Why do we pretend that obviously related conversations are separate issues?
Framing a discussion to one's own benefit is a key goal of advocacy (for anything), right? Does it follow, then, that our unevolving framework for discussing certain problems represents a failure of advocacy? Or do sides just agree not to talk about certain things? For instance, why is discussion of public health divorced completely from the health insurance debate? Why is discussion of immigration reform divorced from discussion of labor law and wages generally?
Regarding the latter question, I've wondered if that separation represents some kind of compromise between labor activists and advocates for a permissive immigration regime, who represent different wings of the Democratic party. For the sake of maintaining the alliance, have they chosen to resist efforts by the Right to divide them with the argument that immigrants are "taking American jobs?"
[Insert boilerplate complaint about the two-party system.]
Addendum: It just occurred to me that regarding the issue of immigration, a similar pact of silence must exist on the Right. That is, a pact between the racist/isolationist/xenophobic Right, which would tend to oppose immigration generally, and big agriculture and food production companies, which benefit enormously from undocumented labor and low wages.
No comments:
Post a Comment