An observation from The Federalist:
Essentially, a sizable portion of the country is saying, “We want to stop illegal immigration,” and both parties are telling them, in essence, “You’re not allowed to want that.” Left to fester long enough, this frustration has moved beyond the point of an ordinary, partisan political controversy and is moving toward a crisis of constitutional democracy, where the bipartisan political elite has decided that a basic function of nation-state governance is, in 21st century America, illegitimate.
A self-declared nouveau-aristocracy. Just ducky. Serious – THEY get to determine what is “illegitimate”? I thought we had a revolution to get rid of that nonsense, right?
The two major party establishments are more or less complicit in this political and cultural invalidation of a large swath of the electorate.
And then the Republicans get mad when we call them Jr. Democrats? Once again (and forever more, I guess), I have to say “don’t listen to their words, hold them account for their actions.” If bipartisanship now means being Jr. Democrats in deed, then they can just stick it.
Couple that with the economic disaffection this same group already bears toward the elites already leaving them behind, and something like the Trump boomlet was probably inevitable. If a large – sorry, yuge – portion of the country wants existing bipartisan immigration laws to be enforced, and one party tells them “Yes,” but means “No,” and the other party tells them, “No” but means “You’re a racist,” then it’s only a matter of time before some disruptor is going to emerge to call them out for their game.
“You’re not allowed to want that.” – really, is that what political parties are to determine for everyone else. Is that for GOVERNMENT to make that decision? My take on the American form of a Constitutional Republic is that it is supposed to work the other way around – WE tell them how to serve us.
Public Master / public servant – who is who, nowadays? And are you willing to change that relationship back?
