieties. And so far as that goes, that's fine. But though, as Reihan says, highly assimilated persons with some Spanish-speaking ancestors (like me!) aren't going to be amenable to la Raza ideology, we also aren't going to be amenable to a politics of centered around cultural panic over Spanish language signs.

Meanwhile, it's worth saying that whatever the short-range politics of the immigration issue, there's some good reason to believe that if restrictionists do succeed in substantially reducing the flow of immigrants, the main long-term impact would be a renaissance of redistributionist politics.

Photo by Flickr user melanzane1013 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

As an aside, this is why it never made sense to me when people would argue only a black candidate could have beaten Clinton like Obama has. It seems obvious to me that at a minimum, a Latino candidate could have pulled apart her coalition in a different but equally effective way. And for that matter, the same goes for a true Southerner (not just one by marriage), or a true Northeasterner (not just one by convenience).

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 1:12 PM

Actually, Latinos have traditionally had very mixed feeling about continued large-scale immigration, for exactly the economic-competition reasons cited.

As an interesting example, for decades America's leading opponent of illegal immigration was Cesar Chavez, who always denounced the federal government for being under the thumb of the big business interests and therefore doing nothing about the problem. Amusingly enough, he even organized Minutemen-style vigilante patrols of the Mexican border to deter illegals. (Maybe Gilchrist should have named his organization the "Cesar Chavez Brigade!").

On the other hand, it's pretty obvious that much of today's activist hostility toward Latino immigration has a strong racial/ethnic current, and this obviously tends to cause working-class Latinos to back-off from the issue and become extremely suspicious. And just putting a few "token Latino faces" out front, doesn't fool anybody.

There is a pretty easy way to "thread this needle" on the politics of the issue, but I'm busy with other things right now...

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 1:14 PM

As an aside, this is why it never made sense to me when people would argue only a black candidate could have beaten Clinton like Obama has. It seems obvious to me that at a minimum, a Latino candidate could have pulled apart her coalition in a different but equally effective way.

I'd be very, very skeptical of this analysis. In general, Latino voters tend to be minimally motivated by issues of ethnic/racial solidarity, and Hillary's initial overwhelming Latino support would have been only slightly dented by a prominent Latino candidate. Furthermore, the various Latino regional sub-groups don't particularly like each other.

This is one of the many reasons why Bill Richardson's campaign never went anywhere, even though he began with very strong "paper" credentials.

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 1:23 PM

In general, Latino voters tend to be minimally motivated by issues of ethnic/racial solidarity,

But I've been told on good authority that they all want to reconquer the Southwest and expel all the gringos.

I couldn't have been lied to, could I?

Posted by anonymousjerk | April 3, 2008 1:34 PM

there's some good reason to believe that if restrictionists do succeed in substantially reducing the flow of immigrants, the main long-term impact would be a renaissance of redistributionist politics.

Matt, can you expand about your thinking on this? It's not clear to me why an large reduction in immigration would lead to more willingness on the part of business elite Democrats and anti-tax Republicans to favor more redistribution.

Posted by Ady | April 3, 2008 1:37 PM

Could you explain what you mean by "a renaissance of redistributionist politics" for someone not familiar with the first era of redistributionist politics?

Posted by Tom | April 3, 2008 1:41 PM

A quick note about La Raza: They're so ideological that they give awards to people like Lincoln Diaz-Balart (whose votes on domestic issues are so beneficial to immigrants of all stripes).
http://www.nclr.org/section/events/capital_awards

Posted by Ady | April 3, 2008 1:43 PM

It's not clear to me why an large reduction in immigration would lead to more willingness on the part of business elite Democrats and anti-tax Republicans to favor more redistribution.

I imagine the logic is rooted in the idea that countries with homogeneous populations tend to have stronger redistributionist politics because you've giving the money to "us" rather than "them". It's not the business elites and anti-taxers who's minds you might change, it's working-class whites.

Posted by Phaedrus | April 3, 2008 1:51 PM

RKU: "Latino voters tend to be minimally motivated by issues of ethnic/racial solidarity".......This is one of the many reasons why Bill Richardson's campaign never went anywhere, even though he began with very strong "paper" credentials.

Could another reason be that his name is "Bill Richardson" and few people, including his fellow hispanics, even know he is (3/4ths) hispanic?

Posted by scottynx | April 3, 2008 2:02 PM

There's not going to be any "renaissance of redistributionist politics" anytime soon. The federal government is going to have to balloon its deficits just to stimulate domestic demand as the de-leveraging process continues. Expect more infrastructure spending over the next few years, and fewer transfer payment schemes.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 2:09 PM

I don't think that "McGovern Coalition" really captures the coalition Obama has built, particularly because Liberals -- at least at first -- tended to doubt that Reagan democrats would vote for Obama, while African-Americans tended to doubt he was "one of them."

