Even-Handedness

I know people who revile the "other" political party -- on both sides of the aisle! I know Democrats who hate Republicans, and vice versa. (I'll admit, I don't know a lot of the latter sort -- after all, I'm a Democrat of sorts, and most of my friends manage not to revile me...)

I understand this attitude, but it's not how I feel. I'm more of a "Why can't we all get along?" type. At the same time, I don't really want everyone to agree. I just want us all to listen to each other. Even if this falls into the category of "know your enemy," I think it's a good idea.

Toward that end, I'm reading the February 25 issue of The New Yorker. It has a long article about John McCain and the Republican party. Fascinating stuff. I had not appreciated today's challenges for Republicans. Newt Gingrich thinks the GOP has to embrace the concept of being "pro-good government." Grover Norquist believes that the special interest groups that make up the Republican base can be grown to form a "supermajority" even though -- according to the article -- that group does not include voters who care about national security above all else. (It's hard to be anti-government but pro-national security, I guess.)

Now, this should sound familiar to us in the Endless Mountains. Conservative Republican candidates for Chris Carney's congressional seat are running ads on TV. I don't see how voters can tell them apart because they use the same buzz words: "immigration" and "conservative." (They can't use "security" as a buzzword because Chris has the goods in that area. And they can't use the oldie-but-goody, "economy" because the Bush administration has poisoned that well for the GOP.) These guys aren't our problem yet (by "us" I mean Democrats) as they have to face each other in the primary first. But it's useful to think about their ads now.

"Conservative" is easy -- that is political shorthand for pro-life, pro-guns, pro-death penalty, and anti-gay marriage. Those are Norquist's special interest groups. But the immigration issue is tricky. The Republican party of my childhood (think Barry Goldwater -- that's how old I am!) was the party of small & big business. Now, I have to tell you -- businessmen have mixed positions on illegal immigration. If your business only makes money because the people you pay to pick the fruits & veggies (or whatever) work cheap and don't, uh, require a lot of paperwork (if you know what I mean), you're not necessarily jumping up and down in favor of stricter oversight of undocumented workers.

The people who rev up on the topic of immigration are in two groups: workers who resent -- not unreasonably -- the idea that undocumented workers get jobs without having to pay taxes, etc., and taxpayers who are concerned -- also not unreasonably -- that illegal immigrants cost us money by being drains on government services. There are points to make for both groups. Illegal immigrants would LOVE to pay taxes! That's because they would love to be legal. That doesn't make the anti-immigration crowd happy, of course, but it's true. And for the taxpayers? Well, I wonder how the economics really break down -- certain sectors of our economy rely on cheap labor, and undocumented workers are highly motivated to work for not a lot of money. If you could magically eliminate all undocumented aliens from the U.S., would we be economically better off, or worse off? I don't know -- and I rather suspect the figures could be tweaked to come out either way.

My point is, immigration is not a simple issue, even for those groups who want it to be a simple issue. And that's the problem the Republicans have in other areas. John McCain believes that the Iraq war is a rallying point for the GOP, but it isn't really. I recently saw the awesome documentary, No End in Sight. I highly recommend it for everyone, in both parties. Democrats like me will be horrified by a few key individuals (it's hard to respect Donald "Rummy" Rumsfeld after this movie) but will gain a respect for the very hard work, under perilous conditions, the troops put in to accomplish the impossible. Republicans -- well, a hard line pro-war Republican could argue with some of the conclusions the movie proposes, but it's hard to see how anyone could watch the movie and not think of all the mistakes that were made. Even if you supported the war, this movie will point out all the things that could and should have been done better. After all, almost all the people interviewed supported the war, just not the way the Pentagon chose to do it. Given our actual record in Iraq, how can the Republicans rally around the war? (You can support the troops, and I do. But some of us think that three and four consecutive tours of duty isn't "supporting the troops," it's misusing the troops. Supporting the troops is getting this mess sorted, and fast.)

But here's the kicker for me: we got lucky with Chris Carney: he's mainstream, a good family man (we know what that's code language for!), has military and counter-terrorism experience, and he's smart! He's been surprisingly effective in his first year, bringing in money and working to bring jobs to the area. I really have a hard time thinking of a reason why we'd want to get rid of him. Okay, I can think of one reason. If you're a Republican, he's one vote for (some, not all) Democratic initiatives. But maybe we here in a poor county want a Democratic congressman as long as Democrats are in power in Congress...?

And that's where evenhandedness gets you: Do you support an effective congressman who has been bringing money into the county, or support a Republican candidate simply because he's a Republican. We all know that longevity is the key to pork barrel politics; if Chris isn't defeated this November, he might be in for a long, long time. The national and state Republican party officials would hate to see that happen, but we live here! We should be asking ourselves what's in our best interest.

After we balance all the issues, that is.