Ron Brownstein has a really excellent article out today on how the Republican Party is now as firmly opposed to legal immigration as they are to illegal immigration. He’s done a deep historical dive into the roll calls of various immigration bills to demonstrate his point. The implications of Brownstein’s piece are quite troubling. To understand why, let me begin with where we presently stand:
In the House, about 85% of Republicans represent districts where the foreign-born share of the population was lower than the national average of 13.5% in 2016. Similarly, 42 of the 51 Republican senators represent the 30 states where immigrants compose the smallest share of the population, mostly in the South, the Midwest and the Mountain West. Republicans hold only nine of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states where immigrants constitute the largest share of the population, most of them along the coasts. In 2016, Trump’s pattern of support followed those tracks too: He won 26 of the 30 states with the smallest share of immigrants, but lost 16 of the 20 with the highest.
We do not know how the midterm elections will turn out at this point, but it’s a safe bet that they will result in a more complete sorting of the electorate. The two most likely Democratic pickups in the Senate are in Arizona and Nevada, which are both well above the national average in their diversity. Democrats in North Dakota and Indiana are the most vulnerable, and both states are below average in their diversity. The Republican seats most likely to fall to the Democrats in the House are from highly diverse districts, many of them in growing suburban areas that have traditionally been rock-solid for the Grand Old Party. If any House Democrats lose their seats in November, they will most likely come from rural or exurban districts that are low on the diversity scale.
Within Democratic circles, there’s a debate about whether the Democrats can maintain their commitment to the poor and to urban issues if their center of gravity moves toward the affluent suburbs, and also about whether the party can or should do more to compete in rural areas. But a lot of this is beyond their control. The president’s policies and rhetoric, increasingly being backed by the Supreme Court, are creating a kind of tribal divide over race and region that no amount of Democratic messaging can overcome. Trump is moving suburban voters into the Democratic Party more efficiently than the Democrats could ever manage to do themselves, and he’s solidifying his rural support in the process. Political professionals can’t do much but watch this tsunami roll over the country in November and then analyze the carnage.
What we’ll probably see is a good night for the Democrats and a very concerning night for the country as a whole. What remains of the GOP will be more nativist, more provincial, more culturally and regionally isolated and homogeneous, and significantly less affluent and educated.
Democrats overestimate how rich the Republicans are to begin with, but after November they’ll be less of a country club party than they’ve ever been, and also more Southern, more evangelical and more advanced in age.
This is all going to make the Republican Party more dangerous and more of a threat to democracy. It’s also going to remove whatever moderation they currently have on the issue of immigration.
The Democratic Party will change, too, in some ways that many people will not like. That’s kind of inevitable anyway for any party that grows, even temporarily, beyond its recent historical size. But, as I’ve mentioned several times before, the Democrats will become the owners of a highly counterintuitive, unnatural and unstable alliance of cities and suburbs. This won’t resemble the old FDR coalition, with its odd admixture of the Solid South, the farmer-labor movement and the ethnic urban machines of the North. The Republican Party will be culturally shut out, like never before, from many of the most affluent and best educated places in the country. And if they follow Trump’s lead on trade, tariffs and immigration, they’ll start losing the small business community, too.
In general, it’s a good thing for the current Republican Party to lose power, but this is not going to teach them a lesson. It is going to do the very opposite.
President Stupid isn’t creating anything with his behavior, he’s just exploiting divisions that were carefully nurtured and cultivated by conservative oligarchs wanting to destroy the New Deal and ensure another one never happens again.
The Orange Shit Gibbon ran away with the Republican Presidential nomination in 2016 specifically because the carefully cultivated and managed reprogrammable meatbag base finally revolted and demanded the White Resentment Avenging Authoritarian FoxNews/AM Radio/etc. told them they needed for 30+ years.
They will only want another one after they’ve burned their MAGA hats and the mainstream media has re-re-re-baptized them as ANYTHING other than what they really are.
you’re both right and wrong at the same time. the behavior of the president has a gigantic influence on the directions we’re headed.
Republicans’ beliefs are bending to Trump. Here’s why they might not even notice.
I’ll concede that Presidential behaviors and their administrations attitudes set tones and influence trends within the nation, but they rarely create them.
No he is exacerbating racial and other divisions, Republicans follow his lead and are becoming more racist, more religiously bigoted, more sexist, more homophobic. And all of these bigotries are normalized among Republicans.
The non-Republican part of the country is trending less of the various bigotries, and Trump lacks influence to stop this trend.
Exacerbating, exploiting, what is the difference?
Either way, he is just using it for his own ends and making a bad situation worse as you correctly describe. But he certainly isn’t creating these divisions.
I have no solutions to offer, so my comments should be taken with pallets of salt.
I have no idea what Immigration Policy we should follow, but speaking only for myself, I would also like to see some reductions in LEGAL immigration. Not whole-sale stopping of legal immigration, but more careful policy around it.
