Tea Party: Putting God In Government

Last year, I wrote a piece for the Daily Caller suggesting that libertarians and economic conservatives would be unwise to align with the Tea Party. My point was that what underlines the Tea Party movement is social conservatism.

In short, the Tea Party isn’t a movement full of supporters of gay marriage, immigration reform, etc, I suggested.

Last weekend, academics David Campbell and Robert Putnam disclosed in the New York Times some of their long-running research into national political attitudes. They used interviews with 3000 people going back to 2006 to identify the type joining the Tea Party. Their research enabled them to “look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later.”

And what did they find? Their analysis cast doubt on the idea that the movement was fueled by “nonpartisan political neophytes”. In fact, Tea Party supporters were highly partisan Republicans. ”More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics.”

The academics conclude: “The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.”

 

 

 

Obama Can Buck The Trend

Journalists can be as slavish to precedent as judges. Most media round-ups of the U.S. presidential election stakes begin or devote much space to the fact that unemployment is running high and that no incumbent since FDR has secured re-election with it higher than 7.2 percent.

Binyamin Applebaum provides the perfect example of conventional wisdom with his piece for the New York Times on June 1, in which he asserts: “Seventeen months before the next election, it is increasingly clear that President Obama must defy that trend to keep his job.”

Precedents are there to be broken, though, and elections are littered with examples of campaigns that have bucked trends. Obviously, persistently high unemployment is something that’s likely to hurt Obama – I’m sure he’d prefer it below the magic 7.2 percent number – but it may well be that it isn’t the defining factor this time.

With incumbency and no primary challenger, Obama is already enjoying a couple of distinct advantages.

And he has another major advantage going into the election season that will, I suspect, assist him to buck the trend – namely, the weakness of the opposition. The GOP’s current candidates are about as inspiring as Bob Dole was in 1996, an election that saw Bill Clinton coast to victory on much lower approval ratings than Obama now enjoys.

Clearly, Obama is vulnerable because of the agonizingly sluggish recovery and high unemployment. Twice as many Americans think the country is on the wrong track as the right one and anger is high in key battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio and Florida. Obama will focus no doubt on continuing to try to persuade voters that without the stimulus and the takeover of GM and Chrysler, the economy and unemployment rate would be much worse.

I happen to think he’s right but that, though, is a tough sell and comes down to defending a record rather than pitching forward and presenting new ideas. President Herbert Walker Bush was caught in that trap when he sought reelection in 1992 – in fact the economy was pulling out of recession then but people were not feeling the benefits of recovery and he got blamed for the economic pain.

Obama has another major weakness: he has failed to present a credible plan to cope with the budget deficit, currently running at almost 10 percent of GDP. His suggestion is that higher taxes on the wealthy will sort that out. It won’t.

But where is the Republican that can take Obama’s weaknesses and turn them into GOP strengths? Do they have credible plans for reducing the budget deficit while at the same time coaxing quicker growth and providing the circumstances for more Americans to get jobs?

The governors in the race – Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney – have to be considered the serious candidates. (Sarah Palin, if she runs, and Michele Bachmann are the circus acts.)  But all they do is trot out the line that pleases the Tea Party consisting of slashing public spending and cutting taxes.

Pawlenty has gone off into never-never land in terms of the scale of public spending and tax cuts he wants to see – his plan has prompted groans of disbelief from the Economist magazine, hardly a publication that is in favor of Big Government or high taxes. Aside from ideologues, few respected economists see much to recommend in the bleak solutions being thrown up by the GOP candidates.

They sound like Bush the Younger when it comes to the magic of tax cuts. He claimed that “tax relief will create new jobs. Tax relief will generate new wealth. And tax relief will open new opportunities.” And how did job growth fare? Well, between pre-recessionary 2001 and 2007 America enjoyed the slowest job growth since World War II. Very impressive. And now we have the Republican candidates coming out with the same old, same old unsophisticated supply-side solutions.

Of course, taxes can be too high and in certain economic circumstances and at some points in business cycles tax cuts can be essential. The IMF is recommending them for the UK currently – and that on top of the spending reductions being planned by the coalition government in London. But for America now tax cuts would be unhelpful for economic or job growth.

Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House; and deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, has been trying to explain to his erstwhile colleagues on the right about why that is the case. His latest column in The Fiscal Times scorns Republicans for tending to talk as if there is only one factor that affects growth – namely, tax rates.

As Bartlett points out corporate investment is key when it comes to economic growth. It is worth quoting him in full:  “There’s no evidence that the 2003 tax cut did anything to stimulate corporate investment. Indeed, according to the Federal Reserve, nonfinancial corporations have increased their holdings of liquid assets to $1.8 trillion from $1.2 trillion since 2003. Thus it’s implausible that a further reduction in the corporate rate, as Pawlenty and other Republicans favor, would do much to raise investment.

“The bottom line is that neither taxes nor spending by themselves are the most important government contribution to the investment climate; it’s the budget deficit. Consequently, a reduction in tax revenue which raises the deficit is unlikely to stimulate domestic investment because more money will have to be borrowed from abroad. Conversely, a tax increase dedicated to deficit reduction could well be stimulative, as was the case with the 1982 and 1993 tax increases. Contrary to Republican dogma, rapid growth followed on both occasions.”

Ordinary voters may not think in such terms. Polls suggest that the budget deficit scares the blazes out of them — as it should. But are they going to be convinced that drastically cutting public spending pell-mell is the answer or that making America’s wealthiest people even wealthier is the way forward?

One thing, I suspect, Republicans still don’t get is that they scare the majority of voters far more with their talk of radically changing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. And their lack of a plan to overcome the clear and present danger of structural unemployment save a shrug of the shoulders and claiming tax cuts will solve everything by magically promoting economic growth just isn’t going to cut it on the stump either.

An approach that talks about public investment in infrastructure, science, technology and education, structural reforms to boost jobs and growth, the importance of savings, cutting public spending over time and not so rapidly that it will derail recovery, retraining, government in partnership with the private sector is much more likely to resonate with voters.

As the Economist has pointed out recently, the Republican “failure on the deficit” is serious. “The deficit is simply too large to close through spending cuts alone. The overall tax take – at its lowest, as a share of GDP, in decades – must eventually rise.”

Realism is something that Americans are likely to appreciate this time round more than ever. They understand that a crossroads has been reached. So far there isn’t a candidate on the GOP side who is offering honesty to counter Obama’s half-honesty.

 

 

 

Far From Over

Interesting analysis in Politico today suggesting that the House race is far from over. The suggestion is that everything has to break right for the GOP to secure the lower chamber. The Democrats still have a chance but it will depend on three factors, I suspect:

* Can the White House reframe the mid-terms into not just being a referendum on Obama and a more even contest on what the GOP is or is not offering?

* While Tea Party enthusiasm can drive conservatives to the polls will it also turn off independent and swing voters and drive them into the hands of the Democrats?

* Will Tea Party involvement energize the Democrat base?

Obama May Open a New Front But Needs Delicacy

The New York Times is reporting today that President Obama and his aides are weighing up shifting their communications tactics and to focus in the final weeks before the mid-term elections on the Tea Party. Among the ideas being considered is to launch national advertisements casting the GOP as having been taken over by the insurgency.

Speaking as a media adviser, this is, of course, exactly what they should be doing. Making out that Minority Leader John Bohener is an ogre is just not cutting it.

But if the White House does decide on this tactic it needs to be delicate.  The tone and focus has to be right. They should concentrate on some of the leaders, especially on some of the wilder social conservatives who have been successful in primary races, such as Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell. The tone has to be ridiculing and not blood-curdling. The ads also need to be understanding of the economic frustrations of ordinary Tea Partiers.

Let’s Roll — Time for Tax Cuts And More Stimulus

“The movers and shakers of our society seem…oblivious to the terrible destruction wrought by the economic storm that has roared through America.” Thus writes the New York Times’ Bob Herbert, who notes in a weekend column that “nearly 44 million people were living in poverty last year, which is more than 14 percent of the population. That is an increase of 4 million over the previous year, the highest percentage in 15 years.”

And as for the middle-class, Herbert observes, they have “hobbled for years with the stagnant incomes that accompany extreme employment insecurity” and are now in retreat. The economic fear stalking America goes far to explain the severe fall in popularity of President Obama and the rise of the Tea Party.

