Inside the Shark Tank

The only thing keeping the Republican Party in the power position it enjoys in the House of Representatives and in state houses across the land is Gerrymandering. It’s not as if the Party is irrelevant and has nothing positive to say or add to our democratic dialectics. Whether you agree or disagree with their overall policies, their opinion does resonate with a pretty substantial constituency, particularly those with traditional rural values (regardless of where they actually live). But the dam that Gerry built is scheduled to burst in the not-too-distant future as American demographic trends are accelerating the number of new voters whose natural values lie with the urban-directed Democratic Party. Rural self-sufficiency vs. urban interdependence.

Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul understands the basic need of the GOP to expand its membership (become a “bigger party” in his words) by embracing those who may not agree with 100% of Republican policies but are captivated enough by the core message of smaller government (except on the military side of the equation): “‘I think the party can be big enough to allow people who don't all agree on every issue. It's not going to change who I am or what I talk about but I think we can be a big enough party to include people,’ Paul said at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. ‘It's like when you talk to your family – do you agree on every issue?’

“Paul, the son of former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, said the party should not ‘dilute’ its message of limiting government's reach and curtailing spending but said it needs to put together a broader coalition that includes Hispanic and black voters. He urged Republicans to appeal to voters on issues like the environment and education that have been more associated with Democrats… ‘If we want to win in bluish-getting-bluer states like California, we have to change the current perceptions of who we are,’ he said.” Huffington Post, May 31^st. While Paul is considered pretty far to the right on the conservative spectrum, his words are obvious necessities if the GOP expects to remain a party that can elect a president.

But the battle within the GOP pits Paul’s desire for expansion against old-world stereotype mongers, a sizeable group within the GOP, whose thoughts and efforts must sound like cool cotton sheets to otherwise confused Democrats. “The most outlandish example of conservative rhetoric in its truly offensive glory on this subject came in an interview last week with Phyllis Schlafly, a prominent conservative activist, on the news site PolicyMic. In it she said: ‘I don’t see any evidence that Hispanics resonate with Republican values. They have no experience or knowledge of the whole idea of limited government and keeping government out of our private lives. They come from a country where the government has to decide everything. I don’t know where you get the idea that the Mexicans coming in resonate with Republican values. They’re running an illegitimacy rate that is extremely high. I think it’s the highest of any ethnic group. We welcome people who want to be Americans. And then you hear many of them talk about wanting Mexico to reclaim several of our Southwestern states, because they think Mexico should really own some of those states. Well, that’s unacceptable. We don’t want people like that.’

“There are so many stereotypes and fallacies in that statement that it’s not even worth unpacking, but it is a great illustration of some deep-rooted conservative views… The one thing I will take the time to contest is the notion that even if Republicans changed their rhetoric and tactics, they wouldn’t gain traction with Hispanics (not all of whom are Mexican, by the way, Ms. Schlafly).

“According to exit poll data, from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, Republicans made significant headway in closing the gap between the number of Hispanics who voted for Democratic candidates to the House of Representatives and those who voted for Republicans, shrinking a 50-point Democratic advantage in 1982 to just 12 points in 2004.” Charles Blow writing in the New York Times, May 31^st. According to the NY Times, 39% of Republicans (vs. 52% of independents and 72% of Democrats) do want a pathway for undocumented aliens to stay in the United States and eventually apply for citizenship. But there are plenty of conservatives in Congress, from Iowa Congressman Steve King to Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who are battling to the finish line to implement Ms. Schlafly’s exclusionary vision, albeit for different articulated reasons.

I’ve blogged on the loss to the nation of excessively exclusionary immigration policies, but even for those with whom I may disagree, given the balance of a multiparty system within our form of government, it is relevant for the GOP to survive as a political force by opening its ranks. The extreme right seems to be willing to accept a slow, painful death over any compromise to values and beliefs that are hopelessly out of date and deeply out of step with the vast majority of Americans from virtually all political parties.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the United States was never designed as a one party state.