Earlier, I was complaining that New York’s new Senator-select, Kristin Gillibrand, has a right-wing track record on immigration issues. Now that she’s serving the entire state, however, she’s learned the error of her ways with impressive rapidity:
And so often now, Ms. Gillibrand stands ready to “evolve” — that decorous political verb of choice — on policy questions. At present, the senator is evolving at a particularly rapid rate on immigration, an issue on which she had favored tough enforcement. She now inclines to the view that “cowboy” tactics in immigration raids are uncivilized.
“These stories are terrible,” she said Monday morning at a meeting in Lower Manhattan with the Hispanic Federation, which represents major social service agencies. “It’s disturbing to who we are as Americans.”
This is a woman who co-sponsored the SAVE Act, which was an act which — even according to those who supported it — was meant to make things hard on undocumented immigrants so they’d “self-deport.” But now she’s shocked, shocked!, that laws intended to make life hard on immigrants, make life hard on immigrants.
On Sunday, Ms. Gillibrand said she no longer favored branding immigrant-friendly cities such as New York as “sanctuary cities” and denying them federal tax benefits. On Monday, she no longer favored deputizing police officers as immigration officers.
“It’s not so much of changing my view as broadening,” Ms. Gillibrand said. […]
“Clearly, there was a disconnect in her view of immigration until now,” said Lillian Rodríguez López, president of the Hispanic Federation. “We just hope that her views are really changing, and that she puts votes where words are.”
She shrugs. “It’s an imperfect world, what can I say?”
Gillibrand seems almost hilariously unprincipled — not that people can’t change their minds, of course, but the swiftness and political convenience of her “broadening” here is almost embarrassing. Still, I’d much rather the new Senator be flip-floppy than have her be anti-immigrant.
It remains to be seen how she votes. But even if she votes the right way once she’s in the senate — and I suspect she will — I still would have preferred a passionate advocate of pro-migrant policies, rather than a convert with her eye on statewide demographics.
(Actually, it’s possible that she’ll now be a much more reliable pro-immigrant vote than someone with a better track record would have been, since she knows that she doesn’t have any credibility built up.)
This bit is also notable:
Ms. Gillibrand is a mother of two boys, ages 5 years and 8 months. When inquiring about work, home life and the strains of her new job, a reporter notes that he hopes he would ask the same question of an ambitious male politician with young children.
She chuckles.
“You wouldn’t, but that’s O.K.,” she said. “My women friends ask each other these questions all the time.”
She’s being too nice — but good for her for pointing out that a male politician wouldn’t be asked the same question.
I think it’s interesting the line that politicians walk between personal integrity/beliefs and representing their district. My interpretation of Gillibrand’s actions as you’ve described them would be that she didn’t really have much of a personal position on or connection to immigrant issues, so she took the view that was politically expediant/representative of her constituency. And I don’t know to what extent I think that is something to be criticized (viewed negatively, as opposed to discussed; I don’t mean to suggest that it shouldn’t be discussed).
I think all of us have issues that are more dear to our hearts and issues that for whatever reason don’t personally move us the same way. Politicians are required to take positions on almost everything, and if I were in that position, I think I would probably use a person or organization I trust as a proxy for deciding on a position, since it’s impossible to know everything about everything (though depending on the size of your staff…).
I guess the thing about Gillibrand in this situation is that she didn’t just take a back seat on immigration issues in the House, or just follow her party leadership on the issue. She was apparently active and rather extreme (at least for a Democrat) in her views, which makes this “evolution” look more politically crass and less like a true evolution of views.
(Actually, it’s possible that she’ll now be a much more reliable pro-immigrant vote than someone with a better track record would have been, since she knows that she doesn’t have any credibility built up.)
Imho, this is a bad thing. Somebody who is genuinely pro-immigration will have a nuanced view on the subject, which is a far better option than somebody who will greenlight any pro-immigration bill simply because her constituency will support it.
the senator is evolving at a particularly rapid rate
Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. If we’re talking biological evolution. Which, of course we aren’t. But the misuse of the term still annoys me.
At present, the senator is evolving at a particularly rapid rate on immigration,
From my viewpoint, a better term would be “prostituting”. God forbid that a politician would put principle over position.
She chuckles. “You wouldn’t, but that’s O.K.,” she said. “My women friends ask each other these questions all the time.”
Despite Gillibrand’s possible failings as a principled politician, one thing I do really like about her is that she doesn’t have a chip on her shoulder. This makes her the opposite of someone like Palin, who when asked a fairly innocuous question like, “What newspapers and magazines do you read regularly?” (presumably to see if she’s the slightly mouth-foamy National Review type, the more decorous neocon Weekly Standard type, genuinely moderate Economist type, etc.), flipped out and declared that Couric was assuming that Alaska didn’t have newspapers. Gillibrand knows she’s upstate NY, knows that people don’t know her name, knows that female politicians with young children get scrutiny their male counterparts don’t. She takes these things in stride.
It’s a personal quality that I appreciate, and that I think stems from non-arrogant self-confidence: she’s a smart person who’s always been surrounded by other smart people (as opposed to being the smartest person she knows), and she feels secure in her achievements — she became a partner at David Boies’s firm at the age of 35 — without feeling the need to overstate or exaggerate them.
Like Emily, I’m confused what is bad about this.
I hate people who REFUSE to change their positions based on new input and new knowledge. If we don’t think this change is good, then what? Does that mean we shouldn’t engage in any lobbying for causes we believe in, because if we actually win then the politician involved will just be mocked for it?
When you say:
I don’t know about that. Position changes are (should be) possibly huge when you get data which is significantly different from the data you were looking at before.
Sailorman,
What exactly is the “new input and new knowledge” she’s getting, other than the fact that the positions held by New Yorkers as a whole aren’t the same as the positions held within her upstate congressional district?
As I said, she seems pretty smart. If she co-sponsored SAVE without finding out what the bill does, my opinion of her intelligence — and her competence and sense of responsibility as a member of Congress — will nosedive.
Pingback: Why are we bankrupt? - TDR Roundtable