Testing the Waters

Why is Michelle Malkin, a vehement supporter of the War on Terror and a frequent guest host on The O’Reilly Factor, breaking with President Bush over his immigration bill?

On the surface, Malkin derides the “shamnesty” bill for familiar reasons. Citing Mexican hostility toward the US, she places herself in the camp of those who believe Mexicans want to “reclaim” Texas and California. Citing anecdotes about illegal immigrants who have exploited public services in the States, she also suggests that weakening our stance on immigration will ultimately strain American wealth to the breaking point.

Malkin’s attacks on the bill have not spared Republicans in Congress, nor the President himself. Recently she accused Bush of using “empty rhetoric” about immigration and suggested that he should reacquaint himself with the US Constitution.

So what gives - does Malkin just hate Ted Kennedy? Does she feel so strongly about immigration that she is morally obliged to break with the White House?

Perhaps - but let’s remember that Malkin is a rich and influential public figure with millions of readers. Additionally, her systematic attacks on Islamic groups in the US and abroad have positioned her extremely close to the Bush party line on “global Islamic terrorism,” while her relationship with Fox News suggests that she is reconciled to the kind of top-down political control that comes from arch-conservative Roger Ailes. As an ambitious and shrewd political personality, any move she makes must be calculated - coming off half-cocked, and biting one of the hands that feeds you, would not be a smart move in today’s political climate.

So let’s assume she knows what she’s doing. And what is that, in my view? She’s testing the waters.

Conservatives are looking at the future and for all their bluster, they don’t know where they’re headed. Find me a major conservative blog that knows who they want to endorse for 2008. McCain, Giuliani, Romney…Huckabee? People like Michelle Malkin have as little idea as you do what the shape of a Republican campaign will be in 2008, and whose face will be on it.

So now they’re on the defensive, and what they’re defending is the Iraq War. The war is the core issue of Bush’s presidency, and to admit defeat would be to admit that Republicans should not have been trusted with handling the American military for the last 6 years. This explains why conservative bloggers work so hard to keep the fear of Islamic terrorism alive, and why they seize on every incident of Muslim violence, or “progress” in Iraq, as a sign that the Global War on Terror is justified, and succeeding.

But though defending the war is enough to keep them busy, it’s not a viable strategy in the long-term: either the war will end, or Bush will leave office. The latter scenario is, believe it or not, almost worse for Republicans - if Iraq is still raging in 08, the Republicans may get punished by American voters even more drastically than they were last November. Two “war referendum elections” in a row could cripple them.

So Republicans are going to have to break with Bush at some point before 2008. If Gore couldn’t use Clinton’s help in his 2000 campaign, the Republican nominee certainly won’t be able to offer a blind continuation of Bush. He will need to offer a degree of continuity (say, with financial policy) but also a respectable exit strategy for Iraq. But before they can do that, the party will have to be reinvented. Republicans will need to keep Bush at arm’s length, and to start that process off they will need a point of disagreement. Furthermore, it’s best for them if they can appear to be reacting to a “bad move” from the President - traitors have never been popular in America, and rebellious Republicans would look opportunistic if they broke ranks too quickly.

A lot of people are saying now - hell, even Fox (via AP) - that in the primary season candidates appeal to their parties’ core and even fringe voters, then swing back to the center for the actual election. Thus “Democrats are lurching to the left on Iraq” and “Republicans are moving right on immigration.”

But I don’t think that analysis captures the whole of what’s going on. Right now, immigration has become a test case for a wing of the Republican Party that is itching to break ranks. It may work - bloggers like Malkin are certainly raising the stakes. But even if the immigration debate subsides, my feeling is that the underlying tension won’t. One or another political issue is bound to be the lifeboat that lets them jump ship before they go down with the Captain.

(And Hagel voted to keep the bill as it was, without the Vitter Amendment…so what does that mean?)

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: