The 2008 Presidential Election - Immigration and The Third Party Wild Card

The recent debate over immigration into America (both legal and illegal) has thrown the entire political status quo into disorder.  The American political map has been shown to be not just a horizontal axis of Left and Right, but also a vertical axis of globalizaton or isolation.  Allow me to explain. 

Before, the most heavily debated issue was Iraq.  The Democrats, despite many of them voting for the Iraq War in 2002, managed to collaborate with the anti-Bush media and persuade single-sentence-depth fashion sheep that either 'Bush lied about WMDs', or 'Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda', or 'The war is for oil'.   Logic and facts could be ignored, as the 'Right' was the clearly defined enemy, and the end of opposing them justified the means. 

Most Americans neatly found homes on one of two sides of this issue, and the prominent generals of both armies were clearly defined and recognized.  One could predict what a particular person's position on the Iraq War was merely by hearing their opinion on tax cuts or Supreme Court Justices. 

Then, along came an issue that entirely scattered the ideological bastions of both hordes - the issue of how America should deal with and categorize those who would seek to come immigrate here.  On the venerable conservative magazine National Review, Larry Kudlow and Rich Lowry, joined like Siamese twins on every other pillar of conservative thought, had entirely opposing articles on immigration, on the same day.  Lou Dobbs, previously disdained by conservatives as an isolationist, is now praised by some conservatives and smeared by leftists as a racist.  Pat Buchanan and Tom Daschle, thought to be opposite extremes, agree with each other wholeheartedly at panel symposiums on C-SPAN. 

Why have the battle lines been blurred?  Because the vertical axis of globalization and isolationism splits political ideologies into 4 quadrants, effectively four rather than two columns of fighters. 

The only predictable column is the fifth one. Anti-American fifth columnists (8-10% of the US population) invariably support the position that hurts America, but they are not sure how to use this particular issue to do that.  Other than demand bilingual public schools, in-state college tuition for illegals, and support fringe separatist groups, they are unable to figure out what other indisputably harmful schemes they can inflict upon America within this issue. 

The fifth column only has power when the media, and hence the 35-40% of the US population that are fashion sheep, side with them (as in the case of the Iraq War).  But in the same way, it is difficult for the fashion sheep to determine what view, in fact, is fashionable. 

Is it fashionable to say that businesses need cheap Mexican labor for jobs that Americans won't do?  Is it fashionable to declare that India and China are producing more engineers than the US, and so the US needs to import as many engineers as possible?  Is it fashionable to say this is eroding the wages of the American middle class?  Is it fashionable to say that politicians are pandering to the 'Hispanic' vote?  If so, which party is it fashionable to criticize?  Is it fashionable to accuse people of racism, even if the celebrity in question opposes the Iraq War?  Fashion sheep are bewildered by the complexity of this issue, and will not come to agreement on what fashionable statements they can collectively unite behind to memorize.  Thus, they will not unify behind one position solidly enough to be a factor in this debate. 

The only fashionable nuance that has permeated this debate is the deliberate refusal of the American public to distinguish between :

Legal immigration, and

Illegal immigration. 

This cognitive dissonance is astonishing, and is at the source of the massive galaxy of contradictory one-liners flying around the stadium of political discourse.  Herein lies the soft underbelly of America's future as we head to the crossroads of our civilization, the 2008 election. 

When the public demands something they don't fully understand, that neither party can address without offending large groups, while there is so much confusion about what benefits America and what hurts it, the climate is ripe for a third-party candidate to emerge and cannibalize voters from the other two parties.  The passions are running high enough that a candidate running solely on the issue of sealing the southern border could easily siphon 6% or more of the popular vote, leaving a major-party candidate with 47% to garner more electoral votes, and defeat an opponent with 46%. 

This has already happened in the 1992, 1996, and 2000 elections, where a third party ensured that the winning candidate had less than 50% of the popular vote.  The question is, would such a candidate in 2008 siphon away more voters from Democrats or Republicans?

Therein lies the true unpredictability that the vertical axis introduces.  Unions oppose immigration but classical liberals and university intellectuals support it.  Evangelicals may see Catholic Mexicans as undesirable non-adherents, or as prospective converts.  Uneducated illegals consume taxpayer resources, but white-collar immigrants effectively subsidize the US economy to the extent of $200 billion a year by being educated at the expense of another country.  Legislation that Mexicans in California welcome, Cubans in Florida might vehemently oppose, particularly as stereotypes of Mexicans also engulf them.  Agribusinesses benefiting from inexpensive illegal labor will be in opposition to Silicon Valley knowledge businesses seeing their California taxes rise.  Which party comes out ahead in forming a conglomeration to appease more of the above lobbies than their opponent?

Throw the large and powerful 2008 blogosphere into the mix, and we can expect a maddening political pandemonium ahead of us. 

Comments

[jeffolie]

Politicians rarely perform as promised.

Illegal immigration is a bullet issue. Catholics have Cardinal Mahoney as pro illegals. Anti illegals have Rep. Tancredo.

I doubt a 3rd party will emerge about illegals from the Republican side.

[GK]

But the issue of illegals has totally confused people about what is 'Right' and what is 'Left'. Note how prominent conservatives wholly disagree with each other, and prominent liberals like Lou Dobbs are smeared by other leftists as racists.

