Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made waves April 11 when he announced he will not run for reelection in 2018. A reluctant participant in recent Trump-dominated party politics, Ryan was known to embrace a Jack Kemp-esque “big tent” conservatism, characterized by tolerance, opportunity, and inclusiveness. His departure has left many political commentators concerned that the Republican party is further doomed to disarray.
While this high-profile retirement does illuminate how Trump’s presidency is dividing the Republican party, it does not spell the end of the GOP as we know it. In fact, it is a sign that some political leaders are committed to preserving conservatism in the political arena. Although GOP Congressmen seem to believe loyalty to the current president is necessary for maintaining their own electoral support, some, like Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) have decided retirement is a better outcome than embracing such a platform. Recent moves from the GOP establishment demonstrate that not all Republicans have given up on the party they knew and loved.
One key move in February was the introduction of Senator John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) immigration bill, co-sponsored with Christopher Coons (D-Del.). This bill would grant permanent legal status to the undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers and strengthen border security. Notably, it does not provide resources to build the wall Trump has called for since his presidential campaign.
In some ways, McCain’s sponsorship of a bill without the president’s signature immigration policy proposal represents the rift in the Republican party. McCain and Trump have a long-running feud. At the core of McCain’s criticism is worry over the Republican brand. McCain feared his party becoming associated with xenophobia, and he refused to support a Republican nominee with a record of vulgarity.
Because McCain’s leadership in the Republican party precedes Trump’s partisan allegiance by decades, he has a platform to oppose the Republicans’ new direction. His bill with Coons offers Republicans an opportunity to exert ideological power over the new president.
The bill calls for the use of drones and other technology for better border surveillance and control. If passed, the law would expand resources to immigration courts, which are currently suffering a notoriously massive backlog of cases. Faster adjudication of immigration disputes would improve documentation rates and encourage more immigrants to find residence legally. Both of these policies––tighter border security and a smoother legal process––correspond to the Republican platform on immigration.
What the White House lambastes most about the bill is its lack of funding for the president’s signature wall. Some Republican members may berate McCain for capitulating, but doing so requires a short memory span. Just a decade ago, both parties were internally split over the immigration issue. President George W. Bush was enthusiastic about immigrants, while 40 percent of Democrats favored building a wall along the southern border. Only in the Trump era has the Republican party been synonymous with “pro-wall” and the Democrats with “anti-wall.” The idea that a wall is necessary for a conservative Republican immigration policy is new and arbitrary. And yet the president makes the wall an ultimatum: “If there is no wall, there is no DACA.”
Trump’s obsession with the wall makes political sense. A wall would cement his legacy as an impactful president, a tangible testimony to his political prowess. Being politically expedient does not make a wall practical, necessary, or effective. And it certainly is not worth the livelihoods of Dreamers, something most Republican voters want to protect.
Sen. Rand Paul made repeated attempts to block the new spending bill, which raises the debt ceiling and increases spending by $300 billion––surprising measures given the GOP’s previous commitment to fiscal responsibility. President Trump supported the bill due to its expansion of military expenditures, saying the law will make the military “stronger than ever before.” There remains a political push for fiscal conservatism.
Another push against a more populist Republican party is Mitt Romney’s impending decision to run for U.S. Senate in Utah, effectively succeeding Senator Orrin Hatch. Since his loss to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, Romney has not served in an official political capacity, but he has been a harsh critic of Trump since the latter entered the 2016 presidential race. Trump once considered Romney for secretary of state, but Romney has remained a public critic of the president since the nomination went to Rex Tillerson.
The issue is not whether Romney will win a seat in the Senate; in Utah, that is almost a guarantee. The real news is his likelihood of being given a leadership position. Anonymous sources within the GOP indicate party leaders want to make him chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). If he were appointed to that position, Romney would lead the party’s recruitment and fundraising efforts for the Senate.
These efforts are fundamental to shaping the Republican party and its image. By favoring a staunch Trump critic like Romney to chair the NRSC, GOP leaders are indicating they believe they can outduel Trump in the battle for the Republican identity.
This news from Senate Republicans strikes a different tone than that heard in the wake of mass retirement among Republicans, some of whom cite the “dysfunction in Washington” as grounds for departure.
The true nature of today’s GOP will not really surface until the 2018 midterm elections. But for Republican voters disappointed by Trump’s leadership, recent efforts by the old Republican establishment suggests there may be hope that their party has not yet succumbed to the populist wave.
Comments
Post a Comment