"Republican Civil War?"

There's a phrase going around in political circles these days. "Republican Civil War."

    Is it accurate?  Yes and no. It's really only accurate depending on how you define the Republican Party. If the Republican party we're talking about is the pre-1980 party of monopoly busting, civil rights pushing, battling-for-the-everyman party that supported a strong preventative military, compromise that best served both majority and minority, and governmental intervention wherever it saw the rights of other citizens threatened by threats either domestic or foreign...then yeah. Sure.

    This description of the party war doesn't exactly speak to the changes that came with President Reagan, though. Considered by many to be the founder of the modern Republican Party (and He whose name is invoked whenever reciting a core principle of the new Party, whether in context or not) he seems to be the latest figure that Republicans can agree on: the moderates because of his moderate stances and bipartisan victories, and the radicals because his rhetoric birthed their movement.  The right-wing populist movement known as the Tea Party may not have gained a name or national notoriety until President Obama came into office in the most brutal months of the Great Recession, but the seeds of the movement were planted in the 1980 election, when we were told that government itself was the cause of our problems, and that the solution would have to come from elsewhere.

    Every party has radical elements within it, though usually they are marginalized into obscurity after brief moments in the spotlight. This has not been the case with the Tea Party. Armed with divisive but catchy rhetoric, backed by myriad affluent donors, and given the spotlight time and again by various news organizations, Tea Party candidates ascended rapidly while moderate establishment Republicans were toppled left and right, from offices both local and national.

    For the last couple years, we've seen a very curious dance being played out on the national stage. Many Republicans have been lifted high on the shoulders of the Tea Party only to be brought down just as quickly at any perceived betrayal. Radical conservatism is a jealous goddess, one who seems to have tried many aspiring heroes only to cast them aside in favor of the next figure who talks a little louder and seems to hate government just a little more.

    Establishment Republicans seem to be riding on little more than the loyalty of their home districts in the face of their own party's disillusionment. Men who were once considered champions of the party have been all but ostracized for their existing views that are considered too moderate, too lukewarm, not aggressive enough against the mutually despised Democrats. A few names come to mind: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, George Bush (Sr and Jr), John Boehner, Eric Cantor and even Paul Ryan and John Coryn.  Really?  John Coryn, one of the most conservative Senators in the nation?

    Other than three relatively new senators, (Paul, Cruz, and Rubio) each having difficulty proving themselves as capable leaders to the national party, there isn't yet a figure for the Tea Party to rally around...at least not a living one, and the less said about how the historical Reagan is being twisted into a caricature of himself by the modern Party, the better.

    So what does it say when all the establishment leaders of a party are being derided by their base? The current Republican landscape seems to have much more in common with France in revolution than it does with the American Civil War.

    In this new Republican Party, the Speaker of the House is considered spineless by those on his right for his initial refusal to take the government hostage. In this Party, a former vice presidential candidate is considered collaborating with the enemy for forging a budget compromise with Democrats.  In this Party, the name of John McCain can barely be spoken without a hint of either amusement, ire, or disgust...yet had he won the election in 2008, it’s entirely possible he would still be our president today.  

    (Perhaps the greatest oddity of all is that McCain's vice presidential candidate was arguably the least intellectually qualified person ever to run on a presidential ticket, but having stayed true to her more manic stances she is still oft-lauded and frequently consulted in conservative and Republican-friendly media.)

    So going forward: is the Republican Party going to find a leader? Will someone arise from the radical wings to drag the establishment leaders to the political guillotine? Or will a more moderate establishment leader stand strong against the Tea Party and somehow manage to force them into obscurity?

    Historically, the Democrats are the ones who seem divided on the issues. The joke reads: "I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat.”  That the Republican party is now so fractious as to make the Democrats appear united on most issues should be enough to raise anyone's eyebrow.

    This isn't to say that any one group of ideals in the party should win out against any other. The Tea Party is just as legitimate in its fervor against government bloat and corruption as the establishment is in its desire to work out mutually beneficial compromise with the Democrats.  That said, a gridlocked Republican Party means a gridlocked government, and a government that does not function cannot uphold the Constitution and advocate for its citizens.  Until the Republican Party can figure out what it stands for on an issue-by-issue basis, all negotiations are effectively tabled, and it’s the American people who will suffer for it.

