It's not about the centrism, for me, it's about the risk reward ratio.
I don't see centrism as the key factor in the immigration question, either. To me all programs are first and foremost about feasibility. If it's not feasible, risk/reward is irrelevant.
I'm not advocating a centrist approach to immigration, in general, nor Bush's approach, in particular. Actually, I don't think Bush's approach is feasible, as it would likely be implemented. That's me from the systems perspective.
But this is a political thread about centrism as a political approach so you'd think that, when the pres actually does something centrist for a change, the thread might remark about that approach either in the contest of or independent of the issue to which he's applied it. At least I would. I understand your explanation as applies to you, though. My observation wasn't directed at you in particular.
Politics and systems analysis are inherently in conflict. Designing a feasible system by committee is a fool's errand. What might work in this case is politically unlikely although I continue to be on the lookout for a miracle. Mostly, though, my remaining questions re what's on the table for immigration is would it be better to do something that won't work or better not to do anything. So maybe that's risk/reward after all, but a pessimistic version of it. More like risk/risk. <g> |
