Elected political leaders often confuse support with popularity. They think that espousing views that correspond to the least common denominator of public understanding and opinion is the key to political success. And, regrettably it often is, at least in the short term.
The public is not deeply concerned with immigration policy. It is far down a list of concerns headed by the economy. For example, Gallup has asked Americans for many years "What is the nation's most important problem?" At four points in 2013, immigration never was named by more than 6 percent of those polled.
Nor is the public knowledgeable about the shifting details of the many debates that flair up and appear to flame out before they take their place as background information for those who follow this issue more closely.
To take but one example, it would be surprising if the general public knew that the "back taxes" that illegal immigrants were supposed to pay as part of their penalty for gaining legalized status, and that advocates touted as showing that legalization was not really an amnesty, turned out to be untrue. In May 2013 Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the Gang of Eight, revealed that this major advocate talking point was not strictly or even generally true.
Even after that news broke, major Republican-leaning newspaper pundits like Karl Rove, who favored the Senate's plan, were still touting the "illegal aliens will pay back taxes" misinformation.
There are some important polling and public debate lessons in the "pay back taxes" analysis, but here I want to underscore just one having to do with courage, confidence, and convictions.
There are very strong reasons to believe 1) that the public is ambivalent about the Senate immigration bill, to say the least; 2) that there is a fair amount of misinformation and lack of up-to-date information about the bill's contents and implication; and therefore, 3) there is a fair amount of room to inform the public.
This assumes that the public would like an immigration reform bill that is not built on trading group interests for public interests, and that if better informed about the details of what is really at issue they would chose the latter rather than the former.
This in turn places a responsibility on those in the House and Senate who are trying to bring a public interest approach to immigration reform. They must:
- Be able to see beyond the various debate talking points to the real public issues at hand;
- Be informed at some level of detail about the various issues involved. Talking points, even, if in the public interest, are no substitute for real knowledge;
- Have developed convictions about the specific issues and the right mix of legislative elements that are most likely to bring about real public interest immigration reform legislation; and
- Be able to stand their ground, directly and unequivocally, against misinformation, mischaracterization, and substantive shallow talking points.
All of these are essential if the immigration debate is going to have a public interest representation worthy of its name.
Having the courage of your convictions comes from being willing to stand up for your beliefs and, if necessary, stand apart, in giving voice to them.
Having confidence in one's convictions comes from having thought them through and honed them in response to knowledge and understanding and in the cauldron of debate.
We have a few good examples of what this involves in the recent experiences of Idaho Republican Rep. Raul Labrador.
Next: Rep. Paul Labrador and the Courage of Immigration Convictions