Why?
Well for one thing, we have the whole debacle over H1(b) visas used mainly in the Tech/IT arena. H1(b)s have been abused for at least the past 2 decades to bring in cheap labor – mainly from India – to work in High Tech in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. The highly compensated High Tech business owners have gotten Congress to continuously give them the leeway to bring in tons of H1(b) workers at much lower salaries than US workers – all based on the patently FALSE notion that there simply are not enough US workers with the best qualifications, experience and expertise.
This topic has been discussed often in various blogs, so I won’t go on. H1(b) visas have been detrimental to US workers on various levels, including bringing down wages of some jobs.
There are other similar types of visas that Trump, in particular, has used to bring in foreign workers legally to work in his various properties at pennies on the dollar that US workers would make. That Trump blares out all this unmitigated CRAP about how Democrats “want” completely open borders so criminals can come here to kill rightwingers is just so disingenuous.
He riles up the deplorables, all while continuing to often hire mainly foreign workers in his properties (legally).
So I, for one, would LOVE to see tightened restrictions on all of these various legal work visas.
Let Trump start hiring US citizens to work at his properties for a change. Make the work visas MUCH more restrictive and offer fewer of them annually.
I’d be happy to see it happen.
Don’t hold your breath, however.
We all know what hypocrites Republicans are (and many Dems as well). They shout the “talk” but walk a different walk when their corporate paymasters demand more foreign work visas.
Y’know, for the issues you raise, there’s really a simple solution:
(1) e-Verify
(2) any “guest worker” who can show that they’ve been employed, and doesn’t have a valid visa, gets a green card; their employer goes to the slammer (federal prison) for minimum 10yr.
These H1/H2 visas for classes of workers are made transportable at the get-go, and every worker is taught by USG personnel what the current prevailing wage is, in the area of the country to which they’re headed.
Dude, here’s my problem with all this: ain’t no way employers/owners are gonna put up with this. They all WANT and NEED these undocumented workers. And so, what the GrOPers are all yammering about isn’t -stopping- undocumented workers[] — it’s about making them more scared, is all.
[
] remember when Georgia passed a “papers please” law, and the tomato crop rotted on the vine?
P.S. I feel like I need to explain the rationale for my “solution”. Either you believe in treating people with dignity, or you don’t. If you believe in treating people with dignity, then the more powerless a person is, the gentler you must be. So owners/employers? They have -enormous- power, and they can always choose to not employ an undocumented worker. When they transgress, they should get punished, and hard. But a -worker-? They need to eat and feed their family. So punishing them is indecent.
My 2c.
This is no longer an immigration issue. This is a white people afraid to lose their privilege issue. They object to immigration, legal or otherwise, because it swells the ranks of the others…people not like them.
Protecting rank, status and privilege is the very root of tribal behavior. For them it is always a zero sum game. They would rather live in abject poverty, cut off from the world, as long as they can maintain the illusion that they are better than ‘the others’. They have to be able to point to someone else as being less than they are. It is how they live with themselves.
Right now I’m okay with them being isolated and dying off. The America they want does not resemble the America I want in any fashion.
Exactly.
Urban centers and some suburbs trend liberal because these were the only places people could go and live something of normal life free from the hatred, harassment, and marginalization of their birthplace.
Other suburbs and most exburbs exist because of White Flight especially as a reaction to the civil rights act and school integration programs that brought The Other into their old neighborhoods.
—Jesus Was a Capricorn
Kris was onto something.
The GOP and Russian propaganda immediately before the midterms will rile up the base with an extra helping of lies. So yes, we’ll be more divided.
When and if the polling demonstrates there will be a Blue Wave there’s little doubt there will be a simultaneous reaction from Rep leadership to do as much damage as possible before their power is voted down. Nunes will attack all things Mueller, Ryan will push to dismantle SS, Medicare & Medicaid and McConnell will protect Trump.
It’s already happening.
I’m beginning to doubt the idea that increasing their presence in the suburbs will make the Dems even more corporatist. From the evidence we have, elite leadership and media from the party to set the tone for the party members. Once they make the jump to thinking of themselves as democrats these people are just as likely to slide closer to whatever “democrats” as a whole stand for. Which makes it more imperative than ever to elect more democrats that are democratic socialists.
I was in a small, rural Midwest city and witnessed an elementary school discharging, and the kids were entirely Latino.
Perhaps rural America’s low skill labor in big ag, manufacturing and transport is shifting to Latino immigrants, and this has prompted a reactionary response among the declining heterogeneous population, who don’t face the same hurdles to voting that migrant labor does.
Perhaps working to mobilize these emergent populations politically, rather than pinning for the good old white voter pool, should a point of focus for the Democratic party and its fellow travelers.
Just sayin’…
Just curious — what is a rural city? Do you perhaps mean a town?
Thank you.
I wish that I was as hopeful as are you in this regard. I really do.
