“Marginalized” seems to be a favorite word among the self-pity faction of the wingnut set these days, but it occurred to me he does have a point. That is: he was talking about immigration and here, at last, we have an issue that really sets traditional alliances on their head. I remarked earlier today that I found myself in the odd position of agreement with NRO’s Corner. DeLong (along with others) points out that the issue has caused The Corner at last to discover the mean-spirited arrogance at the editiorial page of the Wall Street Journal (link). NPR this morning took delight in running supposedly “acting against type” soundbytes: A Republican who embraced the cause of illegals, a Dem who thought we were being over run with them.
I don’t have any confident expectations here, but I do know that all balls are loose on the table at the moment, and when they are all loose on the table, you never know what will carom off what. And let’s hear it for marginalization. I hope these guys are better as housepainters than they are as critical students of politics.
Fn.: I stay away from opining about immigration not because I don't care but because I haven't a clue what to say about it. I know that not even Jack Bauer is going to school-bus 12 million illegals back to Mexico (aside: thanks, Kevin!). I tend to suspect that immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take out of it, but you'd never guess it from hanging around at the prompt-care door to any even remotely public hospital. I do suspect that the United States will probably hive off some kind of new entity in the southwest within the next 100 years, though probably not within my lifetime. I wouldn't say "a new nation," because the very idea of the nation-state seems to be under stress at the moment--but that is a whole nuther story.