A progressive immigration activist recently told me that every election year, moderate Democrats urge him to shut up. Moderate Democrats clearly consider immigration a losing issue. But according to my source, they’re also quite self-righteous about their shushing. Which makes me wonder: What’s going on inside the mind of the moderate Democrat?
Leading possibilities:
- They care about immigration just as much as the progressive immigration activists. But moderates live in the real world. They want the activists to hold their tongues because they understand the ugly truths that (a) immigration policy won’t improve unless the Democrats win, and (b) talking about immigration makes Democrats lose.
- They care about immigration, but assign it lower priority than the immigration activists. Focusing on immigration raises the expected liberalism of immigration policy, even adjusting for probability of victory; after all, it’s hard to ignore immigration after the election if you make it a major issue during the campaign. However, immigration activism simultaneously lowers the expected liberalism of non-immigration policy by alienating mainstream voters.
- Moderate Democrats barely care about immigration. Health care, redistribution, the environment, and gender/race/sexual orientation policies are all far higher priorities.
I know few moderate Democrats well, so I’m fairly agnostic here. If you know more, what’s the truth of the matter?
P.S. I’m speaking at James Madison University tomorrow. If you see me, please say hi!
READER COMMENTS
Jonathan S
Oct 29 2018 at 2:39pm
4) moderate Democrats are happy with the status quo on immigration. Someone proposing more immigration may be a threat to their ideal policy.
In most of my conversations with moderate Democrats (who tend to desire equality or welfare without embracing socialism), they express sympathy for low-income natives who may see increased wage competition from immigrants who may be competing for their labor. It was never stated explicit.y, but there also seems to be a concern that somehow immigration from poorer countries would make the USA worse off.
Of your 3 possibilities, #3 is probably the most accurate.
education realist
Oct 29 2018 at 3:09pm
Also possible: moderate Dems actually want *less* immigration, but aren’t ready to identify as Republicans. They are confident that voting in Dems will *not* lead to more immigration–although lord knows the Obama nonsense should have informed them otherwise. But they were right in their basic sense that a Dem-led Congress will never take action on opening borders. Obama did it through EA.
nobody.really
Oct 29 2018 at 3:24pm
Uh … maybe more than one person fits the description “Moderate Democrat”? And, as with any group containing more than one person, people in that group might differ?
I’m not too surprised when I stumble upon editorials from 1954 with titles such as, “What does the Negro Want?” It seems a bit more jarring to stumble across this kind of thing today.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2018 at 12:24am
Um, stereotyping a race of people as having a common set of values or interests isn’t in any way analogous to stereotyping an ideological group as having certain common values or interests, because having certain common values and interests is kind of in the definition of an ideological group. Are you seriously going to be ‘jarred’ whenever someone asks, ‘what do Republicans/Democrats/libertarians/socialists’ want? Clearly, members of each group have something in common, otherwise we wouldn’t group them as such.
You could just say, ‘there are different flavors of moderate democrats’ and leave it at that.
nobody.really
Oct 30 2018 at 3:13pm
Yeah, I will. ‘Cuz “the definition of an ideological group” is precisely that—a DEFINITION. And when “we … group them as such,” it is WE who impose the definition.
Here we don’t have a definition, we have a label. (And while terms such as “libertarian” and “socialist” have a modicum of ideological coherence, does anyone find ideological coherence in the term “Democrat”? And I won’t bother to ask about the ideological coherence of “Republican.” Hell, Trump can’t consistently maintain ideological coherence for an entire tweet….) In the absence of an actual definition, we fall into the No True Scotsman fallacy: We appear to make substantive conclusions about a group, while remaining free to change the definition of the group after-the-fact to fit our conclusions.
If Caplan wanted to have a meaningful conversation along these lines, he might ask about a definition that seems to imply an answer to the question, such as a party platform. Instead, Caplan offers the bare label “moderate Democrat,” cites an anonymous source for the idea that people bearing this label act duplicitously, and then invites people to speculate—based on nothing more than the stereotypes they have associated with that label—about other people’s thought processes. What value could come of this discussion? Even when people who identify with the label “moderate Democrat” offer their own testimony, what basis would we have to attribute their views to some larger group?
Instead of having this discussion, I surmise Caplan wanted to point out that people—and Trump opponents in particular—may have strategic reasons to hide their true perspectives about immigration policy. The problem I have with Caplan’s post is not with identifying hidden incentives–hell, that’s the fun of economics–but with the invitation to make judgments about groups of people based on speculation.
