This week’s readings are topically distinct, focusing on the process of border militarization, racial construction, and explaining floor votes, respectively. One thread I’ve noticed through this week, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be a direct line from voter preferences to Congressional floor votes to real-world outcomes; partisan politics and industry lobbying seem more relevant when explaining outcomes. Casellas and Leal (2013) find party to be the best explainer, and Massey’s article (and lecture) suggest[s] the prison-industrial complex may have had more influence on border policy than a careful analysis of the expected outcomes.
This FiveThirtyEight article from today (Wednesday) discusses the Trump Administration’s legal battles with the courts over sanctuary cities. The main point is that it is still politically advantageous for the President to fight losing policy battles because such fights are a signal to his base. The article details other occasions where this calculus has played out.
Thinking about political battles this way puts the whole border wall battle in a new perspective for me, and makes me wonder: is it all about signaling? (This applies for both parties.) More generally, under a paradigm where partisanship dominates floor votes (suggesting issues all cluster together), where is the line from constituents’ preferences to Congressional votes? How can we disentangle the various mechanisms in such a polarized environment?
The unfavorable decision by the federal appeals court is not as influential or consequential for Trump’s base as his original action to withhold federal law-enforcement funds for sanctuary cities. I believe, as Ilya Shapiro—who was mentioned in the article—said, the decision by the Trump administration to go ahead with the legal fight is simply an attempt to push the anti-immigration narrative and to publicly display his firm, restrictive, and nationalistic platform. It seems as though Trump is bolstering his strong stance against immigration, simply doubling down, after calling the national emergency for the southern border wall and previously attempting to take down DACA. It’s also interesting how Trump is taking an issue fundamentally about federal versus states’ rights, as the courts have ruled, and is twisting it in a a way to be about immigration policy. Even though the courts may prevent him from succeeding in his ultimate immigration goals, his voters will see his efforts and will be pleased to know that, despite the legal losses, at least he’s trying. I think the article is right in suspecting this move will be successful politically in the long-run.