« Was "The Bomb" Necessary? | Main | "A Car Wreck with Boobs" »

August 05, 2005

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Tancredo?

From today's Political Diary from the Wall Street Journal (subscription only):

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman recently said the party would back Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo for re-election next year, assuming he wins the GOP nomination. The announcement arises from the political reality that the party wants to hold onto as many seats in Congress as possible to be sure of retaining a majority, not to mention a well-founded fear of Colorado slipping out of the red column in future presidential elections. That makes the move no less disappointing, however.

Rep. Tancredo has been steadily building a national reputation as an anti-illegal immigrant crusader. His antics and positions make it harder for the Republican Party to appeal to Hispanic voters if he rallies a Pitch Fork Army that also opposes the culture that Hispanic immigrants have brought here with them. He also angered Muslims in recent weeks by calling for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Mecca, the Saudi Arabian holy city, if Islamic terrorists detonate a nuclear device inside the United States. Both Hispanic and Islamic groups have led protests in Denver calling for Rep. Tancredo's resignation.

The GOP certainly needs a "big tent" to stay in power, but that may also require making the tent a little smaller by pushing the Tancredos out. President Bush has made a substantial effort to reach out to Muslim Americans, particularly since the Sept.11 attacks. He's also spent his presidency reaching out to Hispanic Americans -- a voting bloc that will be essential to retaining a majority in the future. Continuing to embrace Mr. Tancredo only undermines the president's efforts. Mr. Mehlman is clearly concerned about losing Mr. Tancredo's seat. However he should also be concerned about what the party will lose if it keeps Mr. Tancredo.

I think immigration is an important issue, but do not like Congressman Tancredo's extremism on the subject. I know a lot of people in the conservative blogosphere think immigration is the issue that will decide future elections. Such a belief is founded in the all-too-human tendency to see a groundswell where only an echo chamber exists.

When it comes to immigration, many on the right are making the same mistake as movie critic Pauline Kael when she expressed surprise at President Nixon's victory - "No one I know voted for Nixon!" I think securing our borders is an important goal, but the tactics and proposals made by Tancredo and his followers sometimes border on the xenophobic.

Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. It is a national security threat and a drain on the economies of quite a few states. But simply saying we should close the borders, round up all the illegals while doing nothing to help strengthen the economies of the countries where immigrants originate suggests that Tancredo is simply gaining popularity by playing on people's fears.

The North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement were passed to promote trade with the countries that are parties to the agreements. Increasing trade can help the economies of struggling countries grow by increasing production of tradable goods in those countries. Increased production leads to more jobs and more jobs leads to less immigration.

Congressman Tancredo voted against against CAFTA. I don't think Tancredo should be booted out of the party, as there should be room for a variety of opinions among Republicans. I do think, however, his ideas should be more heavily criticized by other Republicans who don't want to see the party's chances among minority groups hurt by the mouthing off of one Congressman.

Full disclosure: I am partially of Hispanic descent. What offends me most about Tancredo's rhetoric are statements such as this:

Many of them are coming simply for the purpose of getting a better job. The whole concept of integration and assimilation goes out the window when it clashes with or comes in contact with, because it is really not a clash, but comes in contact with this cult of multi-culturalism, and that is why it matters. That is why immigration policy fits into this discussion.
Who is Tom Tancredo to suggest that those who happen to be Hispanics do not assimilate well or want to become Americans? He bases this statement on the words of one guy in Denver he debated with once.

I think these guys would disagree with that statement.

My own experiences with family suggest differently. All of my relatives have assimilated into the United States. They vote, pay taxes and work hard at their jobs. It's too bad Tancredo believes that members of my family, because their ancestors were illegals, are not U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment.

Some pundits argue that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands that the children of illegal aliens and of nonimmigrants legally present in the United States be granted automatic citizenship; these pundits are simply wrong. Neither the Constitution nor any subsequent Supreme Court decision compels birthright citizenship to be conferred upon children of illegal aliens or of nonimmigrants born in the United States.
How many generations down do you take that, Congressman? Am I a citizen?

So yes, this is partially personal for me.

UPDATE - See?

Posted by slublog at August 5, 2005 12:51 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1665

Comments

I agree that Tancredo is a liability, not an asset, except for one thing: he has an R after his name on the roster. Incumbents have a huge advantage because parties are rarely willing to risk the money it takes to win a primary fight because it reduces the chance of losing the seat to the other party in November. Even disagreeable candidates are seen as preferable to losing the seat, because of the power structure of legislatures and the frequency of party-line votes as opposed to issues votes. Your feelings toawrds Snowe are a good example. You were mad at her for quite a while before you were willing to oppose her to the extent of risking the Democrats getting her seat. So it looks like until money stops being the deciding factor in elections (a long wait I'm afraid) we're going to be stuck with Tancredo for as long as he chooses to run. The only way to really get rid of him is to pressure him into not running. Only when a candidate is balcklisted, like Condit was for instance, is a primary fight a worthwhile risk, especially in a purpole state.

Posted by: MainiacJoe at August 5, 2005 02:26 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)