For students who are new to the state or checked out from following the news this summer, Arizona has endured a maelstrom of political controversy thanks to a tough new immigration law and an unelected governor’s Sarah Palin-styled comments about beheadings down at the border.
Because of SB 1070 and other Republican-backed measures, Arizona has been in the spotlight of national attention, bringing legions of cable news crews to town. The talking heads certainly aren’t coming for our beautiful weather. According to the Arizona Tourism Board, revenue from state visitors fell 10 percent in 2009.
Arizona is making headlines for immigration crackdowns, lawsuits with the federal government, injunctions, murmurs about seceding from the union and all the unrest associated with mass civil disobedience.
If these topics sound like reoccurring themes from U.S. history class, you’re paying attention. They’re likely familiar to President Obama, regarded as a patient student of history.
So why hasn’t he learned from his predecessors that harming relations between states and the federal government generally isn’t a recipe for success?
Abraham Lincoln is regarded for his efforts to preserve the union, going as far as to say in an 1862 letter to newspaperman Horace Greeley, “If I could save the Union without freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it.”
For all the comparisons made between Lincoln and Obama, many of the struggles with Arizona are self-inflicted wounds.
Obama wouldn’t be dealing with any of this if he had the foresight to see that selecting Gov. Janet Napolitano to be the Secretary of Homeland Security might have a huge ripple effect on not just Arizona politics but the national conversation on immigration reform.
This seemingly small, innocuous decision has created a headache likely to hurt the Democratic Party more than anything his administration has done during his term.
By virtue of being a liberal, Obama favors a large federal government and has worked tirelessly to pass big bailouts, dish out more money for schools and extend health care coverage. Meanwhile, Arizona legislators have taken steps to increase frugality toward things like education, and social conservatives have pushed through new abortion and gun laws since Gov. Jan Brewer succeeded Napolitano in January 2009. They’re enjoying an unobstructed path to the goal line.
Napolitano used to exist as a roadblock for the right wing lawmakers because of her veto power (issuing a record-breaking amount in 2006), and was named as one of the top five U.S. governors in 2005 by Time magazine.
Conservative lawmakers who passed their agendas in the House and Senate could never muster enough support to override Napolitano’s vetoes, and the power of checks and balances kept Arizona peaceful and the rabid talking heads at bay.
Now, more than a year and a half into Brewer’s term, we have the federal government suing us amid her claims of violent illegal immigrant-related beheadings, a claim refuted by The Arizona Guardian. We have an economy that has cratered, made worse by boycotts.
Yet Obama could have prevented this, and should have seen it coming with names like Pearce and Arpaio salivating at the opportunity to have a conservative governor on their side. Bad things tend to happen to you when the opposing party has a strangling grip on all branches of government.
Of course, the whole situation could be remedied if Arizona created a lieutenant governor position, but clear-headed politics and the Grand Canyon State seem to make for strange bedfellows.
Dustin welcomes new ASU students to the Wild West of Arizona politics. Reach him at dustin.volz@asu.edu