For all of my fears of the social conservatism that is veined through the Tea party movement, the public focus for most Tea Partiers is on the economy. But their answer is not the right one to deal.

Understandably, they blame government. It was government that gave us the runaway juggernauts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; it was home-ownership encouragement from both sides of the Washington DC political aisle that gave us sub-prime; and it was the administration of George W. Bush that believed “deficits don’t matter” and presided over the greatest splurge of public spending since Lyndon Johnson.

So, why trust government now? For the Tea Partiers it is time to get back to basics – to the U.S. Constitution, to balanced budgets, to limited government. All noble aims. For many of them, though, read “no government” when they say limited government. But this isn’t the time to say “no government” — we need it to sort out the mess it co-authored.

Unfortunately, in the same way that Tea Partiers are going back to basics and mistaking the sky-rocketing deficit as the problem, so various policy-making elites are returning to unsophisticated positions. Free market advocates are becoming more uncompromising; Keynesians more Keynesian. All are over-focused on ideology.

In this fevered political environment the administration is more timid than it should be. The U.S. needs another financial stimulus. Yes, this would add to the federal deficit but when you have cancer, to survive you need to take some poisons as therapy. Convalescence can come later.

For Republicans – and the Tea Partiers – that is heresy. For them “big government” explains the economy’s weakness, and high unemployment is evidence that the President’s fiscal stimulus failed. But this is wrong. As the Economist magazine notes, “the notion that high joblessness ‘proves’ that (the) stimulus failed is simply wrong. The mechanics of a financial bust suggest that without a fiscal boost the recession would have been much worse.”

There has been growing confidence that America will escape a double-dip recession but that is far from certain. The jobs market remains in a slump, recovery is anemic, property prices continue to fall, a further wave of home foreclosures is on the cards.

In 1937-38, fiscal and monetary contraction killed dead a recovery, sending the economy back into a prolonged slump that didn’t end until World War II.  And as Arthur Laffer argued in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year tax hikes had much to do with the problem. “The damage caused by high taxation during the Great Depression is the real lesson we should learn. A government simply cannot tax a country into prosperity.”

That lesson seems belatedly to have been absorbed by Obama aides, who are now supporting the idea of extending the Bush tax cuts, except for the top 2 percent of earners.

But this crisis is not a normal cyclical one. There are serious structural aspects to it, as the PIMCO chief executive Mohamed El-Erian has been maintaining. His point?  Policymakers must implement a “structural vision to accompany their current cyclical focus. Measures are needed to address key issues, which include the change in drivers of growth and employment creation; the high risk of skill erosion and lost labor productivity; financial deleveraging in the private sector; debt overhangs; the uncertain regulatory environment; and the unacceptably high risks facing the most vulnerable segments of society.”

El-Erian’s recommendations include “pro-growth tax reform, housing finance reform, increased infrastructure investments, greater support for education and research, job retraining programs, removal of outdated interstate competition barriers and stronger social safety nets.”

Yes, in short, a stimulus from tax cuts that can help encourage consumption and unleash animal spirits AND more public spending to get things moving more.

For the Democrats tax cuts – especially for the wealthy – are anathema. But the U.S. needs to grow its way back into prosperity. For Republicans and Tea Partiers, more government spending is just an excuse for “big government.” Of course, federal deficits will need to be curbed in the long run – preferably starting within a couple of years.

Let’s go back to El-Erian’s point about there being a structural part to this crisis and observe the labor market.

According to the GOP Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle, people who receive unemployment assistance are “spoiled.” In short, they should just get a job. Easier said than done. Americans have been used to employment snapping back after recessions. But there is clear evidence now that it isn’t just weak demand that’s responsible for stubborn unemployment but something more structural.

For example, unemployment has not fallen in the way it should have with increases in job openings. Many jobseekers do not have the skills needed by employers. This is nothing to do with being “spoiled.” Half of the eight million jobs lost in the recession were in construction and manufacturing. Many of those workers are unable to slot into jobs in education, say, or health services. Add to that the difficulty workers have now in re-locating because they owe more on mortgages than their homes are worth.

