 |
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS HERALD |
 |
||
|
||||
|
HILLARY ON THE MOVE History has taught us that it is never wise to underestimate the Clintons. Just when you think they are way out there on the far left bank of American politics, so far out of the mainstream that they can never again be a factor in the nation’s political life, they pop up, gremlin-like, once more. I allude, in this case, to Hillary Rodham Clinton – the one member of the former Dynamic Duo who still retains viability on the American political scene. Her husband, Bill, the ex-Pres – much beloved by the major media for the great copy he provides whenever he forays onto the public stage – has shot his bolt. He has been to the Mountaintop and can never ascend there again, devoutly though his true believers might wish it. Unless the 20 th Amendment to the Constitution is repealed, he can never recreate the power and glory of the Clinton Camelot. Senator Hillary Clinton, however, is still a force to be reckoned with, as she demonstrated a few weeks ago, when she came out strongly for much tighter controls on illegal immigration. During an interview on WABC radio, New York City, she said, “I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigration.” And in an interview with Fox News, the Senator declared that she did not think “...we have protected our borders or our ports or provided our first responders with the resources they need, so we can do more and we can do better”. In staking out this new position on illegal immigration – actually somewhat to the right of President Bush – Mrs. Clinton shows that she is a shrewd, if not necessarily principled politician. Shrewd, because she obviously senses that illegal immigration represents a vacuum in American politics. Unprincipled, because her true sympathies almost certainly align with the Democratic Party's long-time advocacy of open borders and easy immigration as a conduit for new "ethnic" voters who can become natural Democratic constituents. Polls have repeatedly indicated that American voters, in a sizeable majority, favor tighter controls on illegal immigration. Yet neither major party has seemed inclined to accede to the public's desires on the issue. Indeed, the President has twice broached a plan to register illegals who already have jobs in the USA, with the stated intention of letting them apply for eventual citizenship. It is amnesty by another name. Democrats have traditionally made common cause with illegals who wish to live and work here. Both parties have taken heat from voters who are upset over porous borders and the security threat they represent. Mr. Bush's worker-legalization proposals have caused an uproar in the body politic each time he has advanced them. In an earlier article (1), I quoted Steven A. Camarota, Research Director for the Center for Immigration Studies: “55 or 60 percent of the public wants less immigration, a third wants it the same, and 7% wants…more. [Mr. Bush] is going for that 7%.” I suggested that Mr. Bush had a blind spot on the illegal immigration issue that could hurt him and his Party. And I warned that both parties were leaving the door open for an immigration-control third party to arise in the context of the 2004 election. It didn't occur that way this year, but the threat is still out there. Mrs. Clinton has now recognized the potential power of the "illegals" issue and has commenced using it to position herself as a “centrist” for her 2008 Presidential candidacy. Clearly she is so confident of her liberal base that she can reach out to conservative and middle-of-the-road voters whom she otherwise could not attract. Many of those voters are so upset about illegal immigration, and so provoked by Republicans' dismissal of their concerns, that they might be receptive to Mrs. Clinton's overtures. Her liberal base is politically sophisticated enough to understand that their candidates must sometimes adopt positions that seem at variance with standard liberal doctrine in order to achieve the “greater good” of a Democratic victory. Not all Democrats agree with Mrs. Clinton's new posture on illegal immigration. She has been severely criticized by blue-state voters who dislike her embrace of “conservative” issues as much as they disliked Mr. Kerry's adoption of the same tactic. But in the wake of another disastrously concluded national election Democrats are searching for answers and looking for new leadership. Republican attempts to gain more of the Hispanic vote have met with increasing success. In 2000 Mr. Bush lost that vote by 20 points, but lost it by only 10 points in 2004. He is moving up, and he expects Republicans to be the majority party among Hispanics by pushing for legalization of illegal workers – many of them Mexicans – through his proposed worker-permit program. It is not clear, however, that these proposals will appeal to legal Hispanic voters, many of whom are displeased with careless border enforcement and permissive official attitudes which allow illegal immigrants easy entrée into the American culture and social support system. Recently, for example, 47% of Hispanics voted for Arizona Proposition 200 which, having become Arizona law, will require proof of citizenship of all persons who apply for welfare benefits. Sensing this uncertainty, Mrs. Clinton has decided to go for the other side of the issue – hoping thereby to make inroads into the red states of the Republican electoral majority that neither Al Gore nor John Kerry could crack. Noting the arithmetic of the last two elections, Mrs. Clinton obviously sees that turning only one or two Southern states might do the trick, assuming that she can hold all of the blue states carried by Mr. Kerry. Had Mr. Kerry won Ohio, he would now be awaiting his inauguration. In her attempt to seize the unoccupied anti-illegals ground, Mrs. Clinton would be opposed by strong forces who like things as they are. These would include:
The large majority of Americans who want more effective controls on illegal immigration remain mostly unorganized. This makes them easy for most politicians to ignore, and less effective than well funded, highly organized groups like NCLR and the others. But they remain fallow ground – ready for cultivation by a perspicacious and ambitious politician who can see their potential. Only time will tell if Mrs. Clinton can make a credible case as a neo-conservative on illegal immigration that will hold her liberal base, while siphoning off enough red-state votes to create a new Democratic majority. Representing a Democratic Party that traditionally supports both legal and illegal immigration, while hewing hard-rightward on illegal immigration, would be a feat of political geometry to make Bill Clinton (the old Master Triangulator) proud. *******
|
|
| ||||||
