Every Thursday, the Spy hosts a conversation with Al From and Craig Fuller on the most topical political news of the moment.
This week, From and Fuller discuss the politics and the realities of immigration as a campaign issue in 2024 as House Republicans use the border crisis to block Ukraine war funding. Al and Craig also trade thoughts on how viable Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations are as his legal woes continue to plague the former president.
This video podcast is approximately sixteen minutes in length.
To listen to the audio podcast version, please use this link:
Background
While the Spy’s public affairs mission has always been hyper-local, it has never limited us from covering national, or even international issues, that impact the communities we serve. With that in mind, we were delighted that Al From and Craig Fuller, both highly respected Washington insiders, have agreed to a new Spy video project called “The Analysis of From and Fuller” over the next year.
The Spy and our region are very lucky to have such an accomplished duo volunteer for this experiment. While one is a devoted Democrat and the other a lifetime Republican, both had long careers that sought out the middle ground of the American political spectrum.
Al From, the genius behind the Democratic Leadership Council’s moderate agenda which would eventually lead to the election of Bill Clinton, has never compromised from this middle-of-the-road philosophy. This did not go unnoticed in a party that was moving quickly to the left in the 1980s. Including progressive Howard Dean saying that From’s DLC was the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
From’s boss, Bill Clinton, had a different perspective. He said it would be hard to think of a single American citizen who, as a private citizen, has had a more positive impact on the progress of American life in the last 25 years than Al From.”
Al now lives in Annapolis and spends his semi-retirement as a board member of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University (his alma mater) and authoring New Democrats and the Return to Power. He also is an adjunct faculty member at Johns Hopkins’ Krieger School and recently agreed to serve on the Annapolis Spy’s Board of Visitors. He is the author of “New Democrats and the Return to Power.”
For Craig Fuller, his moderation in the Republican party was a rare phenomenon. With deep roots in California’s GOP culture of centralism, Fuller, starting with a long history with Ronald Reagan, leading to his appointment as Reagan’s cabinet secretary at the White House, and later as George Bush’s chief-of-staff and presidential campaign manager was known for his instincts to find the middle ground. Even more noted was his reputation of being a nice guy in Washington, a rare characteristic for a successful tenure in the White House.
Craig has called Easton his permanent home for the last five years, where now serves on the boards of the Academy Art Museum, the Benedictine School, and Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum. He also serves on the Spy’s Board of Visitors.
With their rich experience and long history of friendship, now joined by their love of the Chesapeake Bay, they have agreed through the magic of Zoom, to talk inside politics and policy with the Spy every Thursday.
Chris Gordon says
I never miss the From and Fuller show at the Spy. It’s such a refreshing respite to hear two well informed, thoughtful, sensible political opponents discuss the issues of the day in good faith.
I want to add one comment to today’s discussion about immigration. There are help wanted signs up all over town. I don’t think we’re the exception. Immigrants aren’t just to be welcomed because it’s right thing to to. They’re needed. Desperately,. By business owners, farmers, store owners, building contractors, landscapers. We need immigration reform that will make it easier to relocate immigrants at the border to where they’re needed.
Thanks Dave, Craig and Al for your contributions to the national discourse.
Beryl Smith says
Yes, there have indeed been some useless or less scrupulous immigrants through the years. Donald Trump’s grandfather was one of those and one might also recognize that 2 of Trump’s 3 wives were immigrants. But then, he differentiates between those he married or descended from and all others. How very discriminating.
Thank you Craig and Al for your very clear thinking and explanations.
David A Turner says
My word, Thursday’s broadcast resembles Brooks-and-Capehart on PBS Evening News. It was full of new thinking and concepts. Nice discussion, not much balance.
You three focused on the role migration plays in the development of our great democratic nation. None of what you said is untrue.
But, especially since Lyndon’s immigration policy revisions in 1968, the impact on our nation may not be altogether as palliative as the more historical trends you surfaced. Craig sites an over-used stat about immigrant criminals. More crime is committed by longstanding elements of American society than by new immigrant populations. Well, yes.
In his book, Human Diversity (reviewed by Washington Post), Charles Murray provides numerous statistics. Among them, he pins down the makeup and demographics of American violent criminal groups compared to the demographics of migrants who proved to be criminals since 1968. His findings are not pretty, and can’t be fashionable in liberal circles. Two demographic groups stand out, noticeably, as gravitating toward violent US criminal society.
Hispanics’ criminal statistics are slightly higher than that of most other Americans and the same among different immigrant groups. So is the Black criminal demographic. An example: 1980 proved a critical year in the migration of criminals from Haiti and Cuba. In the Cuban Miriel exodus, one type of Cuba’s demographic stood out criminally, far beyond other types of Cuban refugees. Certainly not all, but lots of that group were immediately identified as various kinds of criminals among Florida’s new arrivals. Stats about the rush of Haitian migrants that same year duplicated the phenomenon.
My point is that we don’t eventually enjoy goodness and light after every migrant event. And the current one is massive. Already, anecdotal evidence indicates tragedy may be exploding among today’s international (Haiti, Venezuela, Panama) migrants arriving along our Texas border. Most notoriously those shipped off to NYC. Similar problems in Texas are largely ignored by our myopic national media. Who would care, except us Texans? Californians accept such East Coast distain with more grace. To me, it rankles.
The election: Dwelling on the ever present, painful impact and inequities that migration can produce here may not be the point. But former President Trump’s inevitable surfacing of his screeds will be uncomforable. He is no statistician, nor is he thoughtful enough to have reviewed Murray’s writings. I believe American voters are capable and adept at grasping the true meaning of any warning signs. Is it herd wisdom or, as is so often asserted by national critics, tribal prejudice? Y’all’s assurances that “all is well, all is inevitable, move along…” come from a good place. But is it mostly hope?
Also, I’m still wondering about Craig’s poll that most Americans want (unbridled?) immigration. I’d like to see how that question was framed. Did the poll precede the current storm?
And could a combined issue of migration and crime — merged into a single threat — criminal migrants — have legs in the 2024 presidential race? Especially if the new migrants’ criminal proclivities prove less and less palatable between now and November? Just asking. We’re not talking about the number and impact of Portuguese immigration to the U.S. since WWII.
As Craig said last month, it’s just too early to tell. That is the most salient point you’ve made this year. We could all be dining on egg by November. I’m planning on it. I noticed Al predicted Biden would win. But I’m following Craig’s advice re. my own prediction.
And Al, thanks for the shout-out.
The Chestertown Spot