How the GOP Lost Its Way

Washington Post ^ | April 22, 2006 | Craig Shirley

[MC Miker G]

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.

There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.

[MC Miker G]

I dunno. Would they publish an op-ed that stated the opposite was the case?

[MC Miker G]

...and please find me an actual Republican who wants the GOP to lose control of Congress.

[Brellium]

GWB

[nikola]

Grand in name only.

[inquest]

"The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders."

So why isn't the "business camp" willing to accept secure borders, but push for loose immigration and work restrictions? Could it be because they know that if the border is secured, they wouldn't be able to get popular support for the idea of loosening restrictions? And if that's the case, then why should their views deserve any consideration, as though they have some kind of equally legitimate interest?

Would they publish an op-ed that stated the opposite was the case?

If the opposite actually was the case, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't.

[John Geyer]

They've been publishing editorials like this like twice a year.

[TomGuy]

the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base

Dems have a similar problem with conflicts between their old Southern Democrat base and the extremist left-wacko wing.


If the old Southern Democrats and GOP conservative populist base ever joined forces, they could marginalize both the GOP elitist Rockefeller business wing and the Dem extremist left-wacko wing. Otherwise, it will be more of the same.

[trubluolyguy]

Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

---

Sometimes a little discipline is needed. If amnesty is to be made law, then to the woodshed they shall go.

[ansel12]

Yes there are two camps, Ronald Reagan western, conservative, versus the North Eastern "Republicans" George Herbert Walker Bush (the senior).

As a conservative I know the fight within the Republicans is between the two elements, I also know that the media will always be there to encourage this fight.

But this is a battle within a hard nosed family, Democrats are still the enemy.

[nathanbedford]

1 close the border

2 force votes to define legal immigration in terms of skills and wealth only.

3 force votes to clean up the budgeting process, start with eliminating earmarks.

4 force votes to repeal McCain-Feingold.

5 force votes to permit drilling at Anwar and in the Gulf of Mexico.

6 force votes to permit the construction of new oil refineries

7 force votes to permit the construction of nuclear power plants

8 veto pork until blood runs on the floor even if it means vetoeing massive appropriations measures

9 attack

10 repeat, attack

[NHFREE]

If the Republican elite let in 40 million, and let me say this again, 40 million poor, uneducated third worlders in the next 10 years with this amnesty plan.....there will be no need to fight any longer, because there will be NO Republican party.

[TomGuy]

8 veto pork until blood runs on the floor even if it means vetoeing massive appropriations measures

Ouch! You're gonna make Senator Stevens cry again, if he doesn't get his bridge to nowhere.

Where is your compassion!!!!???!!!!

[Siena Dreaming]

**YAWN***

[SteveMcKing]

If we practice our beliefs objectively, then to hell with the consequences in November, whatever they may be.

The inspired constituency of the party has done its part. If the party leadership breaks contract (as they often do), then there is no moral accountability on voters who abandon them - notwithstanding that we are the ones who would suffer most for such a loss. A belief that one's capacity to suffer is noble is a primary tenet that separates us from liberals.

Philosophy aside, it is in my own spiteful nature to inflict such petty revenge on those who betray. Hence, do not take my vote for granted.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I thought the Republicans run the House of Representatives like it was a plantation. So we know that all good Democrats are against plantation politics.

[ansel12]

"If the Republican elite let in 40 million, and let me say this again, 40 million poor, uneducated third worlders in the next 10 years with this amnesty plan.....there will be no need to fight any longer, because there will be NO Republican party."

True, that is why my post makes so much sense.

The only party we have to fight with is the Republicans.

If we can dominate the Republican party we win, if we come in second within the party, we influence them heavily, if we drop out or do some third party thing, the media loves us and we become irrelevant to the challenges of our times.

[TBP]

Bump.

[NHFREE]

It won't be easy.....our leadership is corrupted on almost every federal and state level. They are within a week of passing this amnesty, that's it. And if they pass it next week, the ballgame is over. Demography is destiny.

[p23185]

If the old Southern Democrats and GOP conservative populist base ever joined forces, they could marginalize both the GOP elitist Rockefeller business wing and the Dem extremist left-wacko wing. Otherwise, it will be more of the same.

I so pray this will happen . . . . .

[nathanbedford]

I know what you mean, Stevens has become a laughingstock of the Senate and a liability to the whole party.

I also agree with Ansell 12 that unchecked immigration not only means the end of the Republican Party but the death of conservatism.

If one accepts the author's dichotomy in the Republican Party between the Rockefeller wing and the Reagan wing, one could easily make the argument that country club Republicans, who see America mainly as a corporate vehicle to ride in the rush toward globalization, are utterly unmoved by Reagan's insight about the lethal danger of unchecked immigration.