Last November, American voters elected, in their infinite wisdom, to give an orange crybaby and his band of angry fanatics control of the House of Representatives, while leaving Democrats in charge of the Senate. In so doing, they assured that on the heels of the most productive legislative session in recent memory, this new Congress will be crippled by gridlock and inaction. Congressional Republicans, after seeing their legislative sabotage and obstructionism pay off so handsomely, have little incentive to now start working with the Obama administration.
Until Tea Party extremism is either rewarded or repudiated in 2012, this country will remain functionally ungovernable. In the mean time, President Barack Obama should spend the next two years exploiting divisions in the Republican Party by pursuing comprehensive immigration reform. Though such an effort would have no real hope of passage, the political benefits could potentially be tremendous enough to not only strengthen the president's re-election bid, but also to give his party a shot at retaking the House.
The only way for Democrats to gain the 30 or so seats they'd need to create a stable House majority is for President Obama to win re-election in a landslide. The only way for Obama, with his mediocre approval ratings and a weak economy, to win in a landslide is for Republicans to nominate a radical, unpopular extremist like former half-term Alaska Governor Sarah Palin instead of a more polished, electable candidate like Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels or South Dakota Senator John Thune. Framing the national debate around immigration reform would greatly increase the chances of such a nomination because of the unique politics surrounding immigration.
Moderate and pragmatic Republican candidates couldn't take the hard-line, zealously nativist stand against immigration demanded by their conservative base for two reasons. First, they couldn't risk permanently alienating Latinos, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate, and dooming their party in the long run. Second, the American business community, aka the group that funds much of the mainstream Republican Party, has long supported comprehensive immigration reform to assure its members a steady supply of low-cost labor. It is unlikely that any establishment candidate would stray too far from his or her donor base during a primary in which financial strength is vital.
Candidates who, for these reasons, refuse or are unable to take a firm anti-immigration stance would have a difficult time defeating an archconservative demagoguing about amnesty and lost jobs to foreigners. Last year's primary season, in which several popular moderate Republicans like former Delaware Congressman Mike Castle lost challenges to less electable Tea Party candidates, proves that in today's political climate, candidates that don't strictly adhere to conservative doctrine have little hope of prevailing. Thus, were Obama to frame immigration as the central political issue of the next election season, extreme Republican candidates would have a built-in advantage over their moderate counterparts, making it more likely that one of them wins the GOP nomination and hands the president a second term.
Furthermore, the president would greatly benefit from a surge in Latino voter participation sure to follow from two years of championing their cause in a national immigration debate. Latinos are a key and growing group in several critical swing states in the Southwest which the president may need to hold in light of the expected reversals in states like Indiana and North Carolina.
A surge in Latino voters might aid many of the numerous exposed Senate Democrats in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, managed to eek out a close win this past election cycle despite trailing largely because Latino voters turned out to support him after he backed the since-defeated DREAM Act. President Obama campaigned on changing the rancorous culture in Washington, but after his humiliating midterm defeat, it should be clear to him that partisan hackery and political gamesmanship are far more effective strategies.
If he truly believes that his policies are best for the country, then he should be willing to do anything possible to reclaim the House, including using immigration reform as a political football to weaken his opposition and shore up votes. After all, none of his idealistic niceties will mean very much if he loses his job.
