Do I Actually See Glimmers of a Sensible Center-Right?

Looking for hopeful signs from the recent election, I see three.  First, as I understand it, the main target of really hardcore MAGA types were school boards, and they seem to have had quite limited success there.  Second, where Republicans did lose, they conceded defeat, even if some delayed more than would be ideal (see New Jersey). And finally, Republicans winning (as in Virginia) put a crimp stories of rigged elections. So there is some room to hope that Donald Trump's behavior is the product of a deranged personality, rather than a general new tactic.

And now I am seeing some faint glimmers of a sensible center-right in Congress.  Some are reaching out on immigration.  The article mentions Maria Elvira Salazar, a Cuban-American freshman Representative proposing legal status, though not citizenship; Dan Newhouse, a Republican Representative from Washington State, co-sponsoring legal status for farm laborers with progressive Democrat Zoe Lofgren; and on the Senate side Republican Michael Crapo of Idaho working on a similar bill and John Cornyn proposing legal status for DREAMers.  

Obviously, Republicans are motivated by self-interest, in this case, the hope to attract more Hispanic voters to the Republican side.  But so what?  That is normal politics, after all.  Senate Republicans agreed to cooperate with Democrats on infrastructure in hopes of thwarting Build Back Better.  Democrats denounced such attempts as evil, but really they were just ordinary politics.  Offering the other side some of what it wants in hopes of persuading it to settle for less than everything is well within normal behavior for a loyal opposition. Nor should it be surprising that Republicans are softening their opposition to giving citizenship to Latin American immigrants once they can expect more of them to vote Republican.

My advice to Democrats, honestly, is to take it. The immigration provisions are sure to be stripped out of Build Back Better by the Senate parliamentarian, and Joe Manchin may spike the whole thing anyhow.  Settling for part of what you want is better than holding out for everything and getting nothing. It give Joe Biden and Democrats a win on an issue that is broadly popular.  It may, indeed, win more Hispanic/Latino votes for Republicans, but it will also serve to split the party and provoke quarrels between the hardcore nativist base and the more immigration-friendly moderate.  The cries of outrage from Marjorie Taylor Green alone make such a measure worth supporting.

The other article deals with climate change and the growing realization that it is real and has to be dealt with and reports that "scores of Republicans" are seeking to claim a middle ground between Trump and Biden on greenhouse gases.

In a conservative caucus founded by Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah, the Republicans say they know how to move voters off fossil fuels and argue for a climate policy that continues use of natural gas in particular.

They emphasize trees, as well as carbon capture technology that has yet to be developed to scale, to capture climate-damaging emissions.

“We know we must reduce emissions. Now let's have a thoughtful conversation about how we go about it,” Curtis said in a panel with other U.S. lawmakers at Glasgow. “And that's, that's a new place, I think, for us.”

Indeed, it is.  As the article comments, it goes against Republican policy as recently as the Trump Administration.  

Unlike proposals on immigration, these appear to be addressed to the indefinite future, but should be promoted as far as possible in the here and now.  Republicans have complained, with considerable justification, that the Green New Deal is more a grab bag of Democratic priorities than a serious attempt to address climate change.  What they have not offered is a sensible center-right alternative, just denial.  Jonathan Chait has proposed that a sensible center-right climate policy might mean more emphasis on nuclear power and expansion of carbon-capture technology.  If select Republicans are proposing natural gas and carbon capture instead -- well a debate on how to save the planet is a whole lot healthier than a debate on whether the save the planet, and the same political considerations apply to this as to immigration.

Granted, I would still have preferred Republicans willing to take the truly radical step of acknowledging the results of the 2020 election and denouncing any attempt to overturn it.  And I still believe that the (substantive) issues are not the issue; the survival of democracy is.*  Nonetheless, the more (select) Republicans are willing to cooperate with Democrats, the more they legitimate Democrats' presence in the government.  That alone is important.  And if (as I believe) we need as broad a coalition as possible of pro-democracy forces, then it makes sense to cooperate with Republicans to the extent possible, even if it means getting less than we want.  That, too, is normal politics.

_________________________________________________

*Although, of course, the survival of the planet is even more important that the survival of democracy.