A New York Times analysis of Bush’s failure to pass his immigration plan places the pivot at California’s election to replace a jailed Republican congressman.
The Republicans barely held the seat, and party peers credit that victory to a hard line on immigration. Therefore, when Republicans in Congress call off debate for the summer, what do you think their guts tell them about how to play the immigration card in September and October?
So Republicans have learned nothing about the logic of supremacist nationalism, except that it still works to win elections in America. And that is really all they care to know.
One keeps wondering when supremacist nationalism will have cost the USA dearly enough in dollars, lives, and prestige the world over. But it just keeps playing like Wounded Knee, over and over, with nothing but conscience to get in the way. And conscience stands a slim chance during even-numbered years.
The new venue for us v. them will be citizen v. migrant. The logic we’ve seen before.
Ironically enough, David Broder’s analysis draws on the image of Texas to animate an approach to the border that is more sisterly-brotherly, and which therefore makes Bush look like a sentimental sheriff. But if Broder had listened just a little closer, he’d have heard the old masterly-slaverly tune in Bush’s whistle.
And it’s a rare “citizen” in the USA who thinks they are not being condescending when they proclaim they’d be glad to allow Mexicans to carry little biometric cards yielding their bearers full entitlement to as much temp employment as they can take this side of the Rio Grande. With compadres such as these…who needs banditos?–gm