Hey, immigration bill sore losers, it's called democracy
Text 
No comments [ Add Comment ]By Doug Gibson
Commentary
I
n politics, it's hard to take defeat sometimes, particularly if you've worked so hard for a goal only to see it slip away. It is frustrating to use all your powers of persuasion and not convince enough people to support your failed cause.
How we handle defeat in politics tells us something about ourselves. It is often easy to blame a sinister "boogeyman" rather than acknowledge that we didn't sell our case well enough to the public. The recent failure of the comprehensive immigration reform bill has produced many bad losers.
The debate of the U.S. Senate immigration bill was democracy at work. I wanted the bill to pass. I thought it imperfect, but the best comprehensive reform out there. The bill had eloquent spokespersons, from President Bush to -- on opposite sides of the aisle -- Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy.
Nevertheless, the bill was defeated easily. In its last death throes, it had only 46 supporters in the Senate.
Rather than acknowledge that they failed to persuade enough Americans to their side, many of the bill's supporters are sore losers, seeking a scapegoat to blame for their own failure. The "boogeyman" they have selected is talk radio.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi referred to talk radio as "hate radio," and described listeners as "anti-immigrant" and "xenophobic." Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott also chimed in. Graham claimed there was "racism" in the immigration debate, while Lott whined, "talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who clearly is in over his head, resembled Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of the bill and blaming talk radio and Republicans for the defeat.
In the media, Roll Call columnist Morton Kondracke and conservative columnists Tamar Jacoby and Linda Chavez have been the most virulent against talk radio. Kondracke called senators who voted against the bill "profiles in political cowardice." On July 2 Kondracke wrote, "Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, the talkers have stirred up anti-Hispanic racism and certainly anti-immigrant nativism."
This is all nonsense.
The comprehensive immigration reform bill was the subject of a national conversation these past couple of months, and most Americans decided the more they heard of the bill, the more they disliked it. Many of these Americans let their senators and representatives know of their displeasure. That is called democracy. Talk radio was an active participant in this democracy, not the cancer so many sore losers want to tar it as.
President Bush, his Cabinet and major congressional supporters of the bill had the opportunity to defend and promote it. Most of them wouldn't do it, preferring to craft its many pages in secret. The few times I heard a bill supporter go one on one with an opponent on TV or radio, frankly, the pro-bill side lost the debate.
Here's the real reason why the bill failed: Too many Americans did not trust the federal government to enforce the border and keep illegals out. They feared that the bill would grant amnesty to 12 million or more illegals and then ignore all the promises of border enforcement.
This is not an irrational fear. It happened 20 years ago, the last time we had "comprehensive immigration reform."
I believe that had the bill passed, the border would have been more secure, and we would have had a sensible balance between immigrants needed to sustain our economy and strong border enforcement. But my side lost the debate. I wish the bill's supporters would listen to Americans, and craft a substitute bill. We need to secure our borders.
But, it appears most are sore losers, and prefer scapegoats to compromise.
Gibson is the Standard-Examiner's assistant editorial page editor. He can be reached at dgibson@standard.net.
