A simple proposition: The chief measure of the worth of the new Democratic Congress is whether or not it launches impeachment hearings against Bush. Due to the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush administration, we were deceived into a war of unprovoked aggression having nothing to do with national security, hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a consequence on a scale that, if it were anywhere else, would invite the term "genocide," the United States has become the world's torturer-in-chief, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions and therefore U.S. law, and Bush's non-judicially reviewed domestic surveillance programs violate basic constitutional protections. Etc, etc.

Now that they have the whip hand, the Dems must pursue impeachment, regardless of political calculations. Otherwise they will quite actively be joining in these crimes, won't they?

Maybe not. What does everyone else think?

Should we sacrifice the citizen to save the city?

1) Let’s take as a given that at the lower end of the economic scale, at least a small number Americans are hurt by the presence of millions of low-wage illegal workers, most of whom have entered the country since the 1986 “regularization.” For example, I’m thinking here of the formerly middle-class construction and meatpacking jobs that paid over $20 an hour with benefits in the 1970s (equivalent to well over $30 an hour today) that now pay $8 or $9 an hour with no benefits, mainly due to the presence of illegals.

2) Let’s also take as a given that the law of supply and demand works, and that an increased supply of low-skill, poorly educated laborers will make it less likely that the plight of American workers at the bottom of the scale can ever be effectively addressed. Again, the 1986 regularization of illegals is instructive. We’ve certainly seen no surge in wages or unionization since then.

3) Then let’s take not as a given but as a likelihood that some form of amnesty for illegal migrants will draw in many more. Again, look at 1986.

Taking all this into account, if we grant amnesty or earned legalization to illegal migrants, aren’t we sacrificing the citizen (the perhaps small number of Americans directly hurt by the past 20 years of large-scale illegal immigration) to save the city (exercise broad compassion for illegals and realize some small overall economic benefit for the American economy)?

Didn’t these Americans—even though they are a small and fairly powerless minority, and perhaps especially because of that--have every right to expect that our border and immigration laws would be enforced (even more so after 1986) so they could compete on a level playing field in the labor market? Like the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II, these Americans had every right to expect the law to protect them as well as it protects the rest of us.

The country failed in the 1940s, and we risk failing another subset of Americans now, though they’re much less visible and identifiable.

To think of it another way, put it in the framework of eminent domain. If a city needs to build a new airport but neighborhoods have to be torn down to clear the way, the homeowners are compensated for the loss of their property but also for the loss of their rights to that property. Here we’re depriving certain Americans of their rights--to secure borders and a fair labor market--but without the compensation.

There are powerful utilitarian arguments for amnesty/legalization, with compassion, practicality and even a weak economic appeal all on that side of the equation. The compassion argument is especially strong. The pro-amnesty side can point to the many millions of illegal workers who would otherwise endure great poverty in Mexico and Central American without access to the U.S. labor market. How, they ask to great effect, can we deny them that chance?

It's a good, legitimate question. It reveals a broad, enlightened and admirably all-embracing regard for global humanity.

But it's also selective. It doesn't account for the much smaller but equally legitimate interests of American citizens who have rights and pay a direct, heavy, unacknowledged and never-to-be-compensated price for the enlightenment and compassion of others. The pro-amnesty side makes a compelling case, but it needs to own this inconvenient fact as well.

A new study published in JAMA compares the health of middle-aged Americans and Brits and shows that, even though we shell out more than twice as much per capita for medical care, Americans are far less healthy.

.

Does this help make the case for universal health care? Yes, but if that's all we get out of it (and that's a lot), I think we'll be missing possibly the most important conclusion to be drawn.

.

In the Associated Press version of the story, an expert is quoted as saying that if you look at all the quantifiable health factors that separate Brits and Americans, none of them either alone or together are likely to account for the differences in outcomes. The one factor that might, however, is harder to measure: stress.

.

If that's the case, it would mesh nicely with other studies that show Americans, who used to be among the tallest people in the developed world, are now the shortest. There was a good piece on this in The New Yorker a few months back. Contrary to what you'd think, genetics have little to do with height across large populations. The key factors are nutrition and stress at the three key growth periods early in life.

