The Biggest Reason the Democrats Can't Wait To Get Out of Iowa
There are undoubtedly a long list of reasons why the Presidential candidates are likely in a big hurry to leave Iowa in another five days. The weather is bitterly cold and particularly snowy this year. The charm of the rural Midwest would wear thin after awhile for ambitious pols seeking brighter lights and less intimate "retail politics". The 99% of American voters who live somewhere other than Iowa represent a new and thus far untapped audience for the candidates to deliver their message. But perhaps the main reason why Democrats are eager to say arriva derci to Iowa is the fact that the state stands as a perfect case study of the party's toughest issue heading into 2008.....illegal immigration.
Numerous pundits have commented in the past few months how Democratic Presidential candidates are dodging, hedging, and triangulating their way around the illegal immigration issue in Iowa because the majority of the state's voters are skeptical of the Democratic Party's position. Just last night on CBS News, a middle-aged blue collar man who identified himself as a strong John Edwards supporter was a little disappointed that Edwards' stump speech failed to address one of the man's most important concerns....illegal immigration. It makes you wonder how many awkward encounters the candidates average per day on the immigration issue.
Of course, the media's coverage of the ideological divide between Iowa voters and the Democratic Presidential candidates courting them is cloaked with the usual media condescension towards those who don't embrace illegal immigration as a great opportunity rather than a liability. Since most journalists have little fear of having their jobs "insourced" vis a vis illegal immigration, they're in a lofty position to pass judgment on the disproportionately working-class demographic of voters that has a very real fear of wage suppression with current trends appearing poised to continue unabated.
Iowa represents a particularly unreceptive audience for the virtues of unbridled immigration and guest worker programs. With the state's older-skewing residents and long-standing association with the food processing industry, most Iowa voters remember how the $11 an hour jobs of 1982 have become the $9 an hour jobs of 2007. Their neighbors, sons, mothers, fathers, and friends worked in the former jobs and maintained a solid middle-class lifestyle. The wages and working conditions have declined now to the point that their family and friends have left the town (and often the state) seeking alternative means of employment.
And if it was just a matter of nostalgia for the glory days of the meatpacking industry before its decline back to the Upton Sinclair era made possible through illegal immigration, perhaps Iowans wouldn't be so critical of the Democratic candidates' apologia on the issue. But Iowa remains and manufacturing-heavy and agriculture-heavy state today. Working-class voters here have come to realize that nobody wearing a blue collar will be spared from absorbing dramatic wage concessions and having their field of employment reclassified as "jobs Americans won't do" if we continue to turn a blind eye towards illegal immigration as the Democratic Presidential candidates wish to do, for all intents and purposes.
My position on illegal immigration is somewhere in between where the Democratic Presidential candidates stand and where the majority of Iowa voters appear to stand. I favor a "path to citizenship" (or "amnesty" if you will) for the 12 million illegal immigrants already here as they are not the problem. The problem is an open border that allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entry into America annually. A border fence would be a tremendous asset, contrary to idiotic platitudes about "51-foot fences" coming from border fence critics. Until a border fence or some other tangible means of border security is put in place, voters are right not to take seriously any politician's "comprehensive plan" for illegal immigration. Perhaps then, more people will be fine with redefining illegal immigrants as legal immigrants as the Democratic candidates propose we do.
Iowa's departure with Democratic Party orthodoxy on immigration and a few other issues make it an excellent state to hold first-in-the nation caucuses/primaries, despite the grumbling from most of the other 49 states. It helps Democratic candidates recognize first-hand that the party's base of support are not necessarily in ideological lockstep with their coastal campaign donors who favor illegal immigration so they can have cheap labor to clean their pools and trim their hedges. Iowa is one of the swingiest of swing states and is a necessary pit stop on the road to national victory, and more importantly is a microcosm of the values of Middle America where the Democratic Party has fared poorly in the last two Presidential elections. The Democrats have to be in touch with voters in places like Iowa if they wish to win in November, and although they're probably overjoyed to be leaving the state at the end of next week, I seriously hope the nominee takes with him or her an understanding of the complexity of the immigration issue which they clearly did not have last issue when they proudly attempted to pass through guest worker programs and obstruct border fence construction.