In short, I don’t fault Caplan for sharing ideas about potential hidden dynamics. I fault him for phrasing his post in a manner that brings out people’s worst tendencies.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2018 at 4:15pm
Party labels have more definition to them than mere ideological ones precisely because they are institutions with defined platforms. One can gauge just how “true” a Republican or Democrat one is far better than one can gauge how “true” a socialist or libertarian (not capital-L Libertarian) one is: one simply looks at how concordant one’s views are with the party platform. Ideological labels don’t refer to actual organizations with websites spelling out what their beliefs are.
nobody.really
Oct 30 2018 at 5:30pm
Look, I agree that a party platform might provide something more substantive than base speculation about what “moderate Democrats” believe. That said, I know of no platform for moderate Democrats. To the contrary, platforms tend to be written by the most doctrinaire wings of their respective parties–and tend to be abandoned immediately after each party’s convention. Last I checked, the Republican Party platform in my state still seeks repeal of state recognition of same-sex marriage. I know of no Republican candidates promoting that position.
In any event, whatever the merits if this assertion in the abstract, I can’t help but note that NOT ONE COMMENTOR has responded to Caplan’s query by citing any plank of any Democratic Party platform. Thus. while I would agree that we might inject a note of substance into Caplan’s query by interpreting “moderate Democrat” to refer to the Democratic Party platform, no one has yet done so.
Indeed, it’s not obvious how it would apply to this discussion. Does anyone think any platform says, “When asked about immigration, be sure to dissemble ‘cuz we don’t really care about that stuff”? Because that’s the kind of statement that would address Caplan’s query, yielding a conclusion about what Democrats think that was not based purely on stereotype.
Floccina
Oct 30 2018 at 11:54am
What is wrong with asking and expecting multiple answers like, the moderate Democrats that I know seem to lean more to nuber x?
Nathan Taylor
Oct 29 2018 at 3:38pm
Pew survey shows the biggest change in views on immigration in the past decade have been Democrats. I would say even moderate Democrats have now shifted their views on this topic, as it has become a signal of differentiation.
See this pew survey
http://www.people-press.org/2018/06/28/shifting-public-views-on-legal-immigration-into-the-u-s/
BC
Oct 29 2018 at 4:25pm
I don’t know who counts as a “moderate” Democrat, but Obama promised to tackle immigration reform in the first year of his first term. After election, however, he decided instead to throw all of his political capital behind the healthcare and redistribution of Obamacare. Because Obamacare passed along purely partisan lines, we can conclude that Dems could have alternatively passed Obammigration along that same partisan line, if that had been their priority. So, we can’t necessarily separate out moderate Democrats’ preferences but, party wide, (3) seems to apply.
Daniel
Oct 29 2018 at 5:25pm
Or at least, (3) applied in 2010 – a lot can conceivably change in 8 years!
Kevin
Oct 29 2018 at 5:17pm
The average Democrat doesn’t care too much about specific policies, but they do want to beat the Republicans.
MikeP
Oct 29 2018 at 5:40pm
Exactly zero moderate Democrats are actually pro-immigration because exactly zero moderate Democrats support open borders.
Moderate Democrats do want to signal their support for a few thousand prospective immigrants who make highly sympathetic cases on TV so they can appear right-thinking to their fellow moderate and liberal Democrats and can appear anti-Trump to everyone else.
You would think it would not be possible to side with conservatives on such left-right battles, but the complete obliviousness of liberals in their towering self-righteousness makes them much less bearable.
Jay
Oct 29 2018 at 6:20pm
I consider myself a moderate Democrat, and #3 is about right for me except that I also don’t care much about gender/race/sexual orientation policies. Health care and the environment are probably my biggest priorities.
Jim Dunning
Oct 29 2018 at 9:51pm
Mike P makes a key point.
Whenever a friend condemns any of the current administration’s abhorrent detention practices at the borders—usually condemning Trump’s supporters in the process—I respond with “Are you for Open Borders?”
Of course, as Mike P asserts, most (all?) (liberals/progressives/Democrats) react with “No! Of course not! We need to screen immigrants to ensure [bad people] don’t get in.”
My goal in asking the question is to foster a realization in the liberal mind that “Trump Supporters” are not evil and aren’t necessarily that different from “Anti-Trumpers;” their reasons for supporting a Trump presidency don’t always translate to support of Trump-the-Person. By answering “Of course not!” the liberals place themselves on an immigration policy spectrum shared with those they condemn, much, much closer to the Republicans than to my Open Borders position. Most are not even for “reform,” believing there’s nothing wrong with the immigration process, just the guy running it.
