Word is circulating that Stephen Miller is writing Donald Trump's speech on race relations. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Trump's "solution" to the current malaise in the U.S. will involve extending a ban on immigration and expanding enforcement and expulsion of undocumented individuals. This seems like a safe bet to me because Miller really is a one-trick pony and Trump relishes rehashing his greatest hits. Maybe Miller will toss in some "enterprise zones" or other ornamental trivia but the meat will be anti-immigration.
They playbook for this will be Miller's Immigration Handbook for a New Republican Majority that he wrote for Jeff Sessions in 2015. Footnote 21 of that handbook states that, "Amnesty and uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms African-American workers, and has been described by U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow as a 'disaster.'" The handbook also cites a poll commissioned by Kellyanne \Conway, one finding of which was that "86% of black voters and 71% of Hispanic voters said companies should raise wages and improve working conditions instead of increasing immigration."
Two years ago, I posted a couple of pieces discussing Miller's handbook in more detail: The Lump That Begot Trump and Goebbels or Gompers?: A Closer Look at Stephen Miller's Immigration Manifesto. I hope these pieces provide some insight into just how dangerous and effective Miller's and Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric can be, especially given the hypocrisy of neo-liberal promotion of immigration as exemplified by Tony Blair's and Gerhard Schroeder's "Third Way" advocating "a new supply-side agenda for the left". To put it bluntly, "Third Way" immigration policy was intended to create jobs by keeping wages low through an abundant supply of labor. The transfer of income from the working class to the wealthy would provide ample funds for "investment."
In short, Miller's and Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of "the ['responsible'] left."
Footnote 21 of that handbook states that, "Amnesty and uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms African-American workers, and has been
ReplyDeletedescribed by U.S. Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow as a 'disaster.'"
Huh! Maybe that is want Trump meant by "MAGA love the black people". After all if we ban Hispanics, then the positions of cleaning up and serving the elite their meals will go to blacks. It is sort of going back in time 170 years when we had slavery.
Let's not forget migrant farm labor!
ReplyDeleteIt's also always a good idea to follow the trail of the footnotes to get the context of who it is the author is citing. Here is Peter Kirsanow's latest contribution to National Review: Flames From False Narratives. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this argument in Miller's speech for Trump.
ReplyDeleteFrom Kirsonaw's National Review rant:
ReplyDelete"Indeed, it’s an article of faith which, if questioned, exposes the heretic to rage, venom, and ostracization. Some fear losing their jobs. Best therefore, not to even consider questioning the narrative. The narrative is false. In fact, it’s not just false, it’s upside down. And it’s been false for quite some time. There are racist cops in a nation of 330 million. But 2020 America isn’t 1965 Selma."
False? Well he dusts off the usual misleading statistics that basically tell blacks that it is their fault that cops kill them. He is a heretic who deserved all the rage, venom, and ostracization that we heap on him. But I'm sure he will always have a job spinning for some right wing rich dude.
Sandwichman:
ReplyDeleteMiller’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of “the [‘responsible’] left.”
[ Having thought about this carefully, the premise makes no sense since the American and British domestic economies were vibrant under Clinton, Obama and Blair while Schroeder was successfully integrating 16 million East Germans with the West German economy.
Good grief, if only we were fortunate enough to now have an Obama. ]
Sandwichman:
ReplyDeleteMiller’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is dangerous and effective because Blair and Schroeder (and Clinton and Obama) enacted right-wing, supply-side economic policies in the name of “the [‘responsible’] left.”
[ Economic policies under Clinton, Obama, Blair and Schroeder were remarkably effective-simply look at the data-and domestic policies under these leaderships were not the cause of any “appeal” of the race-driven policies of Trump.
I consider this argument misleading and unfortunate. ]
anne,
ReplyDeleteWithin the constraints rhetorically imposed by Margaret Thatcher, There Is No Alternative, I agree with you. Third Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism (See Blair, Iraq). But there always was an alternative that Third Way shied away from: redistributing income UPWARD. Third Way neo-liberalism didn't do that because it bought the supply-side mythology that private investors were the job creators.
If you consider that argument misleading and unfortunate, we'll have to just disagree on it.
Sandwichman:
ReplyDeleteWithin the constraints rhetorically imposed by Margaret Thatcher, There Is No Alternative, I agree with you. Third Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism (See Blair, Iraq). But there always was an alternative that Third Way shied away from: redistributing income UPWARD. Third Way neo-liberalism didn't do that because it bought the supply-side mythology that private investors were the job creators.
[ Ah, now the argument changes for me and becomes convincing. I was wrong and you are right; the difference for me coming in looking to the "Third Way" militarism that characterized Blair, Clinton and Obama.
This is an excellent argument which I needed explained. Excellent. ]
Sandwichman:
ReplyDeleteThird Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism...
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&select_all_years=0&nipa_table_list=5&series=q&1=5&2=2007&3=2018&4=q&5=x&first_year=2017&6=0&7=survey&last_year=2020&scale=-9&thetable=
April 30, 2020
Defense spending was 59.5% of federal government consumption and
investment in October through December 2019 *
$862.1 / $1,449.8 = 59.5%
Defense spending was 22.6% of all government consumption and
investment in October through December 2019
$862.1 / $3,813.7 = 22.6%
Defense spending was 4.0% of Gross Domestic Product in October through
December 2019
$862.1 / $21,729.1 = 4.0%
* Billions of dollars
Sandwichman:
ReplyDeleteThird Way neo-liberalism redistributes income upward with avowed good intentions and some good results. Ultimately, though, it capitulates to militarist adventurism...
On and on and on:
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&select_all_years=0&nipa_table_list=5&series=q&1=5&2=2007&3=2018&4=q&5=x&first_year=2017&6=0&7=survey&last_year=2020&scale=-9&thetable=
April 30, 2020
Defense spending was 59.3% of federal government consumption and
investment in January through March 2020. *
$866.1 / $1,459.8 = 59.3%
Defense spending was 22.5% of all government consumption and
investment in January through March 2020.
$866.1 / $3,850.5 = 22.5%
Defense spending was 4.0% of GDP in January through March 2020.
$866.1 / $21,537.9 = 4.0%
* Billions of dollars