The flagellantism of Republicans, like any proclivity, is taken to in a crisis. A president with spare authority collaborates with an eager, elder lawmaker of the opposition. They wish to change laws governing borders and immigration. Democrats have Congress. Republicans in the upper chamber work in concert with the majority and approach a final bill. In the lower chamber, the minority murmurs of trying legerdemain with rules of order, anything to stop passage.
Via radio, television, web: whom do voters on the right seek vengeance against? Their own party.
Equanimity holds at a premium. William F. Buckley, Jr. called the legislative work "a mess" — but added, "Messes are a part of democratic rule." Michael Barone admonished the effort. Polls show skepticism of the diminishing returns of "reform" of this kind, and that Americans "must be convinced first that this time border security is for real." Most other commentary is fustian and angry, as if George Bush and his phalanx were to be exiled in the tradition of Greek mythos.
David Frum spent a few days last week publishing letters. One writer, a doctor, declared that he, a member of the "active grass roots," was "leaving the Republican Party." I wrote to Frum: however understandable the frustration, where would people like this fellow go? "I think," Frum replied, "the fear is that they will be demoralized and stay home, like in 1974."
Why is immigration policy commensurate to the resignation of Richard Nixon, to a president culpable of a perversion of the rule of law? The Republican malcontent may argue that abetment of citizenship granted to intruders, however earnest, is unforgivable inasmuch as it is ideologically unsound. But if disgruntled doctors and their wives renounce volunteering and voting, and both federal and state Democratic majorities increase, won't ensuing legislation be that to which they even more strongly object?
The vexed rightist might then claim voters' prerogative to define a party, chastening whomever is remiss. Yes, but that is carried out locally, and delicately, and within the party, not by walking away from it. So in denouncing the whole party, a fraction of a fraction of the electorate may, over a single domestic issue for which it currently has no other advocates, deepen the punishment of Republicans in the meantime? Of course! is the rejoinder — after all, up from discord ascended Ronald Reagan.
Yes, but Ronald Reagan once proposed to "improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows," to wit, illegal aliens. He — how do you say? — had to compromise. This is an unfortunate opportunity: no matter what Democrats do, Republicans will fault Republicans.