Numerous pundits have commented in the past few months how Democratic Presidential candidates are dodging, hedging, and triangulating their way around the illegal immigration issue in Iowa because the majority of the state's voters are skeptical of the Democratic Party's position. Just last night on CBS News, a middle-aged blue collar man who identified himself as a strong John Edwards supporter was a little disappointed that Edwards' stump speech failed to address one of the man's most important concerns....illegal immigration. It makes you wonder how many awkward encounters the candidates average per day on the immigration issue.
Of course, the media's coverage of the ideological divide between Iowa voters and the Democratic Presidential candidates courting them is cloaked with the usual media condescension towards those who don't embrace illegal immigration as a great opportunity rather than a liability. Since most journalists have little fear of having their jobs "insourced" vis a vis illegal immigration, they're in a lofty position to pass judgment on the disproportionately working-class demographic of voters that has a very real fear of wage suppression with current trends appearing poised to continue unabated.
Iowa represents a particularly unreceptive audience for the virtues of unbridled immigration and guest worker programs. With the state's older-skewing residents and long-standing association with the food processing industry, most Iowa voters remember how the $11 an hour jobs of 1982 have become the $9 an hour jobs of 2007. Their neighbors, sons, mothers, fathers, and friends worked in the former jobs and maintained a solid middle-class lifestyle. The wages and working conditions have declined now to the point that their family and friends have left the town (and often the state) seeking alternative means of employment.
And if it was just a matter of nostalgia for the glory days of the meatpacking industry before its decline back to the Upton Sinclair era made possible through illegal immigration, perhaps Iowans wouldn't be so critical of the Democratic candidates' apologia on the issue. But Iowa remains and manufacturing-heavy and agriculture-heavy state today. Working-class voters here have come to realize that nobody wearing a blue collar will be spared from absorbing dramatic wage concessions and having their field of employment reclassified as "jobs Americans won't do" if we continue to turn a blind eye towards illegal immigration as the Democratic Presidential candidates wish to do, for all intents and purposes.
My position on illegal immigration is somewhere in between where the Democratic Presidential candidates stand and where the majority of Iowa voters appear to stand. I favor a "path to citizenship" (or "amnesty" if you will) for the 12 million illegal immigrants already here as they are not the problem. The problem is an open border that allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entry into America annually. A border fence would be a tremendous asset, contrary to idiotic platitudes about "51-foot fences" coming from border fence critics. Until a border fence or some other tangible means of border security is put in place, voters are right not to take seriously any politician's "comprehensive plan" for illegal immigration. Perhaps then, more people will be fine with redefining illegal immigrants as legal immigrants as the Democratic candidates propose we do.
Iowa's departure with Democratic Party orthodoxy on immigration and a few other issues make it an excellent state to hold first-in-the nation caucuses/primaries, despite the grumbling from most of the other 49 states. It helps Democratic candidates recognize first-hand that the party's base of support are not necessarily in ideological lockstep with their coastal campaign donors who favor illegal immigration so they can have cheap labor to clean their pools and trim their hedges. Iowa is one of the swingiest of swing states and is a necessary pit stop on the road to national victory, and more importantly is a microcosm of the values of Middle America where the Democratic Party has fared poorly in the last two Presidential elections. The Democrats have to be in touch with voters in places like Iowa if they wish to win in November, and although they're probably overjoyed to be leaving the state at the end of next week, I seriously hope the nominee takes with him or her an understanding of the complexity of the immigration issue which they clearly did not have last issue when they proudly attempted to pass through guest worker programs and obstruct border fence construction.
posted by Mark at 10:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home