The whole topic of Democrats soliciting the Hispanic/Latino vote by siding with immigrants is fascinating from a historical perspective. As I understand it, Democrats have traditionally been more opposed to immigration than Republicans. This springs from the Democratic Party’s traditional alliance with the American worker and the Republican Party’s traditional alliance with the American factory owner.
Traditionally, working class Americans opposed immigration because they feared that factory owners might elect to hire immigrants in lieu of hiring American workers. The American worker must have understood that the highest goal of the factory owner in a free market system is to maximize revenue while decreasing costs. Poor, hungry immigrants work for lower wages than well-fed American workers. Even if immigrants refuse to work for less than their American comrades, the increase in the supply of workers will likely mean that the factory owner can decrease wages (if a worker refuses to work for less than $2 per day, fire him and see if one of the 500 starving, unemployed workers will work for less than $2 per day). Thus, an increase in immigrants would help the factory owner (by decreasing costs) while hurting the American worker (by eliminating job opportunities and decreasing wages).
Consequently, American workers were traditionally against immigration. Factory owners were traditionally for immigration.
All of this is sort of irrelevant. My reason for replying to JAC’s post is to attack the reasons he gives for why the Republican Party is a better party for Hispanics and Latinos than the Democratic Party. However, I think the history discussed above is interesting because although Democrats continue to claim that they represent the interests of labor and Republicans continue to claim that they represent the interests of business, the parties appear to have exchanged their views on immigration. Now, Democrats appear to be more pro-immigration than Republicans.
I can’t explain this shift. Perhaps the Democrats wish to attract more undecided voters. Perhaps someone explained to the Democrats that outside the context of immigration reform, it sounds a little racist to say “Get those DAMN Mexicans out of my country!” I don’t care about explaining the shift. I just want to comment on JAC’s arguments:
1) hispanics/latinos/certainly mexican-americans love their country. the republican party is the party of of american nationalism and the party that believes in american exceptionalism; there are no intelligent liberals who would disagree.
Paraphrased, this argument states: “Because Hispanics and Latinos love THEIR countries, Hispanics and Latinos will want to join the political party that loves AMERICA the most.” An example will illustrate the weakness of this argument. Suppose that Roberto is a young Mexican man who really loves Mexico. He loves Mexican culture, Mexican politics, and Mexican sports. Roberto loves Mexico so much that he thinks that every other country sucks when compared to Mexico.
However, because Roberto cannot find a job in Mexico, Roberto goes to America to find work. According to the above argument, Roberto should join the Republican party when he gets to America because Republicans love America in the same way that Roberto loves Mexico.
Of course this does not follow. Unless we know more about Roberto, we cannot conclude from the fact that Roberto loves Mexico that he will want to join the American party that loves America the most. All we can be sure of is that one of three scenarios will occur:
1) Roberto will get to America and continue to think Mexico is the greatest country on earth (better even than America). In this case, he won’t care about joining the pro-American Republican Party unless it is also the most pro-Mexican party.
2) Roberto will get to America, forget his love of Mexico, but won’t gain a love of America (why should the fact that he loved Mexico guarantee that he will love America? I love filet mignon a ton. However, that does not mean that if I begin to eat only processed cheese products, I will love those products just as much as I loved filet mignon). In this case, he won’t care about joining the pro-American Republican Party unless other attributes of the Republican Party interest him.
3) Roberto will get to America, forget his love of Mexico, and fall in love with America to the same extent that he loved Mexico. In this case, he will clearly want to join the pro-American Republican Party.
Thus, JAC’s argument falls apart if either of the first two scenarios occurs. I will now address the third scenario by attacking JAC’s argument that the Republican Party is the pro-American party.
At the outset, what does it mean to say that the Republican Party is the Party of American Nationalism and the party that believes in American Exceptionalism? Does that mean, by negative implication, that Democrats are the anti-American party?
Of course, this cannot be what JAC means. I have never heard any Democratic politician state that America is lame. Maybe JAC can point me to an official publication in which the Democratic Party states anti-Americanism is central to its platform. It seems to me that just as many Democratic politicians speak about America’s greatness as their Republican counterparts.
Thus, JAC must mean that Democrats are less patriotic than Republicans. How can one quantify love of America? I know many non-Republicans who wave their American flags as proudly as their Republican brothers. I watched non-Republicans tear up with pride when America overcame its history of racial division to elect an African American president. If we cannot say that the Republican Party is the most patriotic party, how else can we say that it is the most pro-American?
What I mean to show by all of this is that even if Roberto wants to join the most pro-American party, there is no guarantee that he will join the Republican Party. Instead, he may determine that all of the parties love America and want America to be great. Thus, he will have to use other criteria to determine which party to join.
2) to steal the point from mark rubio, they (especially 1st generation) desire social/economic mobility. the american free enterprise economic/legal model provides that like no other country, something children of immigrants have impressed upon them. the republican party is the party of free enterprise and free market, verdad?
We could spend weeks arguing about whether the free market system is the best method for ensuring social and economic mobility for immigrants and their families. However, even if we assume that it is, all this argument shows is that immigrants should not join the Communist Party.
Let’s assume that in addition to the Republican and Communist parties, another party exists. I will use the Democratic Party as an example. As far as I can tell, the Democratic Party is not anti-capitalism (unless you mean that pushing any economic regulation is inherently anti-capitalism. If this is your standard, the Republican Party is anti-capitalism). The Democratic Party may view economic regulations more favorably than the Republican Party. However, both parties agree that private industry should drive our economy.
Given that neither party is vehemently opposed to the free-market system, which party should the immigrant interested in social and economic mobility choose? Should he choose the party that wants to ensure that he is paid decent wages and works in sanitary conditions? Alternatively, should he choose the party that wants to permit the immigrant’s employer to pay the immigrant as little as that employer chooses while permitting that employer to provide the immigrant with whatever working conditions that employer chooses?
Of course, the immigrant interested in social and economic mobility should choose the former party. Because the Democratic Party looks upon economic regulations more favorably than the Republican Party, perhaps the Republican Party is not the best choice for the immigrant. Nevertheless, the immigrant may find it economically advantageous to reconsider his political affiliation once he becomes an employer himself!
3) and my ire here is directed less at dirty harry as it is at the national/republican apparatus - they are socially conservative people, and the closer they are to their country of origin, the more conservative. the fact that a majority of them are not republicans is a testament to the political idiocy of the republican party, an idiocy which will not likely last past this election cycle.
Assuming that you are right about immigrants being more conservative, it is strange that Republicans have not done a better job trying to attract immigrants. If Republicans want to attract more immigrant voters, maybe Republicans should not back legislation that appears, at least when discussed on CNN, to be anti-immigrant.
Or Republicans can just get Sarah Palin to run for the White House in 2012. If she does not secure immigrant voters, I don't know what will!
Wow! This post was way too long. Feel free to attack it in bits and pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment