On Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives finally passed legislation that provided funding for the Department of Homeland Security. The agreement came after weeks of internal negotiations by members of Congress that culminated last Friday, when House Republicans were unable to pass a version of the legislation over concerns regarding President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration.
Far-right and Tea Party House Republicans demanded that the bill prevent the Department of Homeland Security from enacting the President’s proposed immigration policy, which could protect several million undocumented immigrants from deportation. As a result, this group of Republicans refused to vote for funding legislation last Friday that did not adequately meet their demands.
The bill that passed Tuesday provides funding for the DHS for a year and does not impose any restrictions on the President’s immigration policy. But the eventual passage of the bill should not overshadow the deeply concerning rifts that this debate has shown in the Republican Party. Moreover, the factionalism that was displayed over the past week only further tarnished the reputation of Congress, as it proved that some members of the House are willing to put the well-being of American citizens at risk to farcically oppose the President.
To fully explain this opinion, I think it might be useful to first better understand the word faction.
In the annals of American political history, perhaps no word has been as important, or as controversial, as faction. In Federalist #10, James Madison drew upon the writings of many great thinkers of the Western tradition, including Socrates, to warn against the dangers of factions in democratic society (while Socrates was not a fan of democracy, he still saw danger in factions). Similarly, George Washington is often said to have opposed political parties, but a more precise review of his words reveals that Washington feared the harmful effects of political faction in the newly formed U.S.
You might be wondering why I am fussing over syntax and George Washington when writing a piece on modern legislation, but I promise it’s important. A faction is a subset of a larger whole that is opposed to the greater interests of the whole. Factions are self-serving entities that pursue their own ends at the expense of the greater good. This understanding of factions contrasts political parties, which are unified coalitions that seek to further their own interpretation of the greater good.
The failure of House Republicans to pass DHS legislation on Friday revealed that the GOP is rife with factions. In spite of Republicans holding a majority in the House, they still failed to win a majority of votes for legislation backed by Speaker John Boehner, due to infighting and factionalism.
The Department of Homeland Security is a crucial agency in the post-9/11 United States. According to its own website, the DHS “has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear — keeping America safe.”
Yet some members of the Republican Party — particularly Tea Party Republicans — are so opposed to the President’s agenda that they were willing to let this agency flounder and go without funding. This logic is both shortsighted and dangerous.
The DHS not only provides employment to tens of thousands of Americans, but it is also responsible for protecting our nation from the ever-present threat of terrorism. To risk leaving this agency without funding is a disgrace, but a small faction of far-right members of Congress were willing to do so just to taut their ideological opposition to the President.
Factions are to be feared in any political system, because they put pragmatism and real progress on the chopping block in favor of the faction's goals. That is exactly what happened in the House over the last week, and it is deeply concerning.
Perhaps more importantly, this conflict demonstrated the Republican Party is not unified or adequately prepared for the 2016 presidential election. Over the last weekend, Sean Hannity of Fox News asked tea party conservatives and establishment conservatives to work together in 2016.
If this last weekend is any indication, the GOP’s internal divisions have not yet been resolved and could prove to be a major stumbling block for the party in 2016. This is particularly important given that there are several viable candidates for the Republican nomination in 2016.
Thankfully, House Democrats and the Republicans aligned with Speaker John Boehner were successfully able to pass funding legislation for the DHS. But the last weekend has shown that there are some House Republicans that value their own factional ends over good governance, and this may come back to haunt the GOP in 2016.
Reach the columnist at clmurph5@asu.edu or follow @ConnorLMurphy on Twitter.
Editor’s note: The opinions presented in this column are the author’s and do not imply any endorsement from The State Press or its editors.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on Twitter.