Obama's coalition, somewhat like Huckabee's, is a coalition of insurgents, and, as a result, it shades toward youth and outsiders.

It might be termed a coalition of boomleteers.

Posted by Carrington Ward | April 3, 2008 2:12 PM

As far as the first era of redistribution goes, generally from the end of WWII to the beginning of the 70s was a high-water point in terms of shrinking inequality and govt support for a broad middle class, especially compared to what we've had since.

Posted by Dan Miller | April 3, 2008 2:15 PM

What's the basis for calling the Hillary voters a coalition? What's the commonality: "We don't like Obama or McCain"?

Posted by vorkosigan1 | April 3, 2008 2:19 PM

This is all a bit like MattY discussing what's going on in Iceland: he knows next to nothing about the issue.

First, almost every Mexican-American politician that I know of is some form of far-left supporter of illegal activity. There's one to the right side that opposes illegal activity, but he's just a county commissioner.

Perhaps MattY would care to show us how much he knows about this by naming some names.

The idea that many Hispanics aren't supporters of ethnic solidarity is ludicrous. While different countries of origin groups might not like each other that much, there's tremendous country of origin solidarity and also pan-ethnic solidarity as well. And, every single group that represents Hispanics is a very strong advocate of ethnic solidarity. (Note to MattY: one euphemism is "the community").

As for the NCLR, they gave an award to the guy who said this (several years after he said it):

"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."

All the things MattY doesn't know about this issue is pretty amazing considering the ink he spills on it. Whatever MattY's being paid to damage what little reputation he has by discussing this issue, he should ask for a raise.

Posted by TLB | April 3, 2008 3:39 PM

"As far as the first era of redistribution goes, generally from the end of WWII to the beginning of the 70s was a high-water point in terms of shrinking inequality and govt support for a broad middle class, especially compared to what we've had since."

What shrunk inequality in the 70s was the crappy economy. Kennedy said that "a rising tide raises all ships" but it's more true that a sinking tide reduces inequality. So you're about to see some inequality decline, as some formerly highly-paid employees in the financial sector get show the door. Enjoy. You'll notice though that reducing inequality doesn't do a whole lot for folks at the bottom of the economic totem pole. You can't fill your gas tank with Schadenfreude.

Posted by Fred | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM

RKU,

As an aside, Bill Richardson's resume actually got him to a pretty solid fourth place in places like NH--he just wasn't much of a campaigner, and I also think Obama ended up staking out the anti-Clinton space, which left very little room for anyone else. But if you took Obama out of the picture and gave his political skills and general personal appeal to Richardson, I see no reason why Richardson could not have occupied that space instead and beaten Clinton.

Incidentally, one of the things you are apparently overlooking is how much the Clinton Camp contributed to Hillary's problems among black voters. I think the exact same thing could (and probably would) have happened among Latino voters if that had been the nature of the threat posed to her candidacy. For example, imagine how Latinos in California, Arizona, and New Mexico would have felt if the Clinton Camp had been saying that their earlier loss in Nevada shouldn't count because it was full of Latinos. I doubt Latino voters would have taken the implication that they shouldn't count any better than black votets.

And again, I think the same dynamic would have played out with any possible challenger: the Clinton Camp would have been dismissive of whatever groups were leaning toward that challenger, and that would have hardened that challenger's support among those groups. But of course people like you want to ignore all this, and instead make demography into destiny.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 3:56 PM

Fred--to be explicit, I was talking about the period from about 1945 to about 1973 or so, not the (bulk of the) 70s themselves.

Posted by Dan Miller | April 3, 2008 5:16 PM

Could another reason be that his name is "Bill Richardson" and few people, including his fellow hispanics, even know he is (3/4ths) hispanic?

Certainly true. Remember I said "one of the many reasons". And I'd say that Richardon's biggest problem was that he was a dumpy-looking mediocre political hack, with a pattern of extremely obnoxious personal behavior, which came out in the media during the campaign.

But on the macro-level, Richardson was 3/4th "Mexico-City elite"---which ordinary Mexicans tend to dislike---AND had an Anglo name to boot, not the best combination.

But here's a thought experiment. As of 12 months ago, Tony V., the Latino Mayor of LA, was probably a much more prominent national political figure than Obama, just as good at speechifying and just as charismatic, with a much more impressive political resume and history of campaigning, better political skills and a much broader coalition behind him, and (I'd guess) quite a bit brighter as well.

Back a year or two ago, I doubt if even 15% of American blacks had heard of Obama, while Tony V. was (probably) America's leading Latino political figure. For years, he's been thinking of eventually running for CA governor, then---who knows?---maybe trying to become America's first Latino president around 2020 or whatever.

