The first time I recall having exercised my right to vote was in 1992, when I was 20 years old. From that time to the present, I have never voted for any candidate who wasn’t a Republican. In spite of this, I refuse to identify myself as a Republican, and as any reader of my work knows all too well, I am at least as critical of Republicans as I am of Democrats and leftists. Truth be told, it is probably the case that I am disposed to be even more critical of Republicans and establishment or movement rightists than I am of their Democratic and leftist peers, for the audiences for which I am accustomed to writing consist of people who know that Democrats are their foes. Of Republicans, on the other hand, things aren’t usually so clear.
I realize that politics is indeed the art of the possible, and that the artist who is the politician must possess the will to compromise and the practical wisdom to know when to do so. It also must be admitted that, although it is without exaggeration that it has been said by some that our two national parties differ in degree, not kind, the Republican Party is less prone to accommodate leftist sensibilities than is its main competitor. What this means is that from a conservative perspective, the GOP promises to be less destructive to the nation than the Democratic Party.
But even the least of destructive beings is still destructive. For this reason, I would like to take this time to register my concerns, comments, and questions regarding the Republicans’ handling of two major issues: the debt ceiling debate and illegal immigration.
Let’s take illegal immigration first.
Republican politicians and the talking heads providing cover for them know that the vast majority of rank and file Republican voters demand that our government do at a minimum two things when it comes to engaging the situation of illegal immigration. The government has a duty rooted in the U.S. Constitution to: (1) seal the borders and (2) deport those who it knows reside in our country illegally. On this score, the Republican voter is at one with most of his fellow Americans. He is also of a piece with the majority of his countrymen insofar as his fierce opposition to all forms of amnesty is concerned.
However, while Republicans in Washington D.C. and the media know exactly what their constituents want, whenever this issue of illegal immigration is revisited, voters are routinely barraged by lectures on the need for “comprehensive immigration reform” — a euphemistic cloak for what amounts to de facto amnesty. If ever there were any doubts about this, the fact that “comprehensive immigration reform” is invariably described as “a pathway to citizenship” should dispel them once and for all.
It should be noted that Republicans, being the consummate politicians that they are, resist their constituents’ demands by being demagogic. Like their Democratic opponents, they exploit the fears of their supporters by both transforming the situation into a crisis of epic proportions and framing it as if “comprehensive immigration reform” were the only alternative to an unmitigated disaster that threatened to materialize at any moment.
Another observation shouldn’t be lost upon us. Although the Republican champions of “comprehensive immigration reform,” along with their colleagues in the federal government, have over the span of nearly a half-century singularly failed to discharge their constitutional obligation to protect the American citizenry from what is nothing less than a foreign invasion, and although they continue to refuse to deport illegal aliens when they find them, they nevertheless expect us to believe that it will force approximately 12 million immigrants or so to comply with the complex of conditions that compose so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Securing our porous borders and apprehending and deporting those illegal immigrants of whom we are aware seems a far simpler task for the government to perform than forcing compliance with the intricacies involved in “a path to citizenship.” Thus, we are left with either one of two conclusions to draw. Either Republican politicians are: (1) genuinely committed to “comprehensive immigration reform” but insufficiently astute to recognize that its implementation is far more challenging than the constitutional requirement to secure the borders that the government has failed to satisfy; or (2) they are insincere but assume that their constituents are too dim-witted to see through their deception. In either case, these Republican politicians don’t deserve to govern.
Let us turn now to the issue of the debt ceiling.
“Rank and file” Republicans, for the most part, have insisted that congressional Republicans stand their ground and refuse to raise the debt limit. After all, the historic election of November 2010 was about nothing if it wasn’t about restoring fiscal self-discipline in Congress. Now, however, the Republican voter is being regularly told by both Republican politicians and commentators alike about “the need” to raise the debt limit.
The reasoning of Republicans is at once succinct and plausible: Unless the debt ceiling is raised, the United States will wind up in default of its financial obligations. It is inescapable that this in turn will have calamitous economic repercussions for the world. We don’t want another economic catastrophe. Thus, we must raise the debt ceiling.
The final course of action upon which congressional Republicans should settle is not the topic to which I wish to speak here. In fact, even if I wanted to speak to it, some measure of humility would preclude me from doing so, for while the form of their logic is consistent, I am unclear as to whether the substance of their premises is true. There is one main reason for why I question the veracity of their assurances of a cataclysmic scenario in the event that they refrain from abiding by the wishes of the vast majority of their constituents and actually raise the debt ceiling.
Republican politicians and some Republican pundits (nationally syndicated radio talk show host and columnist Michael Medved is the most prominent of the latter that immediately comes to mind) insist that we have to raise the debt ceiling because if we do not, Armageddon will ensue. At the same time, however, they also tell us that Republicans should vote to raise it if and only if so doing insures that Democrats do not try to raise taxes. The inconsistency of the Republicans’ position, though not glaring, is there for all with eyes to see.
Republicans are essentially saying both that it is and is not necessary to raise the debt ceiling. If it really is the case that we must raise the debt ceiling in order to avert worldwide economic catastrophe, then we must raise the debt ceiling in order to avert economic catastrophe. Whether the Democrats do or do not agree to any concessions is utterly irrelevant, for as Republicans are now continually informing us, we must raise the debt ceiling.
But if this is so, if the only two options from which we have to choose are raising the debt ceiling or watching the markets implode upon themselves, then the Republican politician is nothing more than a paper tiger in demanding concessions from Democrats in exchange for his agreement to raise the debt limit. How can he be otherwise? What would be the point in demanding of Democrats that they not raise taxes if the Republicans, in order to avert catastrophe, have every intention of giving the Democrats what they want anyhow. After all, tax rates won’t mean a hill of beans if the markets become as debased as they supposedly will if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. On the other hand, if Republicans aren’t bluffing about tax rates, then they are bluffing about the Armageddon that failure to raise the debt ceiling is supposed to usher in.
Either way, the Republican politician raises questions concerning his sincerity.