It’s all just a matter of degree, evidenced by the uncomfortable but never pondered fact that the tools Trump uses were there for the taking the moment he took the Oath of Office. He’s not even the most egregious deporter, just uglier and unabashedly unselfconscious about it.
4. Most Democrats assume the immigration and naturalization process is fine and that the current administration is abusing it, probably illegally. There is an assumption that state control of borders is natural and right and the issue is really about “crossing a line,” and putting Dems back in charge fixes all that is wrong with the world.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2018 at 12:39am
I think #3 is the most likely; that is, though moderates may care about specific egregious cases (e.g., separated families and whatnot), they don’t fundamentally reject the right and duty of the state to police the borders. In fact, even left-wing Democrats don’t really dispute that. Even (or especially) for more hardcore Democrats, the nation-state plays a key role in their ideology. The reason why they sympathize with immigrants and want to restrict immigration less isn’t, it seems to me, because they have a more limited view of what the state can or should do to control the composition of its jurisdiction; rather it’s because they view immigrants as a marginalized group. Most are poor by our standards, many are refugees fleeing war or oppressive governments. It’s more because of who the immigrants (mostly) are, where they fit in the hierarchy of marginalization, than because of a principled position on the role of government.
Imagine the show were on the other foot, and wealthy Americans and Europeans were immigrating en masse to a poor, Latin American country for the climate or something, and some locals wanted to stop this because, say, it was driving up housing costs for the poor. Do you think most progressives (not even the moderates) would insist the state let whoever wants to immigrate do so? Or would they defend the right/duty of the state to restrict such immigration to ostensibly protect the locals in this case?
Robert EV
Oct 30 2018 at 10:21am
Imagine the show were on the other foot, and wealthy Americans and Europeans were immigrating en masse to a poor, Latin American country for the climate or something, and some locals wanted to stop this because, say, it was driving up housing costs for the poor. Do you think most progressives (not even the moderates) would insist the state let whoever wants to immigrate do so?
I wouldn’t. Open borders are important, but even more important are: 1) equality of opportunity to immigrate (so the wealthy and credentialed ideally shouldn’t immigrate in numbers much disproportionately greater than the rest of the population of the sending country); and 2) Do not import a ruling class (i.e. the wealthy are a minority, they should not come in numbers much disproportionately greater than the rest of the population [of the receiving country], so as not to become an unelected dictatorial class in their new country).
I know this would break down for the genuinely poor of the sending countries, but it shouldn’t break down too badly. If all you’re getting is freedom of movement for the top 10%, let’s say, while the bottom 90% stay put, then you don’t have open borders.
As for my point #2, you could still have today’s brand of open borders and just limit the legal rights of the immigrants for a number of years, though this is pretty gross itself.
Robert EV
Oct 30 2018 at 10:22am
I put quotes around the top paragraph, but apparently it didn’t stick.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2018 at 1:07pm
It seems like you’re basically making my point. There seems to me to be no more reason to fear an influx of rich immigrants than poor ones. It’s worth noting these rich immigrants aren’t likely to constitute a new ‘ruling class.’ Jews in Europe, Parsi in India, Chinese in Malaysia, East Asians in general in the US are/were all disproportionately wealthy groups that were underrepresented politically. In a democracy, I’d say wealthy minorities usually have more to fear from poor majorities than vice versa.
People make similar arguments against “importing an underclass,” and how it will affect politics in the receiving country. Just as you are concerned about how the migration of the wealthy will impact the poor in the country they’re leaving, so too are anti-immigration people concerned about how the immigration of poor people will impact poor people in the receiving country for fairly similar reasons. If the state has a right to keep too many rich people from immigrating for the benefit of the poor people in the countries they’re coming from, it’s hard to argue it doesn’t have the right to restrict the immigration of poor people for the (ostensible) benefit of poor people in its own country.
Lastly, opportunity is never really equal. Wealthy Mexicans probably have a much easier time getting US citizenship than poorer ones. Should we restrict immigration of wealthy Mexicans to ‘balance the scales?’ I’m not sure I buy that it being easier for group A to leave a country than group B justifies a host country making it harder for group A to enter for the sake of equality.
In any case, this only reaffirms my suspicions that for some people, it’s less about freedom of entry in principle, and more about who exactly is entering.
Jay
Oct 30 2018 at 6:06am
As a general rule, no matter what issue you’re talking about, it’s fairly safe to assume that most voters aren’t very invested in that particular issue. There are nigh-limitless issues with very little consensus on priorities. As Martin Gurri points out, this has consequences for governments.
