Immigration, illegal or otherwise, has been one of Donald
Trump’s signature issues. He has made
claims and promises that are both outrageous and incredible, yet they have
endeared him to his followers. His talk
of building a wall between the US and Mexico and his references to Mexicans as “rapists”
and “criminals” have certainly aroused passions from those with a Latino
heritage. While such talk has proved
popular with voters in Republican primaries, what are the consequences of Trump’s
policies for the Republican Party as a whole?
Peter Beinart provides some insights into what the future may hold in The White Strategy, an article that
appeared in The Atlantic.
Beinart provides this lede:
“Embracing white nativism in the
1990s turned the California GOP into a permanent minority. The same story may
now be repeating itself nationally.”
California was a Republican-leaning state not too long
ago. It was also a state in which
passions ran high over illegal immigration.
Politicians tried to take advantage of the resentment against illegal
immigrants by curtailing the rights and benefits that might be available to
these illegals, but in so doing that they offended the entire Latino
population. California governor Pete Wilson
tried to be the Donald Trump of his day.
“But Trump is not the first
Republican to put illegal immigration at the heart of his presidential bid.
Pete Wilson did it 20 years ago. On a late-summer day in 1995, with the Statue
of Liberty as his backdrop, the then-governor of California declared that he
was entering the presidential race because ‘there’s a right way to come to
America and a wrong way. Illegal immigration is not the American way….’.”
Wilson and his collaborators had initiated a number of
legal actions that would prove troubling for him and his party.
“….Proposition 187, a California
ballot initiative Wilson had successfully championed the year before, which
denied undocumented immigrants public education, nonemergency health care, and
other government services. It was the beginning of a ferocious reaction to
Latino immigration in the Golden State. In 1995, Elton Gallegly, a Republican
congressman from California and the chair of a House task force on immigration
reform, recommended an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny automatic
citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. In 1996, California
voters passed Proposition 209, which prohibited public universities and other
state institutions from giving preference to racial and ethnic minorities. In
1998, Californians passed Proposition 227, which curtailed bilingual education.”
Prior to these actions, Latinos were quite willing to
vote for either political party.
“When Wilson announced his
presidential campaign, California was a Republican-leaning state. Between the
end of World War II and the end of the Cold War, it had gone to the Republican
presidential candidate nine out of 11 times and elected a Republican governor
seven out of 11 times. Republicans controlled the governor’s mansion, the state
assembly, and a majority of statewide elected offices. And while the state’s
growing Latino population posed a challenge to GOP dominance, Latinos had shown
themselves willing to vote Republican in substantial numbers. According to exit
polls, Ronald Reagan won 44 percent of California Latinos in 1984. Republican
Governor George Deukmejian won 46 percent in 1986. Pete Wilson himself won 47
percent in 1990.”
The effect of the Republican moves was to increase
political activism among Latinos and it also solidified the notion that the
attack on illegal immigrants was really an attack on all Latinos.
“Feeling themselves under
assault, California Latinos registered to vote in epic numbers. From 1994 to
2004, according to Latino America, by Segura and Matt A. Barreto, the
voter-registration rate among California Latinos grew 69 percent—more than
twice as fast as the state’s Latino population. Latino voters also swung
sharply against the GOP. Republicans, who had lost the Latino vote by six
points in the 1990 gubernatorial race, lost it by 46 points in 1994, then by 61
points in 1998.”
In addition, a significant number of non-Hispanic whites,
particularly the young, were appalled by the Latino-baiting and moved to the
left into the arms of the Democratic Party.
What have Republicans gained from this anti-immigration
stance?
“Almost two decades later, the
California Republican Party still has not recovered. Latinos—who now constitute
almost 40 percent of California’s population and more than a quarter of its
eligible voters—have voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1996
by at least 40 points. Democrats today control every statewide elected office,
and make up close to two-thirds of the state Senate and assembly, along with
almost three-quarters of California’s delegation to the U.S. House of
Representatives.”
Does this mean that the California backlash will spread
across the country and render the Republicans members of a permanent minority
party? Before addressing that question, Beinart
provides us some necessary insight into Trump supporters and the Republican
Party of today.