Looser monetary policy will not alleviate this problem. Libertarians  argue that government should have no role in trying to sort this out. But the free market will be too slow.

So far no single growth engine has emerged to pull the U.S. towards strong recovery. Consumer spending and business investment have been too weak. President Obama’s hope that the country can export its way to strong recovery looks forlorn. For that to happen, America’s trading partners need to be buying American goods. They aren’t. China and India are eager to head off inflation and are tightening. The PIGS economies in Southern European are cutting spending and raising taxes. So are some of the more robust EU economies, notably Britain. But unlike the European countries the U.S. has some leeway to increase public spending — the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds remains below 4%, well down from the 8% of 1990 and inflation remains weak.

So government has to seek to accelerate growth – by tax cuts, payroll tax holidays and further government spending. The debt can be focused on down the road when growth increases along with tax revenues.

Boehner the Ogre?

What on earth are White House strategists thinking by seizing on the GOP”s House leader, John Boehner, as the Republican scary pin-up to attack ahead of the mid-term elections? The Republican Minority Leader may not be to everybody’s taste but he is “a hard man to demonize,” as The Economist has pointed out. He is a mild-mannered country-club-type Republican, who even back in the mid nineties when he aligned with Newt Gingrich wasn’t one of the trusted members of the praetorian guard.

Convivial and clubby, Boehner is sociable with Democrats in the Capitol Hill watering holes. His style is not dissimilar from Bob Dole’s, another Midwestern conservative able and willing when circumstances demanded to make deals across party lines. In some ways Boehner comes across as your dad’s genial brother, ready with a crack and the offer of a drink and a cigarette. He’s also not that well-known nationally. So painting him as the ogre moderate Republicans, centrists or independents should flee from at the polling booths is unlikely to secure the Democrats much advantage.

And if the the GOP does capture the House, as opinion polls suggest consistently the party will, then Boehner is someone the Whte House will need to be able to negoiate with – that is if there isn’t going to be another nineties-style government shut-down.

Targeting Boehner strikes me as another major misstep by the White House when it comes to strategy and thinking things through. Strategic and communication errors have marked this administration almost from the start. In the first summer of this administration, President Obama and senior aides neglected to sell the health-care reform – something that still hasn’t been sold to most Americans.

From the beginning they failed to focus on the economy. No FDR-style “fireside chats,” no trying to manage expectations and to explain that recovery from the financial crisis would not be speedy (as is the case always from recessions caused by financial crashes), no preparing Americans for the long haul and no cheering of them up.

Only belatedly has the President and his senior aides started to talk about the economy. Too little and too late.

So who should the White House target? Surely, they should be highlighting the civil war underway in the GOP, pitching Republican moderates and a new generation of Tea Party-aligned ideologues. Boehner is a small-government conservative while a lot of the likely GOP freshmen are more “no-government” and this, from a strategic point-of-view, is surely what the White House should be emphasizing. Earlier this week, I argued that the GOP primary results were a godsend for the White House and Democrats but they seem to want to throw away what the Republicans give them.

Libertarians and the Tea Party — Back Off

I have to take issue with my former Cato colleague Dan Mitchell and Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman, someone who I agree with on many issues. Like them I want to see the cost of government curtailed and agree that we shouldn’t live at the expense of future generations. We would no doubt disagree on the priorities for government – I believe in a greater welfare role – but even so on the issue of reducing government we are on the same side.

But I part company with them on whether the Tea Party movement is a net plus for America. Steve and Dan maintain that it is a good thing on the grounds that “there is a growing mass of citizens who think it’s important to restrain government.”  They are prepared to overlook the fact that like any mass movement it has a “few odd characters.” Steve admits in a recent column that his first impression of the movement was: “It’s a rabidly right-wing phenomenon with a shaky grasp of history, a strain of intolerance and xenophobia, a paranoia about Barack Obama, and an unhealthy reverence for Fox News. Any movement that doesn’t firmly exclude Birchers, birthers, and Islamaphobes is not a movement for me.”

But his second impression is that “we are lucky to have them.”