Yet neither he or any of his backers could have imagined a run for President in 2008 against Hillary in a million years---it would have been totally nuts. He would been lucky to get 30% of the Latino vote in his own home base of LA, and much less everywhere else around the country. Latinos might liked him, but they also liked Hillary, so why should they vote against her for someone with absolutely no "credentials" to be President at this stage of his career?

And remember that---as of last year---Hillary was best known as the wife of "America's first black president" with his office in Harlem, had endorsements from (maybe) 85% of all the prominent black political leaders in America, and (I'd guess) 90% favorability among black Democrats.

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 5:24 PM

RKU,

Obviously, for good or ill, trying to go from Mayor to President is a tougher sell than going from Senator to President, even if you haven't been Senator for long. Of course Mayors don't want to hear that, particularly Mayors of large cities, but the problem is most people still see them as junior to Governors, and hence a step removed from where they should get before running for President. And, of course, it turns out Mayor Villaraigosa had a skeleton (or more precisely, a female reporter) in his closet.

But holding aside Mayor Villaraigosa, I think a lot of people are kicking themselves now for overestimating Hillary. It turns out that most of her support was based on her association with Bill, and that support was not as solid as people thought. Indeed, I think it would have been a whole different situation if Obama had in fact been facing off against Bill himself, including among black voters. But Hillary couldn't defend Bill's coalition as well as Bill himself, because it wasn't really hers in the first place.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 5:50 PM

RKU, the general thesis of much lesser hispanic propensity to block vote as compared to blacks is obviously true. For instance, they *generally* vote around 35% republican as opposed to blacks voting around 10% republican.

I think everything would have played out vaguely similarly with Richardson if he had won an early upset victory and became proven as a "peer competitor" to Clinton. Richardson's win would have been loudly trumpeted in Hispanic circles and Hispanics would have swung to his column after that, just like blacks swung to Obama's column after the legitimizing victory Iowa, but it would have been to a lesser extent. Maybe only 70% of hispanic Democrats would have favored Richardson over Hillary as opposed to the 90% of black democrats that have favored Obama.

Posted by scottynx | April 3, 2008 6:17 PM

scottynx,

Although RKU's "ethnic/racial solidarity" thesis looks a lot less true when you realize that black voters still vote overwhelmingly for white Democrats running against black Republicans. For example, Steele actually beat Cardin among white voters, but Cardin whomped Steele among black voters. Similarly, Blackwell did much worse among black voters than white voters.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 6:27 PM

I don't necessary disagree with scottynx's general analysis, but think he might be pushing the analogy a little too far.

The difference comes when you consider Obama's *policy positions* during most of the campaign, which are widely regarding as the most economically-conservative of the major candidates. Basically, he's been running mostly as an anti-populist Bloomberg-Broderian Third-Wayist, which is at total variance with the normal ideological positions of black voters. Excluding aspects of "racial solidarity", someone with his policy-package would normally be running about 70 points behind Hillary.

While an economic-populist Latino who emerged as a peer-competitor to Hillary could probably grab up a very good chunk of the Latino Democratic vote---though 70% might be a little high---I think a Latino running on Obama's policy-positions would have a very difficult time making major inroads.

The bottom line is that there's overwhelming evidence that Latino voters tend to be much more "class" oriented than "race/ethnicity" oriented, which was yet another problem for preppie William Richardson III.

As for the Blackwell and Steele examples which DTM cites, they're just not realistic cases. Both those individuals were standard-issue movement-conservative Republicans basically put in "front men" for a local Republican party which was probably something like 95% white. Therefore, they could (quite fairly) be characterized as "Uncle Toms." For some mysterious reason, black voters don't generally support "Uncle Toms".

It's a little like when the Minutemen pick some random Latino guy to front for their movement. It just doesn't work.

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 8:29 PM

RKU,

Do you have any proof that black voters perceive Obama as more economically conservative than Clinton?

By the way, Blackwell was elected several times to statewide office in Ohio, and Steele of course was Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. Obviously they are conservatives and Republicans, and hence not like most black voters in terms of their political views and allegiances, but calling them "Uncle Toms" is pretty ridiculous.

Anyway, I get that you like to insult black people. But the fact is that over and over again in recent elections, the race of the candidates ends up explaining very little of black voting behavior. So, necessarily some other set of factors besides race explains most of their voting behavior.

Again, though, since that contradicts one of your beloved insults of black people, you probably won't admit that is true, and will instead use this as an opportunity to insult more black people.

Posted by DTM | April 3, 2008 9:47 PM

As for Obama's economics, I'm no expert in that area, but Krugman, Petey, Bruce Webb, and others have made pretty persuasive cases.

