You make some good points. The Milton Friedman quote hits home.
I do believe a better strategery aimed at the Hispanic, and yes, black population, will peel enough voters away from the ‘rats to put a conservative government in charge.
But sometimes I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by race-based anger.
Any time someone actually uses facts about immigration, legal and illegal, they are called bigots, nativists, and racists.
The immigration issue has deeply divided the Republican Party. President Bush and Presidential nominee McCain supported amnesty bills (Hagel-Martinez in 2006 and McCain-Kennedy in 2007) against the majority of their own party. Moreover, we had the sorry spectacle of people like Karl Rove and Lindsey Graham castigating their fellow Republicans [read Conservatives] who opposed amnesty using such epithets as bigots, racists, and nativists. These criticisms just reinforce the Democrat branding of the GOP and alienate minorities who perceive that they are not welcome in the party. Moreover, being branded as a “racist” political party hurts the GOP in recruiting new members, regardless of race or ethnicity. America is not a racist country and no one wants to be associated with a racist organization.
The best strategy is treating everyone the same and not pandering. The irony is that immigration can be a winning issue for conservatives and Republicans. Our views on immigration actually coincide with those of the majority of the American people. We need not be apologetic or defensive. Republicans must be more proactive and less reactive. They must be willing to take a principled stand on the issue even if it means polarization, being the object of demagoguery, and possible short-term political losses. Unless the GOP redefines the battlefield and terms of engagement, they will continue to lose the war.
The Republican strategy on immigration should be based on the core conservative principles of the party, i.e., national security, limited government, the rule of law and the Constitution, and individual responsibility. Immigration is an issue that cuts across partisan lines. There are plenty of independents and Reagan Democrats who are affected adversely by immigration and hold far different views than the Democrat political leadership, union bosses, religious leaders, etc. Republicans need to articulate their message better to tap into those constituencies. That said, pandering and outreach to minorities don’t work. Republicans lose when they try to play identity politics against the Democrats and it just reinforces their framing of the issue. Republicans must appeal to the interests of the individual voter with a universal message regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.
Ronald Reagan, in his famous 1975 speech at CPAC, said,
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness. I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-- when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?