But…I am not.
While “working to mobilize these emergent populations politically”…a necessarily long-term effort, because first these populations would need to be convinced that the Dems actually cared about their welfare after decades of wink, wink/nudge nudge, neocenrist, DC political game playing…the Dems would meanwhile lose even more of that “good old white voter pool” that has at least somewhat sustained them throughout the last 50 years.
Siphoned off by the Republicans and/or Trumpistas.
The only way that the Democratic Party could appreciably speed up this process would be by going full speed and damn the torpedoes into supporting indigenous members of these populations for office. And I don’t mean propping up successful middle class/ruling class neocentrist Dems with Spanish names like the current chairman of the DNC…Tom Perez…into positions of apparent power in the party. That’s just identity politics, and the many-times-burned people who need to be won over are way too smart to be taken in by that sort of shit. It means taking the recent success of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over an old-line Dem like Joe Crowley as both a warning and an omen.
Ocasio-Cortez is a young, well-educated, serious, indigenously Puerto Rican/Nuyorican candidate who fought, studied and worked her way up the ladder from a working class, Bronx beginning.
Good on her!!!
However, as long as the Schumer/Pelosi axis holds its position of dominance in the DNC, this will never happen.
Bet on it.
I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if they sign off on Ocasio-Cortez in terms of financial support for her candidacy should she continue to identify herself as a Sanders supporter and democratic socialist.
Quietly.
Like they shanked Bernie in 2016.
Why?
Because they are owned and operated by corporate interests whose main goals are primarily the continuation of easily available cheap labor.
That’s why.
I think this old line Dem power eite will hang on just as long as it possibly can do so.
Again…why?
It’s profitable, that’s why.
Sorry…
Money talks, (almost) nobody walks.
Watch.
Later…
AG
I don’t think your argument holds up. Republicans treat every loss as a chance to purge “RINOs” and treat every win as a validation for their agenda. They didn’t moderate their views when they won in those more diverse districts. Their “moderate” immigration compromise bill is far to the right of anything they would have attempted 5 years ago. When they won all branches of government in 2016, they used the opportunity to push every rightwing fantasy of the last 70 years.
So, I’m not interested in teaching the Republicans a lesson. They will be a threat to democracy as long as they have power. The party is completely corrupted and should go the way of the Know Nothing movement of the 1850’s.
. . . that it somehow adds up to the portion of booman’s argument that you quoted not “hold[ing] up”. Not seeing how any of your (accurate!) observations conflict with that quote.
There hasn’t been any moderation by the Republican party. If losing “moderate” seats will make them more radical, why don’t they become less radical when they win those seats?
The Republicans have been ratcheting rightward for decades now. Nothing has slowed that surge rightward.
Losing will make them more radical and winning will make them more radical. At least in the minority they couldn’t pass their agenda.
The notion that Democrats should just bow out of the election or whatever and NOT WIN so that allegedly the “moderating influence” of the Republicans in CONgress can continue to purportedly “reign in” Trump is risable nonsense.
It falls along the same continuum of rightwing condescending “schooling” of the dreaded horrible terrible awful Libruls all along.
IF there’s “incivility” happening now in our so-called political discourse, it’s All, Only, and SOLELY the fault of Libtards are being uppity and mean and acting out. Whatever horrific things you hear being shrieked and twitted out by Trump and his droogies are but sweet nothings to everyone’s ears. But let Libtards protest something? SHRIEK! HORRORS! You Libtards are AWFUL and furthermore, you are just “playing into Trump’s hands.” Trump would behave like a perfect gentleman and true statesman, IF ONLY you Libtards didn’t behave like schoolyard bullies blah blah blah…
It’s ALWAYS the liberals/Democrats fault. ALWAYS.
This is patented nonsense basically saying: We want ONE PARTY RULE (like the Nazis that they are) so STFU, go away, and stop making a commotion.
The Midterms will make us more divided? Yeah, I’m sure they will. Let the Blue Wave and Democratic Socialists happen.
Go Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez! Woo HOO!!!!
I think the division will be largely completed before the midterms arrive.
The child separation/immigration/asylum crisis has pretty effectively crystallized the American citizenry (the ones with political opinions) into highly distinct camps.
No doubt there’ll be further outrages that occur between now and November, but I would say at this point the only significant changes we’ll see will be traditionally undecided or unaffiliated voters drifting into either camp. But for the most part, those camps are solidly established and well defined, and if you’re already in one by now, you won’t be changing your mind anytime soon.
You write:
In general, it’s a good thing for the current Republican Party to lose power, but this is not going to teach them a lesson. It is going to do the very opposite.
When have Republicans become more moderate? Certainly not since the Gingrich years.
Also, what is the sort of election that will teach Republicans a lesson? Isn’t that pretty much impossible, given that our parties have ideologically sorted into two fairly stable racial and socioeconomic coalitions?