Can the GOP Change?

[frigidmagi]

Wall street journal

Republicans in Congress are off to a less than flying start after a month in power, dividing their own conference more than Democrats. Take the response to President Obama ’s immigration order, which seems headed for failure if not a more spectacular crack-up.

That decree last November awarded work permits and de facto legal status to millions of undocumented aliens and dismayed members of both parties, whatever their immigration views. A Congressional resolution to vindicate the rule of law and the Constitution’s limits on executive power was defensible, and even necessary, but this message has long ago been lost in translation.

The Republican leadership funded the rest of the government in December’s budget deal but isolated the Department of Homeland Security that enforces immigration law. DHS funding runs out this month, and the GOP has now marched itself into another box canyon.

The specific White House abuse was claiming prosecutorial discretion to exempt whole classes of aliens from deportation, dumping the historical norm of case-by-case scrutiny. A GOP sniper shot at this legal overreach would have forced Democrats to go on record, picked up a few supporters, and perhaps even imposed some accountability on Mr. Obama.

But that wasn’t enough for immigration restrictionists, who wanted a larger brawl, and they browbeat GOP leaders into adding needless policy amendments. The House reached back to rescind Mr. Obama’s enforcement memos from 2011 that instructed Homeland Security to prioritize deportations of illegals with criminal backgrounds. That is legitimate prosecutorial discretion, and in opposing it Republicans are undermining their crime-fighting credentials.

The House even adopted a provision to roll back Mr. Obama’s 2012 order deferring deportation for young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents—the so-called dreamers. The GOP lost 26 of its own Members on that one, passing it with only 218 votes.

Opinion Journal Video

Editorial Board Member Joe Rago explains how President Obama’s executive action on immigration is dividing the Republican conference. Photo credit: Getty Images.
The overall $40 billion DHS spending bill passed with these riders, 236-191, but with 10 Republicans joining all but two Democrats in opposition. This lack of GOP unity reduced the chances that Senate Democrats would feel any political pressure to go along.

And, lo, on Thursday the House bill failed for the third time to gain the 60 votes needed to overcome the third Democratic filibuster in three days. Swing-state Democrats like Indiana’s Joe Donnelly and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp aren’t worried because they have more than enough material to portray Republicans as the immigration extremists.

Whatever their view of Mr. Obama’s order, why would Democrats vote to deport people who were brought here as kids through no fault of their own? Mr. Obama issued a veto threat to legislation that will never get to his desk, and he must be delighted that Republicans are fighting with each other rather than with him.

Restrictionists like Sens. Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions are offering their familiar advice to fight harder and hold firm against “executive amnesty,” but as usual their strategy for victory is nowhere to be found. So Republicans are now heading toward the same cul de sac that they did on the ObamaCare government shutdown.

If Homeland Security funding lapses on Feb. 27, the agency will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist threat is at the forefront of public attention with the Charlie Hebdo and Islamic State murders. Imagine if the Transportation Security Administration, a unit of DHS, fails to intercept an Islamic State agent en route to Detroit.

So Republicans are facing what is likely to be another embarrassing political retreat and more intra-party recriminations. The GOP’s restrictionist wing will blame the leadership for a failure they share responsibility for, and the rest of America will wonder anew about the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

The restrictionist caucus can protest all it wants, but it can’t change 54 Senate votes into 60 without persuading some Democrats. It’s time to find another strategy. Our advice on immigration is to promote discrete bills that solve specific problems such as green cards for math-science-tech graduates, more H-1B visas, a guest-worker program for agriculture, targeted enforcement and legal status for the dreamers. Democrats would be hard-pressed to oppose them and it would put the onus back on Mr. Obama. But if that’s too much for the GOP, then move on from immigration to something else.

***
It’s not too soon to say that the fate of the GOP majority is on the line. Precious weeks are wasting, and the combination of weak House leadership and a rump minority unwilling to compromise is playing into Democratic hands. This is no way to run a Congressional majority, and the only winners of GOP dysfunction will be Mr. Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton .

Can't say I'm terribly surprised that WSJ solutions are "give big business more cheap labor!"

[Josh]

That's always the problem with illegals- powers-that-be on both sides toss them around like a football. They're good for business in the most literal sense, and those businesses are well-represented.

Nobody wants to really fix the problem, it would take away the cheap labor supply. The Republicans were forced to step up enforcement efforts by the Tea Party surge that brought some real populist furor to bear, but the establishment has been looking for the chance to walk back from that so they can get their fruit pickers and nannies back.

As for the doomsaying about the majority- they probably lose the senate this time around because they're facing the same sort of hole the Dems were facing in the last one, and also they've been shitting up the presidentials and don't look to be changing that trend for at least the next election.

For the thread title question: of course they will. It may take them a while but events will drag them into a new place. They're suffering from a massive amount of future shock right now, but the big two parties are supremely resilient and will always pull a yin/yang dynamic of swirling around each other.

[General Havoc]

Parties change over time. The Republicans are not doing anything that the Democrats didn't do in the 80s (or to a lesser extent the late 60s), or that the Republicans themselves did in the 20s. They change or they die, and the new leadership shoves their dead corpses aside and makes a new party from their ashes. It happens all the time.

[Josh]

Go back to the 1940s/50s and try to envision the Dems as the party of desegregation and civil rights, for example.

[frigidmagi]

I'm pretty sure the WSJ is concenrating on a shorter timeframe guys.

[Josh]

The flip of the Dixiecrats happened on a pretty short timeframe too.

On the short term, "will the GOP change?" is a more applicable question. It's unlikely because they don't have a dynamic leadership figure who can capture people's imaginations with a new direction. So the change will be more gradual, but it's inevitable.

[General Havoc]

Not this next cycle, no. They will not change for 2016. But thereafter it's possible.