Yesterday I posted this diary, in which I confronted the Democratic Party's entrenched ambiguity regarding the issue of illegal immigration. It's an issue that Democrats have been more than happy to avoid in the primary--until the last debate, when it became a brickbat with which Hillary's opponents could clobber her after she was unable to clarify her own position.
However, I'm betting there will be some blowback for making hay off this particular issue, because as I see it Hillary's problem is in fact the Democratic Party's problem--how to have a satisfactorily decisive stand on an issue that challenges our values, and divides our base.
Mind you, I have no clear dog in this hunt. I am more or less supporting Hillary now, because I see her as the candidate that is most likely to defeat the Republicans--and because regardless of her corporate ties, I think the ideological impact of a Clinton presidency would be little different from that of Edwards or Obama. But that's just to lay out my own prejudices here, NOT to get into another candidate diary. If either Edwards or Obama wins the nomination, I would be thrilled to vote for him. 'Nuff said.
The responses I got from yesterday's diary included confirmation of my concerns about our ambiguity on immigration, tangential slams at Hillary, and references to racism and "conservative pandering". What I didn't hear at all was a clear elaboration of what a good Democratic candidate's position on illegal immigration should be. Their are obviously conflicting concerns of labor, small business, big business, Hispanic Americans, and others on this issue. These conflicts are tearing apart the Republican Party, where there is a vehement nativist (and racist) element that has an inflated view of the hazards of the status quo, and is driving the issue forward. The Democrats, on the contrary, appear to be trying to ignore it away, rather than face the divergent interests within its own base--in particular those of labor and Hispanics. Which makes me wonder if the status quo isn't completely satisfactory to most Democrats.
As I see it, Hillary's opponents may be able to play it for short term gain in the primaries. But by opening up this Pandora's box, and pushing Democrat's ambivalence up front in the public eye, the other candidates had better be prepared to offer a convincing alternative. The upside of this problem coming up now is that we can address the issue in the primary process (if we want to), in anticipation of it coming up in the general--which it most certainly will, especially if Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney is nominated. Perhaps it of little interest except to a vehement minority that is predominantly Republican already. But if the issue has legs with independents, and we continue to offer "splunge" as a position, it might just be the wedge issue the Repugs need to maintain control of the White House.
So what do you guys think the Dems' stance on illegal immigration is--and/or what should it be?