For years now, Congress has been hamstrung by what has come to be called “gridlock.” In its traditional form the word refers to the situation that occurs when opposing parties control the separate legislative houses, with the result that a particular bill can only pass out of one of the two and thus never get to a presidential signature. We’ve had that form of gridlock on and off for at least twenty years, with Republicans sometimes controlling the House (as they do now) while Democrats control the Senate (as they do now) or vice-versa.
That form of gridlock, while frustrating, is viewed with some degree of tolerance since it really only represents the entirely conceivable result in the bicameral legislature that the Founders created. It has its drawbacks, to be sure, with important policy decisions stalled in worst case scenarios and with flawed legislation finally getting passed through unappealing compromises in other less than satisfying resolutions. But the voters decide what kind or representation they want, and if the collective judgment of the electorate is to have divided legislative control, gridlock will most likely be the result (especially in this era of extreme ideological partisanship).
But a new form of gridlock has entered the scene of late, and this one is not so easy to be sanguine about. It is a gridlock within one party, namely the Republican Party, and it is caused by the emergence of the Tea-Party wing of that Party. This form of gridlock doesn’t paralyze Congress directly. Instead, it paralyzes the Party, which then leads to the more traditional gridlock described above.
Confused? Let me try to explain. In each house of Congress the respective parties determine their policy positions on legislative proposals by caucusing with the members of their party. Thus, Senate Democrats caucus and Senate Republicans caucus, and in doing so, they decide how to approach bills that may be in the works or that may be coming up for votes. Traditionally House Democrats and House Republicans have done the same with unified party positions developing as a result.
But since the election of Barack Obama (note: whether this development is coincidental with his election or was caused by it is a matter of conjecture), the Republican Party has split into two decidedly distinct ideological camps. One camp consists of traditional conservatives who view government skeptically but who understand the need to legislate on issues of import to the nation. The other is populated by Tea-Party activists who reject the need for any legislation that adds in any way to the national debt or to government regulation or to civil rights interests. These folks view their role as to reverse what they regard as the dangerous incursion on personal freedoms that they believe legislation in those areas creates.
Thus, on an issue like immigration reform, an issue that has been desperately in need of attention for many years, the traditional conservative wing of the GOP would love to work with Democrats to craft a compromise bill that would grant some path to citizenship to immigrants who have been in the country for a number of years.
But the Tea-Party wing of the Party refuses to support any reform effort. And so, on that particular issue the gridlock that exists within Congress is due to the gridlock that exists within the Republican Party. This new form of intra-party gridlock, in other words, is responsible for the traditional inter-party gridlock that ultimately denies the country its much-needed immigration reform.
But it is getting worse even than that. Just last week, the House Republican caucus (and the entire Party, for that matter) was put into further disarray by the shocking primary election that saw House Majority Leader Eric Cantor defeated by a Tea Party candidate (a university professor named Dave Brat). What makes the result especially disturbing for the old-line wing of the Party is that Cantor was a water-carrier for the Tea Party, which is to say that he was the Tea Party voice in the GOP House leadership.
The leader of the Party in the House, Speaker John Boehner, is an old-line conservative who has been thwarted in numerous efforts to compromise on needed legislation by his own Party’s gridlock. Now with the Tea Party wing of the Party presumably emboldened by Professor Brat’s victory, it is entirely likely that one of two things will soon occur. Either Boehner will be dethroned as Speaker, replaced by a true Tea Party Republican (in which case traditional gridlock will bring Congress to new levels of dysfunction), or Boehner will move more decisively to adopt and mouth the Tea Party’s goals (in which case the overall result will be much the same).
And what does all of this internal gridlock do for the Party? It may push more mainstream conservatives to the Tea Party side, and it will probably lead to more upset victories of Tea Party insurgents over mainstream conservatives. At some point, the potential could be realized of the Tea Party becoming (or assuming the handle of) the GOP. In other words, we may be seeing the early death signs of the traditional Republican Party. It hasn’t been the Party of Lincoln for over a century. It was only the Party of Teddy Roosevelt for a decade or so. It certainly isn’t the Party of Eisenhower or of Nixon (both traditional conservatives who wouldn’t have much in common with Tea Party principles). It may not even be the Party of Ronald Reagan (he being the president who raised taxes about a dozen times and signed immigration reform).
More importantly, the new Republican Party, overridden with Tea Party activists as it is likely to be in the not-too-distant future, is likely to be a permanent minority party in national elections. It’s hard to imagine a Tea Party presidential candidate ever winning a national election, as the country moves inexorably to greater recognition of things like climate change and social justice for all.
Bottom line: It is entirely conceivable that with Eric Cantor’s defeat a corner may have been inexorably turned in the history of American politics. R.I.P. G.O.P.
I agree with most of what you said. But the thing that you fail to confront is that the parties themselves have created far too much power for themselves through the administrative rules of the House and the Senate. They have effectively obliterated the chance of a third party rising, as evidenced by the “independents” in Congress needing to (or at least always choosing to) ally themselves with one of the two caucuses. In this commenter’s humble opinion, the parties themselves are wholly undemocratic institutions with far too much power and whose leaderships have no direct accountability to the American people. To see how much power the parties have, one need not look farther than party discipline percentage (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/113/house/members/). In the Senate, only three members (3%) vote with their party less than 80% of the time. In the House, it’s 22 members (5%) voting with their party less than 85% of the time. And if one looks at the party affiliation of the dissenters, it’s overwhelmingly the minority party in that Chamber, presumably compromising once in a while to actually get bills passed. For even more disdain of parties, see George Washington’s farewell address – “Let me… warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.” (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf pg. 16).
Having said my long-winded piece on this, I do so to lead me to the point that I think the healthiest thing for the country would be for the Tea Party to become their own party, with the more moderate (or “traditional”, as you put you put it, Ed) conservatives retaining the GOP moniker. As it is, both parties’ labels cover far too broad a swath on the ideological spectrum. I mean, 42% of Americans consider themselves independent according to Gallop (http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx). Too bad we’ll never see the day of better collected, appropriately organized parties.
* Disclaimer: I must say that these views are mine and not the official views of my employer.