“Until recently, immigration did
not sharply divide the two national parties. In 1986, 42 percent of House
Republicans, along with 64 percent of House Democrats, voted for a bill giving
legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants—and Ronald Reagan signed it
into law. A study of public attitudes in the early 1990s noted that ‘the
weakness of the connection between party affiliation and opinions about
immigration is striking’.”
Surveys taken today tell us that the correlation between
attitudes on immigration and party affiliation are quite strong.
“In their recent book, The New
Immigration Federalism, the Santa Clara University School of Law professor
Pratheepan Gulasekaram and the University of California at Riverside
political-science professor S. Karthick Ramakrishnan find that the rate of
immigrant population growth, the percentage of Spanish-speaking households, and
local economic conditions all fail to predict state policy toward immigrants.
But the partisan tilt of the state does: It is ‘by far’ the strongest correlate
to policy, they write. Overwhelmingly, Democratic-leaning states pass
pro-immigrant laws. Overwhelmingly, Republican-leaning states pass
anti-immigrant laws.”
The current Republican Party is dominated by the former
slave states of an earlier era. In most
of these states racial feelings continue to dominate political life. For much of the twentieth century this region
was staunchly Democratic and bound together politically by its racial policies. When the Democratic Party came out in support
of civil rights for blacks, the Republican Party made a play for the white
southerners and welcomed them into what was at one time a much bigger
tent. In the process of “going southern”
the Republicans came to be dominated by race.
Republicans depend on white voters, having driven away minorities and
many whites with their racially-tinged policies.
As a consequence, the correlation between party
affiliation and views on immigration policies is really a correlation between
racial attitudes and views on immigration policies.
“It is this connection between
views about immigration and views about race that best explains why immigration
has become such a partisan wedge. Since the 1970s, political scientists have
demonstrated that whites who express a higher level of resentment toward
African Americans are more likely to identify as Republicans. Since the 1990s,
as the political scientists Zoltan Hajnal and Michael Rivera detail in a 2014
paper, a similar correlation has emerged between resentment toward Latinos and
Republican partisanship.”
Trump, by arousing passions over immigration issues, has
forced the entire Latino community to act as a group under attack.
“As in California in the 1990s,
Republican nativism is sparking a surge in Latino voter registration. Since
Trump entered the race last summer, the number of immigrants becoming American
citizens in Texas has risen from 1,200 a month to 2,200 a month, and a higher
percentage of the newly naturalized is registering to vote. The trend is
similar nationwide.”
“According to polling of
registered voters by the firm Latino Decisions, Trump’s unfavorability rating
is 88 percent among foreign-born Latinos, and 86 percent among Latinos born in
the U.S. Among Latinos who earn less than $40,000 a year, it is 90 percent, and
among those who earn more than $80,000 a year, it is 85 percent. Among Mexican
Americans, Trump’s unfavorability rating is 90 percent. Among Cuban Americans,
historically the most Republican Latino group, it is 82 percent.”
Will anti-immigration policies and anti-Latino attitudes
cause the firmly red states to flip into the Democratic column? That is not likely. The core Republican states of the South have
always been essentially single-party states with whites voting as a bloc. Until these regions acquire enough minorities
or white migrants from other regions of the nation, nothing is going to change.
Unfortunately for them, to win a national election
Republicans must win a number of swing states whose constituencies and
political views are more fluid. In many
of these the Latino population is growing and becoming more active
politically. This will narrow the
options available to accumulate the necessary electoral votes to win a
presidential contest.
Texas provides one of the more interesting situations. It has long been a dependable Republican
state. However, it has a large and
growing number of Latinos. If the
Republicans were ever to lose this state and its 38 electoral votes, it would
be essentially impossible to ever elect another Republican president.
The Republican Party has Trump because its voters wanted
Trump. But with Trump they are playing
with fire. Trump is solidifying the
party as the home of only white voters, ceding minorities to the Democrats. As in California in the 1990s, the
Republicans are also risking losing the young whites who currently identify as Republicans.
A party depending upon angry old white voters can’t last
very long.
The interested reader might find these articles informative:
No comments:
Post a Comment