I appreciate this as the only attempt I've seen to address the concerns of a particular subset I belong to ("Pro-Union Immigration Restrictionists"). My overall sense is on the pro-union side there's only one sort of weak for doing anything other than supporting Democrats, the one being that encouraging the pro-union elements of the GOP is good because it makes the possibility of independent unions more plausible, whereas if the GOP reverts to a full-on anti-labor stance (which to be clear Trump did in office last time). With immigration, the question is whether the irresponsible border policies of ~2022-23 were a deviation from a party that's generally been more moderate in practice (as under Obama), or whether they suggest the open-borders wing of the party apparatus is highly influential and will continue to dictate policy if the Democrats aren't punished for it. To be clear I'm not even an immigration hardliner, just someone who thinks we should have a functional border, reform asylum law, and impose e-verify on employers.
Thanks for writing. I think you're right that unions ultimately need to be able to get the attention of both parties. That's far more likely if unions themselves are stronger, specifically private sector unions. Which means the priority has to be successful organizing, and supporting the party that will make that possible.
My own take on immigration is that, like so many other things, the Democrats just went nuts on the subject in the Trump years. I think the best way to encourage a return to the Obama-era Democratic consensus would be to reward Harris for the belated shift to the center. But I freely admit that she could fail to see it that way, and lurch left again. On the one hand, she's a former prosecutor, so "enforce the law" comes naturally; on the other hand, she's a California Democrat, so "appease the liberal interest groups" also comes naturally. I suspect it'll come down to political pressure either way.
More broadly, though, the entire developed world is turning against migration (with the possible exception of Japan), and center-left parties are getting hammered all over the place for having tilted the other way, the major exceptions (e.g. Denmark) being places where they tilted in a restrictionist direction instead. Some center-right parties are getting destroyed for the same reason, BTW -- see, for example, Britain's Tories, who completely lost the confidence of their voters over this specific issue. So we're really waiting for the whole world to find a new political equilibrium.
Thank you for the shoutout! I’d add for my fellow anti-abortion feminists that if your pro-life commitments are rooted in concern for the vulnerable, Trump has made his contempt for weakness and illness abundantly clear.
I think the transactional case for Trump was stronger the first time, when he was touting his SCOTUS commitments. This time he’s been clear he sees the pro-life movement as not due any additional payoffs
I appreciate this as the only attempt I've seen to address the concerns of a particular subset I belong to ("Pro-Union Immigration Restrictionists"). My overall sense is on the pro-union side there's only one sort of weak for doing anything other than supporting Democrats, the one being that encouraging the pro-union elements of the GOP is good because it makes the possibility of independent unions more plausible, whereas if the GOP reverts to a full-on anti-labor stance (which to be clear Trump did in office last time). With immigration, the question is whether the irresponsible border policies of ~2022-23 were a deviation from a party that's generally been more moderate in practice (as under Obama), or whether they suggest the open-borders wing of the party apparatus is highly influential and will continue to dictate policy if the Democrats aren't punished for it. To be clear I'm not even an immigration hardliner, just someone who thinks we should have a functional border, reform asylum law, and impose e-verify on employers.
Thanks for writing. I think you're right that unions ultimately need to be able to get the attention of both parties. That's far more likely if unions themselves are stronger, specifically private sector unions. Which means the priority has to be successful organizing, and supporting the party that will make that possible.
My own take on immigration is that, like so many other things, the Democrats just went nuts on the subject in the Trump years. I think the best way to encourage a return to the Obama-era Democratic consensus would be to reward Harris for the belated shift to the center. But I freely admit that she could fail to see it that way, and lurch left again. On the one hand, she's a former prosecutor, so "enforce the law" comes naturally; on the other hand, she's a California Democrat, so "appease the liberal interest groups" also comes naturally. I suspect it'll come down to political pressure either way.
More broadly, though, the entire developed world is turning against migration (with the possible exception of Japan), and center-left parties are getting hammered all over the place for having tilted the other way, the major exceptions (e.g. Denmark) being places where they tilted in a restrictionist direction instead. Some center-right parties are getting destroyed for the same reason, BTW -- see, for example, Britain's Tories, who completely lost the confidence of their voters over this specific issue. So we're really waiting for the whole world to find a new political equilibrium.
Thank you for the shoutout! I’d add for my fellow anti-abortion feminists that if your pro-life commitments are rooted in concern for the vulnerable, Trump has made his contempt for weakness and illness abundantly clear.
I think the transactional case for Trump was stronger the first time, when he was touting his SCOTUS commitments. This time he’s been clear he sees the pro-life movement as not due any additional payoffs