Thaomas
Oct 30 2018 at 11:18am
Never having shushed an immigration activist I’m not sure what a shusher might be thinking. I think that immigration activists ought to talk about immigration the same way as other issues: a policy to increase the real incomes of (almost) all current residents and in marginal amounts, a few millions per year with priority on young well educated/educable o high skilled people with none of the downsides (cultural dilution, voting like wards of the state, etc.) that some people fear from “open borders.” I think this way of talking about immigration has the possibility of NOT sounding to those who oppose more immigration like, “You oppose immigration only because you are a horrible, racist, xenophobic, heartless person.”
Hazel Meade
Oct 30 2018 at 2:08pm
Democrats are traditional allies of domestic labor, which is threatened by immigration. Moderates want to keep that traditional coalition together. Incidentally, I think the word “moderate” to describe them is incorrect. They aren’t “moderate” they are just conventional Democrats with a very traditional Democratic labor-oriented agenda. More recent changes in the Democratic party in favor of more liberal immigration has always been in tension with the traditonal pro-labor Democratic platform.
Mark Z
Oct 30 2018 at 5:29pm
I think you may be getting at an unavoidable issue with talking about ‘moderates.’ That is, most putative moderates aren’t really moderates. You’re describing, basically, old school “blue dog” Democrats, who indeed weren’t moderate; they were a distinct ideological group in their own right. Similarly Bernie Sanders held (I don’t know if changed his position lately) “moderate” view on immigration (he was more skeptical of it than other Democrats). But he wasn’t really being moderate; it was precisely because he was so extreme in his pro-labor views that he was less pro-immigration. Trump may seem like a “moderate” Republican on trade, but that’s also not really moderation.
Actual moderates or centrists may be almost nonexistent. Populists, libertarian, and paleoconservatives seem ‘moderate’ on one issue or another, but they aren’t really moderate, they’re just distinct from the two major poles. The center or ‘moderate’ position is just the median of everyone, but the area around the median seems rather sparsely populated.
Thaomas
Nov 3 2018 at 7:32am
Links of the Democratic Party to organized Labor probably explained their less open position on trade restrictions, but not on immigration. Low income workers (except recent immigrants) are just not close enough substitutes for the substitution effect to outweigh the income effect of additional immigration.
Erik H
Oct 30 2018 at 3:47pm
They care about immigration just as much as the progressive immigration activists.
No. If they did, they would be progressive immigration advocates, not moderate democrats.
They care about immigration, but assign it lower priority than the immigration activists.
Not really. They care about different aspects, like poverty or a moral obligation to help refugees; they have overlap of goals but not of underlying morality.
Moderate Democrats barely care about immigration.
No. most Democrats of all stripes have strong positions about immigration, although they may well support the status quo.
Most moderate democrats think our government should rightly and properly value the interests of US citizens over and above non-citizens. There may be exceptions brought on by circumstance–they want to help refugees; they may support foreign aid; etc–but by and large they think that their government should be focused on helping us.
Also, I think there is a significant aspect of immigration progressivism, in particular “open borders”, which comes across as almost anarchic to many folks:
Moderate democrats rely on government and if they can’t control voters they can’t control government. Similarly they believe strongly in welfare and social networks: if you can’t control entrants and therefore expenses, those are destined to failure.
MikeP
Oct 30 2018 at 11:45pm
Can you name one progressive who is for open borders?
Daniel Neylan
Oct 30 2018 at 4:59pm
x) They realise those more against immigration than they are might have some points, but that realisation might only be semiconcious.
NB
1 this view is tampered (TAMPA’d) by the experience with border control in Australia which has been a sore point electorally since 1788 but as with the States in the last 15 years or so
2 immigration as a life or death issue on the high seas as it is down under, coupled with access to the generous welfare state and our high min wage, might stress the moderate mind even more!
Jay
Oct 30 2018 at 7:34pm
Border control in Australia is now officially my dream job. What border would that be, exactly?
Arthur Solvang
Nov 2 2018 at 7:55pm
there is yet another possibility that has nothing to do with immigration; politics.
there are many for whom the letter D means everything I recall an older voting booth where you could pull a lever and vote the Party in some places, UAW country for example, anything without a D in front of it is anathema to a threat to one’s life
immigration is but one idea that can be sold simply without real analysis for example look at the investments of Union retirement funds and yet we listen to Unions rail against Wall Street those Union retirement plans ARE Wall Street!
For many when the Party makes a simplistic claim the faithful cheer the letter D. There is no questioning
in CA people continually vote for left-wing politics and then figure out ways to escape the laws they voted for excellent wage and benefit laws offset by air-conditioned kiosks for hiring illegal immigrants at below legal rates
Politics may have more to do with ignoring the issues than actually caring about those issues
Comments are closed.