The GOP’s Primal Fear of Primaries

Did Boehner have a true change of heart on immigration, or is he playing for time?

House Speaker John Boehner gestures before President Obama delivers the State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on January 28, 2014 at the US Capitol in Washington.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
Feb. 10, 2014, 5:14 p.m.

More than a few people are scratch­ing their heads over what would seem to be a re­versal by Speak­er John Boehner on im­mig­ra­tion.

It’s been no secret that he has long wanted and thought it was im­port­ant for the Re­pub­lic­an Party to do something to ad­dress the im­mig­ra­tion is­sue, and by ex­ten­sion, the GOP’s grow­ing and per­vas­ive prob­lem with minor­ity voters. It also mat­ters that some ele­ments of the busi­ness com­munity, not­ably the high-tech sec­tor, are frus­trated by our in­co­her­ent im­mig­ra­tion and visa pro­cess, with H1-B visas be­ing a prime ex­ample. After the re­cent House GOP re­treat in Cam­bridge, Md., Boehner and his lead­er­ship team re­leased a set of prin­ciples out­lining their de­sired ap­proach to im­mig­ra­tion. They demon­strated a de­sire for pro­gress and, one would think, op­tim­ism about the House fi­nally deal­ing with the is­sue. The Sen­ate has already passed a com­pre­hens­ive im­mig­ra­tion bill.

Now, however, Boehner has be­gun back­ing off, say­ing he is pess­im­ist­ic about do­ing any­thing this year. What gives?

Bey­ond the ex­pec­ted push­back by ar­dent foes of im­mig­ra­tion re­form, the ar­gu­ment grew louder, with some Re­pub­lic­an mem­bers as­sert­ing their dis­trust of Pres­id­ent Obama, say­ing things like: The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion doesn’t en­force many cur­rent laws; why should we trust this ex­ec­ut­ive branch to en­force bor­der pro­tec­tion and oth­er pro­vi­sions favored by con­ser­vat­ives and Re­pub­lic­ans — spe­cific­ally, those that the ad­min­is­tra­tion and Demo­crats might not be en­thu­si­ast­ic about?

The ir­re­press­ible Demo­crat­ic Sen. Chuck Schu­mer of New York sug­ges­ted in re­sponse that any new im­mig­ra­tion bill be timed to go in­to ef­fect on Jan. 1, 2017, when Obama is on his way out the White House door, to ad­dress Re­pub­lic­ans’ trust is­sues. (It should be noted that this is an­oth­er ex­ample of Schu­mer re­cast­ing him­self as a con­sum­mate le­gis­lat­or and states­man, re­press­ing his oth­er per­sona as cam­paign strategist and fun­draiser par ex­cel­lence.) It was an art­ful way to ad­dress GOP con­cerns.

But the Obama-won’t-en­force ar­gu­ments really mask a deep­er res­ist­ance to back­ing any im­mig­ra­tion law that could pos­sibly lead to a path to cit­izen­ship for those in the coun­try il­leg­ally and — more im­port­ant — any­thing that could pos­sibly be con­strued in a tele­vi­sion or ra­dio ad as “sup­port­ing am­nesty for il­leg­al ali­ens.” For Re­pub­lic­ans, the fear of be­ing at­tacked from the right and hav­ing to de­fend them­selves from a more con­ser­vat­ive primary chal­lenger is, in some cases, real or en­tirely pos­sible. Even those not fa­cing the im­me­di­ate threat of such a chal­lenge foster a deep con­cern that it could hap­pen.

Al­though a cer­tain amount of para­noia is nat­ur­al for any elec­ted “‹of­fi­cial, it is par­tic­u­larly pre­val­ent now among Re­pub­lic­ans, who are en­meshed in a civil war between the Re­pub­lic­an Party es­tab­lish­ment and the GOP’s tea-party/most con­ser­vat­ive ele­ments. Those in com­pet­it­ive dis­tricts or states also have to keep get­ting their base out to vote in gen­er­al elec­tions — al­though most base voters, par­tic­u­larly con­ser­vat­ives, vote no mat­ter what, even in midterm elec­tions.

But the fear of a primary also has a cal­en­dar com­pon­ent. As of now, only sev­en states (Alabama, Illinois, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ohio, Texas, and West Vir­gin­ia) are past their can­did­ate fil­ing dead­lines. Two more (Mary­land and North Car­o­lina) have dead­lines between now and the end of Feb­ru­ary. The biggest num­ber of fil­ing dead­lines, 19, fall in March (Neb­raska has a Feb. 18 dead­line for in­cum­bents, March 3 for nonin­cum­bents). So, 26 states will pass their dead­lines by the end of March, five more each in April and May, and nine in June; the last two are Delaware in Ju­ly and Louisi­ana in Au­gust. As each month goes by, the fil­ing dead­lines in more states and for more mem­bers will have passed, thus leav­ing many home free from a 2014 primary chal­lenge.

The dates for the primar­ies — which most mem­bers will likely win and a very few, if any, will lose — start lin­ing up next month: Illinois and Texas in March; 11 states in May; 18 in June; 14 in Au­gust; and four in Septem­ber. Louisi­ana holds its primary on the na­tion­al gen­er­al-elec­tion day, Nov. 4, with run­off elec­tions Dec. 6.

No doubt House GOP lead­ers are mind­ful of the fil­ing dead­lines and primary dates for mem­bers of their con­fer­ence, cal­cu­lat­ing wheth­er there is a ma­gic time when they could bring up im­mig­ra­tion with a max­im­um chance of pas­sage (with one op­tion ob­vi­ously a lame-duck ses­sion). While it could be that Boehner really has had a change of heart about bring­ing im­mig­ra­tion up this year, it could also be that his back­ing off is a stra­tegic re­treat, or a feign, to de­fuse at least some of the op­pos­i­tion un­til the op­tim­al time comes.

One oth­er factor is worth keep­ing in mind (not that House mem­bers would care that much). At least one mem­ber of the Sen­ate GOP lead­er­ship has privately said the reas­on Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors were so will­ing to pass an im­mig­ra­tion bill last year was not the 2014 Sen­ate elec­tions, but the 2016 elec­tions.

Not only a pres­id­en­tial-elec­tion year, 2016 is when 24 Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate seats will be up (sev­en in states car­ried by Obama) and Demo­crats will have only 10 seats up.

For House Re­pub­lic­ans, in their care­fully drawn, ideo­lo­gic­al, and par­tis­an cul-de-sac dis­tricts, the need for the party to get im­mig­ra­tion off the table isn’t that press­ing, but for win­ning and hold­ing a Sen­ate ma­jor­ity, and get­ting 270 elect­or­al votes, the con­cern is not the­or­et­ic­al.

COR­REC­TION: A pre­vi­ous ver­sion of this story had in­cor­rect in­form­a­tion for the num­ber of primar­ies be­ing held in June and Septem­ber.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
12 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
18 hours ago
THE LATEST
IT’S ALL CLINTON
Reliable Poll Data Coming in RE: Debate #1
20 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
WHAT WILL PASS?
McConnell Doubts Criminal Justice Reform Can Pass This Year
22 hours ago
THE LATEST
ALSO FIRED UNATTRACTIVE WAITRESSES
Trump Did Business with Cuba
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

Today in bad news for Donald Trump:

  • Newsweek found that a company he controlled did business with Cuba under Fidel Castro "despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings." In 1998, he spent at least $68,000 there, which was funneled through a consluting company "to make it appear legal."
  • The Los Angeles Times reports that at a golf club he owns in California, Trump ordered that unattractive female staff be fired and replaced with prettier women.
×