"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.