The real reason immigration reform will not happen this year

Not to play the pessimist here, but none of us should hold our breath for immigration reform this year.

Why should it be so hard to reform our standing immigration laws and offer the hope for fulfillment of the American dream to all those who live outside our borders? Why, when all standing economic predictions claim that it would be better for our country, can we not fix a clearly broken system and give the gift of opportunity to the tired, poor, huddled masses who seek a safe haven where they can achieve according to their own merits free from oppression?  Why would we cling to such clearly immoral and dated laws...especially when the influx of minds and talents from countries near and far has proven time and time again in the past to be good for the United States?

Simple: it's bad for the Republican party. Bear with me on this one, because it would be a blatantly partisan and downright cruel thing to say if it weren't so obviously true.

It's long been politically expedient for the party out of power to make the case for their election by accusing the party in power of being ineffectual, incompetent, and corrupt.  A little obstruction is implied, and both Democrats and Republicans quite shamelessly play this part, depending on who is in the Oval Office. However, in the past five years, the Republicans have learned an even more potent lesson: it is easier to blame someone for a bad situation that already exists than it is to take credit for a good situation that you only helped to create.

There are plenty of examples of good situations that they had an equal (or greater) hand in creating.  The ACA is, at heart, a Republican fix for one of the most complicated problems the Unites States has ever faced. (The "free market has failed the medical and health insurance industry and good care can only be provided to the affluent or mildly affluent" problem) Rather than take credit for the recent successes that the law has brought, Republicans are now forced to cling to the party rhetoric and reiterate talking points so dirty they need to be washed every night.

Our rapidly falling deficits are another example of a good situation Republicans have helped create. While there will always be arguments between Keynesians, austerians, supply-siders, and the rest, we have record low deficits...that the President is now getting credit for.

Republican strategists know what happens if immigration is reformed: it turns into one more item on Barack Obama's résumé, just after falling deficits, health care reform, and the recovery act. There is no glory for the party that "finally relented and did the right thing" when national pressure was strong enough. No one recognized the courage it took for Speaker Boehner to bring the vote for a clean debt ceiling hike earlier this year. No one patted any Congressmen on the back when they finally voted to open the government in full after the shutdown last October.

Even if there was recognition to be had on the national level for a unified push toward immigration reform, that would leave Republican congressmen to return to their home districts at the midterms and ask their constituencies to send them back to Washington. Border state residents and other southerners - often frustrated by the increasing amount of Spanish they hear spoken day to day - are disinclined to vote someone back in office who can be primaried on the grounds that they are "pro-amnesty" or "soft on illegals." Even if it were good for the party to look pro-immigration (and it would be) it would be effectively a death sentence to congressmen in more xenophobic districts.

Quite the opposite, the Republican party stands to gain a lot from our broken immigration system. It costs them nothing politically to claim they "want reform, but not this way," or "are willing to compromise, but have little faith in the President to enforce the law." Talking points like these allow Republicans to look tough on amnesty while still looking reasonable to the casual observer...meanwhile, progressive groups across the nation continue to hammer the President for enforcing the existing law...with inhumane (and historic) mass deportations. It's the best of both worlds...for the Republicans, anyway.

This does create a situation where what is good for the Republican party is directly at odds with what is good for the United States and her citizenry. Considering how strongly the conservative media sites and congressman rail against such an obviously good idea as immigration reform, it's worth asking ourselves how many other issues in US politics today would be so clear-cut if not for a deluge of blatantly false propaganda.

So...sorry. Sorry, all you tired poor and huddled masses. Sorry, all you who dream of overcoming the circumstances of your birth to rise to the greatness you know is within you. Sorry, all those who hope to partake in a meritocracy where the country of their birth is not considered more important than their drive to succeed.  Sorry, everyone who would like to come into our country legally and lawfully. Maybe once the Republicans get one of their own in the Oval Office, they won't have to have their arms twisted in order to do the right thing.