If you listen to supporters of the Gang of Eight's vast immigration bill, including many establishment Republicans, the GOP faces a dire choice: adapt demographically and support the bill or die.
Those who prefer that their party do neither have now been given an another choice, this time by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker. They can commit principled suicide.
That's right, they can stand up for their principles and, as Parker puts it, become "principled martyrs".
Republicans must learn when to pick their fights and she is certain that, "The wrong time would be in the midst of the politically life-altering debate on immigration reform."
Why is this the wrong time? Well, because, "Again, congressional Republicans want to parse reform in pieces, excluding the 11 million or so immigrants here illegally, instead of dealing with reform comprehensively, as the Senate has done — and as most Americans think necessary."
The last time, I looked, Pew was reporting that Americans were ambivalent about the nature and timing of any change in immigration status for this large group.
Moreover, as far as I know, congressional Republicans had made no decision on whether, when, or how to deal with the 11.5 million illegal aliens currently in the country. They might well choose to enact a pathway to citizenship or just legalization when certain benchmarks have been met. So it is premature to criticize them for what they have not yet decided.
As to the "comprehensive" part of Parker's complaint, she avers that "Republicans do have a point, in theory" and goes on to say that, "Comprehensive bills are cumbersome and difficult to enforce. Democrats love great big lumbering programs because they (a) often do great good, at least in the short term; and (b) create great big self-sustaining bureaucracies that are, by nature, self-propagating and attract large constituencies of voters. This latter is Republicans' chief objection."
No, that is not most house and senate Republicans' chief objection.
Their concern is that large, poorly written, never-read legislation with numerous elements that no one really understands or can predict how they will work is a poor method by which to develop national policy, especially policy that will impact the core of American political, social, and cultural life for many decades to come.
It is a serious, legitimate concern and anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to the ensuing debates, and that includes Washington Post columnists, ought to know that the bill and its proponents promise much more that its actual legislative language delivers. Whether it's border security, paying back taxes, undergoing security checks, or a host of other issues, understanding what's actually in the bill undercuts advocates' talking points and reassurances.
Nor does Parker do her position or her reputation any service by mocking principled opponents of the bill like Rich Lowry or William Kristol as "the echo chamber of the Tinker Bell Coalition".
I don't know Mr. Lowry personally, but I have read his interesting work, and I do know Bill Kristol. His is a first-rate, open mind wrapped in an engaging temperament. He is a seasoned, serious policy voice and no dispenser of "fairy dust" or, as is the case with some columnists, pundit pablum.
Ms. Parker dismisses principled opposition to the bill as a "bonfire of the vanities" and in doing so misunderstands the basic stance of many of the bill's opponents.
Their stand is not a matter of narcissism, but of principle; not a matter suicidal impulse, but of policy integrity.
And perhaps real concern with the public's interest coupled with principled policy debate is not the GOP's path to demise, but to renewal.
Next: The GOP and Immigration: Dying for Principle or Benefiting From It?