A misunderstood centrist result

Never do I hold on to my wallet tighter than when Congress suddenly decides to do something "bipartisan." Usually what that means is that a bill has been laden with enough sops to buy off all the partisans.

Rather than a much trumpeted "bipartisan initiative," I prefer the outcome where leaders of both sides come out of the conference chamber glaring at each other, exhausted and fed up, and announce that after lengthy debate and arm-twisting and hand-wringing, they've reached a compromise on the contentious issue. Ideally, both sides denounce the compromise but also vote for it, regretfully, as the best which could be accomplished for now.

After a session like that, I figure that some people have really looked at the details and included only those things in the bill which are absolutely necessary. But when a bill begins as a "bipartisan initiative," I suspect it's been thrown together by some staffers somewhere, laden with goodies, and tossed out to the public with the primary purpose of garnering political support rather than accomplishing anything.

Political bias always shows up most in a given newspaper editorial when it concerns important pet issues. Thus, an undesirable outcome on a pet issue suggests a fundamental flaw in the system, a "scathing indictment" of it. When someone calls a result a scathing indictment, your spin/bullshit meter should flash and buzz furiously, warning of the sanctimonious high dudgeon that is imminent.

The bill didn't pass because (DUH) it didn't have enough support. The bill reflected the more generous and forgiving nature of democrats when it comes to immigration (and I don't mean generous as compliment per se, merely as a comparative descriptor).Bottom line, the bill didn't pass because it didn't sufficiently address the concerns of let's call them immigration hawks.

It wasn't bipartisan enough. The compromises that needed to be made to get the votes were found unacceptable and the bill supporters were unwilling to make them. There is a kind of faux or half-@ssed bipartisanship in which the majority party tries only to get a bare minimum of folks on board to pass a bill that most closely suits the majority party's purposes. Pragmatic, and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that.

But it didn't work here. So for the folks who supported this bill and who are eager to get a reform bill passed, there is really only one basic albeit huge question to ask:

On the issue of immigration policy, what does genuine compromise look like?

Now the viewpoint of the democrats in the wake of this failure, (whether it be posturing spin, genuinely felt disappointment, or a little of both) is that the immigration hawks were immovable and inconsolable, that they could not be made happy.

If that's the case, then clearly that's regrettable to folks who wanted reform. But, and this is a huge 72-point typeall caps BUT, that's how the system is supposed to work.

The fact is that the immigration hawks have enough support from their constituents that they can take the positions they have with a fair measure of confidence. At least that's my hypothesis. Hopefully we'll get to see it tested in the next round of congressional elections, where robust pro-immigration pols run against incumbent immigration hawks.

We've done our fair share of sppeculating abour precisely where public sentiment lies on immigration, relying on polls and sometimes dangerously on our own guts.Well, let's SEE. Let's find out how people feel when the issue is prominent in actual elections. I really don't think its the end of the world if no bill gets passed now and then we have elections which serve to correct congress in one direction or the other.

We've had an incoherent, indeed, schizophrenic immigration policy for many decades, and the sun keeps rising and the world keeps spinning and America keeps going forward. So it's legitimate to question what the source is for the sudden urgency today. Sudden urgency can lead to bad rulemaking. Today, there's insufficient consensus on reforming policy. That means we have to wait, and keep muddling. Oh well.

Kaus' piece is excellent, and I recommend it to all. I particularly liked this bit:

P.S.: Balz's piece is a near-Platonic example of the Neutral Story Line--a sweeping, seemingly profound and biting analysis that nevertheless doesn't offend anyone because it doesn't seem to be taking sides. But of course it does take sides. It takes the "bipartisan" side--simply assuming that "comprehensive immigration reform" is a good idea.

What if the bill's collapse represented

"a rare example of the political system appearing capable of finding ways to reject half-baked, grandiose schemes of a reckless President"?

Not neutral! ...

He also notes, without quite realizing it, that when reporters say "voters wanted," that translates as "reporters wanted":

P.P.S.: To support his scathing indictment, Balz says "Voters wanted an immigration deal ... ." I know a respected robo-poller who disagrees.