We can stop talking about Karl Rove, super-genius, now, can't we?
President Bush's speech on immigration might have been aimed at the moderate wing of the moderate moderates, but it made the base feel like they'd been invited to the prom and stood up by Vicente Fox in drag.
It didn't have to be this way. A sturdy endorsement of a fence coupled with repudiation of amnesty and massive deportation would have roped most of the disaffected strays back into the corral. They'd grumble, but who doesn't?
Instead the base got the political equivalent of Dubai Ports World running the Mexican border under the direction of Harriet Miers. Herewith an imaginary conversation with an administration spokesman:
Q: Hi. Speaking as a supporter of immigration who values the contribution of hard-working, pro-family Hispanics, can we have a big, long, tall fence?
A: Of course. Well, no. Well, yes; you can have a virtual fence, which will prevent virtual immigrants. We can use technology to track them into the country, see where they go, find out which schools their children attend. Using GPS, we can then send them a postcard, in Spanish, requesting that they leave by '09.
Q: You call that a disincentive?
A: Yes. The postcard will not be printed in some of the regional dialects common to Latin America. In any case, people could tunnel under a fence. Gigantic Tijuana rats, lashed together in bunches of six, could dig a tunnel wide enough for a man to slither through, if he laid off the carbs.
Q: But it would cut the flow by 90 percent. Presently there are 24/7 bus caravans bringing in the illegals ...
A: We prefer the term "pre-approved guest drywallers."
Q: Fine. But. Why does the White House have a fence? Why not a virtual fence, with a path to legal status for all assassins who make it into the foyer? Just have the Secret Service periodically shoot into the ground, in case anyone's tunneling.
A: The paperwork involved in discharging a weapon is onerous and discouraging.
Q: Like the paperwork involved in legal immigration, right?
A: Exactly. But if you want armed defense, you should be pleased to note we will soon deploy the National Guard. Of course, we do not have a shoot-to-kill policy; we have a yell-to-scare policy, so the Guard will free up the Border Patrol to shout warnings at non-documented un-citizens.
Q: Again with the Guard? We invade Iraq, we need the Guard because we don't have enough soldiers. We send the Guard to the border because we don't have enough guys to patrol our legal perimeters. Are they going to have to call out the Guard to help seniors figure out their new Medicare benefits? The Guard can be withdrawn in a day. A fence stands until it crumbles, providing you don't buy the cement from the Sopranos. How about a bold new vision, something that reframes the debate and moves beyond the tired slogans? How about ... an Ellis Island of the Southwest?
A: Ellis Island is in New York.
Q: Yes, yes. But Americans would have instantly grasped what that meant. It would have harkened back to the days when we took the tired, huddled masses unto our bosom with the understanding that we got the chance to thump 'em for TB and take their names down first. It would have connected the ideas of control and compassion, and given us a rhetorical focal point this debate lacks. Heck, it would rank with "Axis of Evil" as a touchstone for the Bush presidency. Unless you think "stepped-up unmanned aerial drone patrols" is one of those lines that set the base on fire. Right?
A: Well, we believe the president laid out a bold, new vision.
Q: And that's the problem.
A: That's not a question.
Q: We're out of questions. Aside from where do we go from here, of course. And we know the answer: Mulish Republicans stay home, there's blood on the Capitol steps in November, key conservative issues are lost in the shuffle, and nothing gets done.
There may be some jobs that Americans won't do, but ruining golden opportunities isn't one of them.
May 17, 2006
|