… Or, the sordid one-two punch behind Trump’s popularity
Donald Trump burst onto the GOP presidential primary scene with an in-your-face, plain-talking and purportedly anti-establishment/outsider message. He immediately surged into first place, holding a double-digit percentage lead over Jeb Bush, the leader of the large pack of not-Trump hopefuls. Apart from the mystery in Bush’s popularity (seriously – does anyone know anyone who has him as their number one?), the polls suggest that Trump tapped into something real and neglected by the other candidates. It’s worth a deeper look.
Apart from professional-wrestling-caliber bluster and big-swinging-dick swagger, what is Trump promising? His proposals include a draconic response to illegal immigration, trade protectionism, massive tariffs, “I’m a great negotiator, I’ll do our trade agreements right”, war mongering and taxing the rich. Of these, the last one has popped up after his poll surge, so lets discount it. The next-to-last – his strong words regarding ISIS – can be heard from most of the other candidates, so it’s not a differentiator. What’s left? Immigration and protectionism. The only policy he has fleshed out to any degree is his immigration stance (which includes a wall on the southern border, mass deportations, and the end of birthright citizenship), which positively reeks of nativism and anti-Mexican bigotry. It’s also absurd. Apart from the massive cost and the massive expansion of government (how many more government employees will be needed to track down and deport 11 million people), and apart from the fantasy that the 14th Amendment can be voided (and, yes, I know there are some who think it can simply be done legislatively), there is an ugliness to it. Uprooting families that in many cases have children that have grown to adulthood in this country, and deporting them to lands they know nothing of, is a callous and horrific proposition, bereft of humanity.
Nevertheless, the round-em-up, throw-em-out message has proven to be quite popular, with normally serious thinkers investing time in figuring out how to tackle the birthright citizenship “problem” and skirt the Constitution.
Why might so many embrace this message? Some believe that illegals are displacing American workers and some believe that illegals are burdening the social welfare systems. While analysis shows that these beliefs don’t stand up to scrutiny, analysis has trouble beating past visceral beliefs. These seem more like excuses and rationalizations than root causes, though. Another message that’s been making the rounds in conservative circles for quite some time now is the belief that the Democrats are looking to convert all these illegals into Democratic voters. Whether true or not, whether or not people (focusing on the 75% of illegals that are Mexican or Central-South American) who are in general strongly religious, family-oriented and entrepreneurial would all default to voting for the Democratic Party, this reason is nothing more than amoral party politics. It completely ignores the fact that these are human beings, and that what’s being proposed would in many cases end up treating them horribly and destroying their lives (more than half are here a decade or much longer).
As I noted above, about 75% of the illegals in the country are of south-of-the-border origin. The other 25% are primarily from Asia, yet no one ever seems to complain about illegal Asians. Nor are there many complaints about the numerous eastern Europeans who come over on short-term visas and find some pretense to overstay and chase citizenship. We may very well conclude that there is a greater bias against latino illegals than against those of different origin. Even if we don’t, there’s the matter of all the recent rhetoric regarding birthright citizenship and anchor babies. The Washington Post injects some reality into the hysteria, and Reason ably makes the point that having anchor babies is not a driver of illegal immigration, but rather a by-product.
Some look to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and many of those claim they’re quite supportive of the former. Why not, then, embrace immigration, make it much easier for people to immigrate here legally, and thus provide a relief valve for the pressures that motivate people to come here illegally? In my past encounters with some who’ve claimed to favor legal immigration, I’ve often found that this claim comes with major buts, caveats and desires for strict limits, which undermines the notion that legal immigration is welcome. Another argument is about fairness – that offering amnesty to the illegals wouldn’t be fair to those who did things legally. This is a false dilemma. There are options other than blanket amnesty or deportation, but few seem to want to talk about them.
The popularity of the anti-illegal-immigrant message can easily be seen as having roots in a nativist mindset. Despite many protestations to the contrary, the nativism extends to legal immigrants, as well, as seen in complaints about foreign workers coming here on H1B visas and taking away “American” jobs. This is both funny and sad to hear in a nation comprised of immigrants and their descendants, but it’s not unexpected. Every wave of immigration has been met with resistance from those who came before, and even the most recent immigrant groups can be heard demanding that the borders be closed because the country is full. Trump’s rhetoric has brought the nativism to a new low, however, and implementing some of what he is suggesting would virtually require the US become a police state, with papers being checked randomly.
The desire to prevent the population of illegals from becoming voters, presumably because it would be the other party that would effect that amnesty and therefore they’d ally with that party, is simply tribalism. It’s the desire for our team to beat the other team, no matter what it takes to win, no matter whether principles are violated, no matter what the winning team might do once he won. These two, nativism and tribalism, are also seen in Trump’s other proposals – heavy protectionism/tariffs and a confrontational trade agenda. It doesn’t matter that free trade benefits both sides, it doesn’t matter that tariffs harm consumers, it doesn’t matter that this sort of stuff harms many and helps only a privileged few. It sells to a public whose nativist and tribalist sparks have been stoked, and who are hungry for more.
Whether Trump’s surge lasts long enough to carry him to the White House remains to be seen. What is certain is that Trump has tapped into an ugly undercurrent, and in doing so has changed the entire complexion of the 2016 election.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters