A house divided cannot stand. If this is true, why should a homeowner, in order to strengthen his or her house’s foundation, rip out its beams, floorings and piers?
This is what is currently happening in the Republican Party: The mainstream, big-business oriented wing of the party is being engaged in a contentious fight with the ideologically pure Tea Party wing.
Last week’s primary election in Virginia only made this divide more evident. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated by a little-known college professor and political newcomer, David Brat. The most frustrating aspect of this election is that there was no need for Cantor’s defeat. Brat painted the majority leader as a moderate, amnesty-supporting deal maker who is soft on his conservatism.
But Brat’s characterizations are completely baseless: Cantor is a rock- solid conservative. He is strong on guns. He led the House to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times. He is against big government and a proponent of the business community.
This begs the question: Why did the people of Virginia’s solid-red 7th Congressional District think the answer to their political problems was electing a more conservative Republican?
Ask yourself this: Who would have more of an impact on the future of the Republican Party? Would it be Cantor, who, prior to his ousting, was in the process of rebranding the conservative movement, or Brat, the evangelical, history-whitewashing economics professor? Hands down, the winner is easily Cantor.
What some are calling the reason for Cantor’s defeat is his position on immigration reform. He did concern himself with the future of the children of illegally immigrated people. In effect, Cantor was discovering that a proportion of people residing in our country are here without proper documentation. They have no reason and probably no hesitancy to leave the country. They broke the law, no doubt, but one must capitulate to the realities of the day.
The solution is not Mitt Romney’s “self-deportation” — which is laughably unrealistic. Cantor’s proposal of making sure the children of these immigrants have access to opportunities and the ability to contribute back to their adopted country is both a classically conservative position and completely feasible, provided that the border between Mexico and the U.S. is bolstered.
Brat, on the contrary, has no other answer to this immigration problem other than that “they shouldn’t be here in the first place.” He, like other members of the far-right caucus, embodies the stereotypical conservative politician: the Bible-thumpin’, Constitution-totin’ and free-market-supportin’ man.
Upon news of his victory, Brat told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “God gave us this win,” and the Almighty “acted through the people on my behalf.” Staying true to form, Brat then invoked the infallible Founding Fathers, claimed that America has no free markets and advocated for overall government nihilism.
And to keep the cliches rolling, the name of former President Ronald Reagan popped up during the interview. For some reason, the modern Republican Party cannot get enough of quoting and beautifying the 40th president.
The part that most upsets me is that the right falls in love with Reagan’s campaign bravado and completely forgets his governing record. Reagan proved to be more ideologically flexible when it came to running the country than many on the right would like you to believe.
Also, if I may, Reagan famously said, “My 80-percent friend is not my 20-percent enemy.”
If that is the case, and Republicans being the typical Reagan name-droppers, why are so many reliable, mainstream, solid-red conservatives being primaried so wantonly?
This recent development is sad because the center-right political point of view is worthy of consideration. But when this disposition becomes perverted by a select few politicians, it loses its appeal. In the aftermath of Brat’s victory, the conservative movement’s future seems to be unfortunately stuck in the past.
[Michael Beato is a UF economics junior. His columns appear on Tuesdays. A version of this column ran on page 6 on 6/17/2014 under the headline "Cantor’s loss leaves conservatives divided"]