There are now 4 quadrants, 4 possible positions on this issue, not just two. An isolationist 3rd party candidate could emerge, and it would not be clear whether he was right or left. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, both isolationists, agree strongly on this issue, confusing people about who's side they should be on.

All that is needed is for a 3rd party candidate to take away a few percentage points of votes to screw up the two-party system.

[jeffolie]

All elections in modern times have had 3rd parties. The way the electorial college works, no 3rd party electors have voted. The popular vote does not elect the president. Ross Periot did not matter.

[GK]

Surely you recognize that when Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, he cannibalized votes from GHWB and Clinton won with just 41%, and that when Nader got 2% in 2000, GWB won with just 49%.

For example, in Ohio in 1992, Clinton got 40%, GHWB got 38%, and Perot got 22%. Clinton got all of Ohio's Electoral Votes, even with just 40% of the popular votes. If Perot was not there, Clinton probably would not have won Ohio (or many other states).

Same with Nader taking votes from Gore in Florida and New Hampshire in 2000, costing him states he otherwise may have won (and thus the election).

[jeffolie]

Point well taken.

[lgude]

As a long time expatriate living in Perth Western Australia (I've been blogging at www.yankeewombat.com about as long as you have) I had put down my inability to feel much connection to the US immigration debate to my remote position rather than your 'vertical axis' and consequent idealogical fragmentation. I think you are right and that it really does have the potential to introduce 3rd party distortions into the 2008 elections that could easily alter the result. Even without poll numbers, I am pretty sure that there is more concern on the issue than either party is in a position to really meet, much less satisfy. I correspond with some quite middle of the road middle westerners who see it as an important issue - well before the recent large demonstrations too. They want some kind of change in the direction of more control and I don't think either party impresses them the way things are going. I would say they are moderate Red Staters who might vote either way in a two party race who are becoming concerned enough that they would listen seriously to any third party candidate who credibly addressed the immigration issue.

I would add that I currently see 2008 as a probable win for an alliance of the left and what you refer to as the fashion sheep putting Hillary in the White House. I think this block in US politics and in Europe has an election or two left in them before it becomes obvious that we can't get back to the 'good old days' when leftist thinking seemed to be simply common sense. I understand that Bush or any president's situation is tough because any strong position like a fence would likely put a Chavez ally into government in Mexico. So those big demos, and the negative reactions to them, may ironically end up stifling the economic reform that Mexico needs to make illegal immigration unnecessary. What a mess!

[D.R. Shirell]

I can't believe how many Republicans are stupidly supporting the radical left's covert strategy of "the browning of America" for the sole purpose of increasing its voter base.

[Paul R. Gregory]

We are confronted at a very invasive attitude. That attitude has it that it is justified in the violation of our laws, civil and criminal. It can also put aside ordinary civility , when it suits it so. Said attitude justifies itself thru a self serving rendition of history -- the seven western states were conquered away from it and now it is engaged in a Righteous “Reconquest”.

An alternate, self serving, rendition of history :

Today, if one were to hold an election in the seven western states to determine which government would be preferred -- that of the U.S. or that of Mexico -- there is little doubt that the U.S. would be chosen. It was much the same one hundred and fifty years ago, and that is why history went the way it did. After twenty years of experience of the Mexican government people in the west formed independent republics. The Mexican Army attacked several of these republics and these requested the assistance of the United States, which then sent it’s Army.

It is preferred that we do not live in Mexico, thus it is better that we are not “Reconquered” .
So one would want that the border be maintained and enforced.

[Laika]

Every time one of those huge demonstrations appeared on TV thousands of votes flowed to the Republican party. It's incredibly hard to get into the USA legally, and it's a very attractive option compared to Mexico so that, and a huge land border is going to create a big illegal problem. Make legal emmigration much easier, send illegals home and, if you're a republican, encourage as many giant demos as possible. Votes in the bank. The politically correct media will unwittingly do the democrat cause huge damage the more they push their agenda.

[Kamatu]

The problem being that if the GOP does nothing towards building a wall and enforcing draconion penalties on employers of illegals, then in 2006 you get a sit out or mass write-ins for "Repub W. Spine" which may throw the House over to the Dems.

What is being missed here is that the biggest voting bloc in the US are probably the Jacksonians who can arguably be counted as the largest number of disaffected nonvoters, a significant GOP bloc and a minor but significant Dem bloc.

[Ralph Dreifus]

A constitutional convention is our only choice. We have the best government private interest can buy.

The governemtn cannot fulfill its obligations to the people of this country much less half of the Spanish Speaking world who want to move here.

A democracy in Iraq ? All for the control of natural resources and for no other reason. Puppet governments for the benefit of the privledged few

The Iranians hate us? You bet for good reason. Read your history and find out why ? It is obivious unless you are self absorbed and somehow think you are on the moral high ground.

Hillary Clinton ? Please she is bought and paid for the same a the Bush family top to bottom. You people simply do not get it.

[Bebo Riley]

Why is Drefius bring up Hilly and the Bush babies in the same comment? It is abundantly clear that she is the only candidate in the race with the experience and morals to go the distance. If she is bought and paid for by the monied interests in this country, that only proves that we can count on her to take and hold a position, politically speaking, until someone or some other group, is willing to pay more to change her mind. That makes her reliable and predicable in economic terms. We are not likey to see some un-expected or radical turn from a steady and reliable leader of her caliber. It is almost a certainty she won't be blowing anyone in the oval office either.