This is the second part of a three-part series on the future of the left in the 21st century (the first part is here). My basic thesis is that the left’s project in the first quarter of the 21st century has failed and that a left project for the second quarter of this century must be based on core principles that break with the failures of the last 25 years.
Those principles must be based on the fundamental fact that the left has lost touch with baseline realities of how to reach ordinary working-class voters, what policies could actually deliver what these voters want, and what kind of politics accords with these voters’ common sense rather than the biases of their professional class base. They should provide a drastic course correction toward realism to give the left a serious chance of decisively defeating right populism and achieving the good society they claim they are committed to.
In the first part of this series, I discussed two such principles: energy realism and growth realism. In this installment of the series, I will discuss two more principles: governance realism and immigration realism. In the concluding installment of the series, to be released in the New Year, I will discuss the final three principles: merit realism, biological realism, and patriotic realism.
Governance realism. There’s getting elected and then there’s…governing. You’ve got to run the government well and get things done voters care about if you want those voters to stick with you. And that’s where the left has been running into problems—big problems. Commonly, ideological commitments and interest group ties have outweighed the simple, inescapable realities of good governance. Voters just don’t care about the supposedly noble motivations that lead the left to ignore these realities.
Think about it. If you wanted safe streets and public order would your first impulse be to turn to…the left? Or if you wanted a secure, actually-enforced border? How about efficient, effective delivery of public services? Or rapid completion of public projects and infrastructure? Or nonideological public administration?
I don’t think on any of these fronts the reaction of a typical voter would be: “The left! Of course, I need the left to do all these things because they’re so good at them!” On the contrary, it seems like over time the left and their party, the Democrats—both nationally and in many localities where they dominate—have become worse and worse at delivering in these areas. That’s a huge problem because why should voters take left plans to improve their lives seriously if Democrats persist in running government so poorly? Left governance is their advertising and the advertising makes the Democratic “product” look pretty bad. So voters don’t want to buy it.
After a quarter of a century, it’s apparent that the left’s prioritization of social and procedural justice over good governance has been a huge mistake. The left must unreservedly commit to good, efficient governance and social order over its various ideological commitments and NGO ties or voters will not take them seriously going forward. Governance realism is not an option; it’s a necessity.
Immigration realism. Nowhere has the left’s lack of political and policy realism been more obvious—and more toxic—that on the issue of immigration. Across the Western world and here in the United States, encouragement of mass immigration through lax border and interior enforcement and porous asylum systems have effectively legalized illegal immigration and made a mockery of controlled, legal immigration. The results have been predictably disastrous, opening a gaping hole in the left’s working class support in country after country. These policies have ignored the following realities:
Many more people want to come to a rich country like the United States than an orderly immigration system can allow.
Therefore, many people are willing to break the laws of our country to gain entry.
If you do not enforce the law, you will get more law-breakers and therefore more illegal immigrants.
If you provide procedural loopholes to gain entry into the country (e.g., by claiming asylum), many people will abuse these loopholes.
Once these illegal and irregular immigrants gain entry to the country, they will seek to stay indefinitely regardless of their immigration status.
If interior immigration enforcement is lax, such that these illegal and irregular immigrants do mostly get to stay forever, that provides a tremendous incentive for others to try to gain entry to the country via the same means.
If you provide benefits and dispensations to all immigrants in the country, regardless of their immigration status, this further incentivizes aspiring immigrants to gain entry to the country by any means necessary.
Tolerance of flagrant law-breaking on a mass scale contributes to a sense of social disorder and loss of control among a country’s citizens, who believe a nation’s borders are meaningful and that the welfare of a nation’s citizens should come first.
There is, in fact, such a thing as too much immigration, particularly low-skill immigration, and negative effects on communities and workers are real, not just in the imaginations of xenophobes. As Josh Barro observes:
Democrats…need to get back in touch with the reasons that both uncontrolled migration and excessive volumes of migration really are problems…[I]llegal and irregular migration reflect a failure of our civic institutions, a misuse of the social safety net, and a breakdown of the rule of law, and…all of that is actually bad…
Illegal immigration, and other forms of irregular migration that happen with the authorization of the executive branch, really do hurt Americans by putting strain on public resources, imposing costs on taxpayers, and undermining social cohesion.
If more immigration is desired by parties or policymakers, from whichever countries and at whatever skill levels, that immigration should be regular, legal immigration and approved by the American people through the democratic process. Backdooring mass immigration over the wishes of voters because it is “kind” or “reflects our values” or is deemed “economically necessary” leads inevitably to backlash. Wheelbarrows full of econometric studies on immigration’s aggregate benefits will not save you.
These are the realities of the immigration issue and each and every one of them has been ignored by the left during the first quarter of the 21st century. Going forward, the left must show voters they understand these realities and are willing to dramatically change the incentive structure for illegal and irregular immigration. That means strict border enforcement, elimination or radical restriction of immigration loopholes and a credible interior enforcement regime that recognizes illegal immigrants, even if they stay out of trouble, are still illegal and therefore susceptible to deportation. Otherwise illegal immigrants who manage to enter the country will quite reasonably assume that they can stay here forever which of course is a massive incentive for more illegal immigration.
If the left wishes to legalize certain classes of illegal immigrants (e.g., long-time residents) so they are not susceptible to deportation and/or increase legal immigration levels, that case must be sold to the American public. That will only be possible if voters believe Democrats actually understand and embrace the baseline realities of immigration outlined above. The back door for mass immigration is closing; only an immigration realist left can be successful in the second quarter of the 21st century.
In the final part of “The Future of the Left” series, I will discuss three more principles that must be central to a left revival:
Merit realism
Biological realism
Patriotic realism
Coming after the New Year. Stay tuned!
As someone in the Midwest, I’m open to persuasion, but I’m looking for evidence. When I scan the big-city examples most associated with progressive governance, I don’t see reference models that make me say “yes, that’s where I’d want to live”. Until Democrats can point to a few places where the basics are reliably working ( public order, services, affordability) governance will remain their credibility gap. And I’d be persuadable even if the case weren’t “this will help me”, if there were clear, sustained examples where Black residents in big, blue cities are seeing measurably better outcomes (safer neighborhoods, stronger schools, higher graduation rates, rising incomes, lower family instability) because of how those cities are governed. I don’t see that proof-of-concept either. Promises aren’t the proof. Outputs are the proof. If the system can’t repeatedly deliver stable outcomes, the public assumes the management system is the problem.
I am a recovering Republican who swore off that party after GWB took us into two wars of choice that eventually killed over 10,000 young Americans for no good reason. For the last 22 years I have found myself politically homeless because the Democrats were increasingly too batshit crazy to be a viable alternative.
Unrestricted illegal immigration, the attacks on our First, Second and Fourth Amendment rights, nanny state surveillance and control, and the complete and utter intolerance for dissenting opinions make the so-called Democratic Party a sad, but very dangerous joke. Republicans blather on and on about "liberals," and yet Democrats have become more illiberal year after year after year.
Ruy, I wish you well in your quest to restore sanity to your party. As an independent, I am a gettable vote, but only after the items mentioned above have been corrected.