On the other question, wasn't Blackwell the guy who supposedly manipulated his SoS office to "push down" the voting turnout in heavily black Ohio districts (by e.g. under-allocation of voting machines), thereby maybe tipping Ohio and the presidency to George Bush in 2004?

And didn't Steele come within a whisker of being named Republican National Chairman after he lost his Maryland Senate race by a mile.

From what I remember in some of the national polls at those points, Bush had something like a 3% approval rating among blacks, with a 4% margin of error!

So what's the traditional term of reproach for black "leaders" who gain powerful, important, lucrative positions by catering to the wishes of people who are totally hated and detested by about 97% of all blacks, and whose policies probably "aren't good for the blacks"? I don't think the term is "Auntie Mame"...

Posted by RKU | April 3, 2008 11:28 PM

As a 1st generation immigrant and a public law librarian in California, here is how I see it.

Maybe my profession, librarianship, is an exception, but a large influx of immigrant workers does impact people's white-collar career prospect. It's commonly acknowledged that the free public library movement was largely in response to the last wave of high immigration in early 20th century and played a big part in the assimilation process, so those in the leadership positions are really gun-ho about enhance service to Hispanics.

It's also the perception that if you do not speak Spanish or other in-demand language, it's become much harder to get hired as an entry-level librarians in California. I can often find "Spanish language skill preferred but not required" in job posting. Sure, people agree it's great to be bilingual than monolingual. But people are grumbling. And not just white people, I had heard such complain from 3-4th generation Japanese American whose language skill is less in demand because they are much more assimilated. People either get on with the program, and learn Spanish. Or they track themselves into specialties that don't have "Spanish preferred but not required" phrase in job posting.

I had also heard that it's almost a requirement to have a CLAD if not BCLAD to get hired as public school teachers in many school district in California.

http://www.ctc.ca.gov/credentials/CREDS/english-learners.html

I had also heard similar complains from people in the social worker field, that if you are not in a tenured position and/or speak Spanish, your career prospect are being diminished.

For many people, there are no direct competition for job with new immigrants, but their career prospects are negatively impacted.

Posted by kanchou | April 4, 2008 12:35 AM

RKU,

Again, do you have any evidence that black voters perceive Obama as more economically conservative than Clinton? And no, Petey and Krugman doesn't count.

As for Blackwell: it is indeed true Blackwell had a reputation for voter suppression (not just black people, however). But assuming that contributed to Blackwell's unpopularity with black voters, that suggests Clinton's "black voters don't count" antics also likely contributed to her problems with black voters. Generally, all this is just helping confirm that race alone explains very little of black voting behavior, despite your claims to the contrary.

As for Steele: I don't get how being a candidate for RNC chairman implies anything other than that he is indeed a Republican. But I do get you love insulting black people.

Posted by DTM | April 4, 2008 7:45 AM

I don't recall McGovern getting the support of 85% of Black voters in 1972. He did okay with the black vote afaik, but a lot of African Americans supported Hubert Humphrey or Shirley Chisholm. I'm not sure I understand the analogy between Obama and McGovern, which Salam seems to assert rather than argue for.

Also, I'm not sure what the gradual assimilation of Hispanics, which I think is a real thing, has to do with Clinton's coalition. Clinton's coalition is simply Brownstein's usual "beer track" coalition, except without black people.

Apparently, when you don't have any African Americans, the beer track coalition is not sufficient to win the Democratic nomination.

Posted by John | April 4, 2008 9:51 AM

“But this just underscores the extent to which anti-immigration sentiment is not, in practice, driven by a rational response to economic problems...

…But the locus of anti-immigration political mobilization isn't among America's dropout community, it's among middle class people who live in areas that are newly experiencing large levels of immigration. It is, in other words, primarily driven by cultural anxieties…”

Why does it have to be either/or and not and/both? As someone opposed to our country’s immigration policies, I can say that four things form the basis to my opposition. 1. Large scale immigration erodes the earning potential of blue collar Americans (of which I’m not one, but I can still be concerned for my fellow American’s, right?) 2. The massive increase in our nation’s population is straining the infrastructure in such areas as health care, public schooling, roads, Medicare, social security, etc. 3. The rise of a new and powerful political action group, based on race, which will surely tilt our country’s political balance in new and unexpected ways. 4. Worries about crime and high school dropout rates, etc. (I guess you could consider this “culture”).

It’s very frustrating to read liberals like MY dash of a post that basically plays to the leftys in the room and assumes the worst motives of anyone who disagrees. Frankly, I’m tired of being called a racist. It’s not an argument, it’s an insult designed to end an argument.

Posted by Derek Sutton | April 5, 2008 12:53 AM