Thus, Dutchmen are now the tallest people in the world, with an average male height of 6-foot-1, followed closely by Scandinavians at a fraction over 6 feet and Germans at a bit under 6 feet. American men average 5-foot-9 1/2, where we've been stuck for more than a century. American women average out at 5-foot-4. Of course, what we lack in stature we make up in girth, but that's another matter.

.

Stress, some might argue, is part of the essence of the American experience. I guess I can see that, but I can't agree that it's somehow desirable or unalterable. In any event, there ought to be some point or some positive outcome to justify the burden of the added stress. If the pre-eminent result is that we're less healthy, less productive and more inclined to invade the odd nation on flimsy pretexts, it's hardly reason to wave the flag.

Let me commence this blog with a simple idea. There has been an extended discussion on TPMCafe of the "common good," with many writers embracing this as an appeal that the Democrats should somehow return to after decades in the wilderness of multicultural and identity politics. I'll go along with this in a general way, but it seems to me that we'll encounter quite a substantial stumbling block very quickly on that path.

.

One of the salient features of Democratic politics, at least since John Kennedy, has been the idea that if you ask people to make sacrifices, they'll respond, often enthusiastically. Contained in the notion of sacrifice is the kernel of the common good. In fact, if you appeal to the common good without asking for sacrifice, it sounds phony or cheap.

.

Since Kennedy, however, liberals have had a rather more selective notion of this, too often asking sacrifice of some but not others. Some examples:

.

1) Busing. South Boston is emblematic here, as someone very near and dear to me with close experience of the situation has noted. When the judge ordered that white children be bused, they weren't the kids from good schools in upper-class neighborhoods. They were from Southie.

.

2) Affirmative action. The students who clear the academic bar but are not admitted to elite schools because of affirmative action are seldom rich or well-connected. Most often they're students from middle-class or working-class families.

.

3) Illegal immigration. If we grant that this has been an overall benefit to our economy, we still have to acknowledge that many Americans at the lower end of the economic scale have been hurt because government has deliberately refused to enforce the law. Thus we see wages in certain industries that used to pay middle-class wages of $20 an hour or more in the 1970s (equivalent to $30 or more now) falling to $8 or $9 an hour, with no benefits. This is like a taking in eminent domain, but with no compensation.

.

4) The "volunteer" military. Keep in mind here that young people who enter the military are sworn to defend their country. But then, most often, if they see any action, it's in some faraway land that has little or, more likely, nothing to do with our security. Think Panama, Grenada, Somalia and Kosovo as well as Vietnam and Iraq. A lot of these interventions would never have happened if kids like the Bush twins and Chelsea Clinton had to serve their time in uniform.

.

Common to all this is the deep notion among the elites that they have ideals, perfectly sound and unassailable ideals, for which OTHER people must make sacrifices. Americans, I believe, have long since caught on to this.

.

I saw Joe Klein on C-SPAN this weekend, and he addressed a related point. I can't remember just how he phrased it, but the essence of it was that Republican candidates have very simple instructions for their campaign consultants: How do I get my message out. Democrats, on the other hand, have to ask their campaign people: How do I get my message out but finesse it in such a way that I don't turn everyone off.

.

This sounds odd when you consider that voters are with the Dems on issue after issue, but it makes more sense in light of the fact even though the Republicans are polling very low, the Democrats are, too. They don't benefit from the rock-bottom esteem for Bush and the GOP.

.

And this goes to what Klein (I think) and I are talking about--the absence of a core belief or narrative. I'm just trying to go a step beyond that and say that the core narrative (the common good) is there, it's just inaccessible to Dems. And that's because there's a big, damned barrier in the way, built brick by brick from the items enumerated above. Dems have too often asked just certain Americans to make sacrifices--usually Americans least well-provisioned in life to give up anything.

.

With the exception of busing, Dems are not about to give up any part of this agenda.