I am afraid I can’t overlook “the strain of intolerance and xenophobia.” I can’t overlook the “Birchers, birthers, and Islamaphobes.” And I think it highly dangerous for libertarians, economic conservatives and small-government Democrats (yes, there are some out there) to do so. You can be for restraining government and fiscal responsibility without aligning with the Tea Party – it isn’t an either/or proposition.

American libertarians have had a tendency in the past to feel that they can ignore the racial blots and social authoritarianism of those who share their limited government/fiscal responsibility positions. It ends in tears though. Should limiting government and curtailing expenditure be more important to a libertarian or smaller government advocate than anything else, than, say, civil liberties? Surely not. The importance of both of those is intertwined with a respect for the individual, with a yearning for individual liberty, with an openness to other cultures and races or as Reason magazine’s tag would have it, “Free Minds and Free Markets.”

This tendency to overlook the bad has a lot to do with aligning with those who might be able to carry out part of the libertarian agenda. The GOP may win control of Capitol Hill in the fall, so let’s be nice to them. Libertarians formed an alliance with the Gingrich Republicans but didn’t get much out of that except Health Savings Accounts. Out of George W. Bush they got a foeign policy they were appalled out, civil liberty abuses that shocked them and the economic nonsense of Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter.”

Similar disappointment awaits them if they carry on flirting with the Tea Party. Brink Lindsay, a former Cato scholar, was right to look to the left for more appropriate allies but alas Washington DC libertarians didn’t follow.

A Good Night for the White House

There hasn’t been much to cheer up the White House in recent weeks but last night’s Tea Party upset in the GOP Senate primary in Delaware must have prompted some pretty big smiles in the West Wing. “Tea Party Scores Big,” was the Washington Post headline this morning. But the scoring is at the cost of the GOP and the headline could easily have been instead – “Big Night for the White House.”

Tea Party activists won’t feel that way. From their perspective they are shaking up politics and disproving Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dismissive interpretation of the Tea Party as just “Asrto-turf “ and “not really a grass-roots movement.” As Tea Party victor Christine O’Donnell said last night after her defeat of veteran GOP congressman Mike Castle, this is “no more politics as usual.”

Add O’Donnell’s stunning victory to the string of embarrassments the Tea Party has been handing out to the Republican establishment this year, from Alaska with Joe Miller’s trouncing of Sen. Lisa Murkowski in a primary to last spring’s Tea Party overturning of Sen. Robert Bennett at the Utah Republican state convention, and it hard for the activists to think anything but that history is with them.

Certainly there are pollsters and commentators eager to confirm that view. Writing in the Washington Examiner, pollster Scott Rasmussen and political consultant Douglas Schoen launch on a breathless paean to the Tea Party’s importance, arguing that the movement is “demonstrating a level of activism and enthusiasm that is both unprecedented and arguably unique in recent American political history.”

While they are right to castigate the press for dismissing the movement earlier this year, and while they are surely correct in arguing that the Tea Party has been “one of the most derided and minimized and, frankly, most disrespected movements in American history,” I am not so convinced that the Tea Party movement is that different from the third-party challenge of Ross Perot back in 1992.

Many of the things claimed for the Tea Party were claimed also for the Perot movement – one as inchoate  as the Tea Party. It was going to shake up politics and repaint the political landscape permanently. The activists were highly active and incredibly enthusiastic and glowing with the self-righteous  belief that their time had come. And what did it in practice do? Act as a major factor in the defeat of George Bush and the election of Bill Clinton.

And that is exactly what the Tea Party is likely to achieve. Their victories are not over the Democrats, supposedly their real foes. Their triumphs are over party allies and each time they win they are underscoring the civil war that continues to rage within the GOP, thereby weakening Republican prospects come November.

O’Donnell inadvertently revealed that when she said last night in her victory speech that, “This is more of a cause than a campaign.” Causes tend not to do too well when it comes to general and congressional elections and they can inflict incredible harm on the party they are trying to capture. The anti-war movement did no favors to the Democrats and succeeded in assisting Richard Nixon to victory in 1968. The ugly anger of the Buchanan Brigades and their challenge to Bush in the 1992 primaries only added to the hurdles the incumbent president had to try to jump.

Compare the poll numbers Rasmussen and Schoen outline in their article. One of their surveys finds nearly one quarter (24 percent) of the electorate self-identified as being members in the Tea Party movement. That’s about what the Perot movement was polling in the summer of 1992.

Admittedly, the Perot movement was taking votes and support away from the GOP; Tea Party activists claim they will bring votes to the Republicans come November. But is this really true? Most Tea Party activists vote GOP when push comes to shove and for every new vote they may attract to a Republican candidate, they will turn off an independent voter or centrist who could have been enticed to vote GOP.

Take a look at what happened to John McCain’s presidential prospects after Sarah Palin joined the ticket. Yes, he got an opinion poll jump for a few days after his pick but once the broader electorate got to know Palin more, his numbers plummeted.  She was meant to reflect McCain’s “change credentials” and help him appeal to urban women. In fact, her selection was a turning point in the campaign for the Democrats and along with the Republican crack-up was a determining factor in his win.

Senior Republicans know this. Last night, the silence from GOP Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC chairman, who issued no statement congratulating O’Donnell, was telling. O’Donnell’s win in Democrat-tilted Delaware has jeopardized the chance of the GOP in winning the Senate seat there in the fall. She is too conservative for the state and the Tea Party is too conservative for a lot of the electorate.

Earlier this week I suggested that President Obama would be hard pushed to reverse the GOP tide. Last night he might have found a new ally in the Tea Party. Yup, it was a good night for the White House.

Birthright Citizenship – To Hell with the Constitution!

So now we have a second Republican Senator calling for the “revoking” of birthright citizenship in the U.S.– in other words another GOP luminary who wants to copy progressive places such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, countries that deny citizenship — and even birth certificates — to tens of thousands of children born to foreign workers, rendering them stateless and vulnerable and at risk of a life of official non-existence.

That was the policy Germany followed until 1999, when German law was modified finally to recognize the principle of jus soli (“the right of soil”), replacing the blood connection principle that German citizenship required previously.

Before the modification, children of foreign-born workers in Germany also were rendered stateless – the law hit particularly hard the children born to hundreds of thousands of immigrant Turkish workers and did nothing to assist in integration or the calming of roiled race relations in post-War Germany. Of course, the German neo-Nazi and Aryan fantasists opposed vociferously the change in the law.

Is this German experience what Senators Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham want to repeat in the U.S.? And are they really content to follow the examples of the Kuwaitis and the Saudis?

I doubt the GOP lawmakers who are pushing for the amending/changing of the 14th amendment – nor for that matter Fox talk-show host Glenn Beck and conservative columnist George Will – are even aware of who they are aligning with overseas when it comes to citizenship rights. American Exceptionalism for them seems to be more of a matter of ignoring the rest of the World and not learning from the mistakes of others. Just bury your head in the sand and look like an oaf.

According to Will, a writer who normally thinks the Constitution should be untouchable, the 14th amendment would never have been passed “If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration.” He added in a column published last March: “Is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.”

It is odd for Will to apply “common sense” when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution – it isn’t something he cites when arguing about gun rights, for example. But his history is a tad off: there was mass immigration in the 1860s when the amendment was written and adopted and there was tremendous nativist opposition to the new wave of immigration. So it isn’t at all clear that Will’s presumption is, in fact, at all reasonable.

He rests much of his argument on the writings of Professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, who maintains that an 1884 Supreme Court decision about children born to Native American parents established that “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Well, that is pretty obvious — and the 14th amendment grants birthright citizenship.

But in a law review article, Graglia argues: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”

And so Will concludes triumphantly: “There is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”

But there is a big problem with that jump. While the mother may have been in the U.S. illegally – the child has not, unless that is we are going to start demanding passports and visas for babies carried in the womb!

Jesuitical argumentation aside, most sensible nations grant birthright citizenship and they do so because they believe that the idea that a child may be rendered stateless otherwise an appalling idea. But, of course, what is more important in the birthright citizenship debate prompted by some on the American right has more to do with electoral and internal GOP politics than anything else.

The Tea Party and Glenn Beck say jump and the conservatives within the Party ask “how high?” And the more they press on this anti-immigrant front they become the darlings of the far right reaches of America but the further they kick away from the centre – and as the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater would always tell you, the centre is where you win elections.