The Republican Divorce

So you are getting married, and you promise to adore, cherish, etc., your wife. Most importantly, you promise to be faithful to her. Flash forward 20 years and a couple of kids later. You are doing much better in life, and it looks like she needs you more than you need her, because your success has the gold-digging bimbos flocking to you. That vow of fidelity is looking a little unnecessary now, right?

On the other hand...

So you are running for president of the United States. During the early debates, you promise to support the party nominee, no matter who it is (wink wink, nudge nudge, me right?). Flash forward 6 months and many primaries later. You are leading the race, but do you really need the party? Who is winning the race, you or the party? That promise to support the party nominee is looking a little unnecessary now, right?

Especially in light of the fact the other guys running against you refuse to support you as the party nominee.

At a GOP town hall in Wisconsin, all three of the party's presidential candidates backed off their pledge to support the party's nominee. For Ted Cruz and John Kasich, they specifically cited being unwilling to support Donald Trump. For Trump, he backed off the pledge, complaining about his treatment by the Republican National Committee.

What we are witnessing is the Republican divorce.

The first "party" in this divorce is the Trump coalition of "Reagan Republicans": Basically, middle class people who have had it with the status quo of the last 15 years. They know their marriage to the Republicans isn't working, and they wouldn't consider voting Democrat. Some of them are even former Democrats who gave up on that party. Many of them have had their jobs affected or even taken away by immigrants or free trade. They don't know what the solution is, but they know the status quo won't get them there. Think of them as the Israelites building the Golden Calf.

Speaking of religion, the second "party" in this divorce is the Ted Cruz coalition of "religionistas" (like how I made up that word?). This is the wing of the party that looks towards government to enact laws against things their religion sees as evil, with abortion usually being number one on their list of targets, but they also want their government to be Christian. First Amendment? What First Amendment? To them, "freedom of religion" usually means freedom of Christian religion. Religionistas also tend to read the Bible's "love your neighbor" law as "love your Christian neighbor, the rest can burn in Hell". Needless to say, this group won't be fleeing to the Democratic Party. To the religionistas, "Democrat" translates as "godless heathen". (Disclaimer: While I am a Christian, I recognize the folly of some of my fellow Christians. But I still love them in spite of it.)

Finally, the third "party" in  this divorce is that pitiable spouse known as the Republican establishment, and represented by candidate John Kasich. This is the group of people who are Republican first, and whose identity and politics is entirely in the party. It is also ironic that this group's candidate would even suggest not supporting the Republican nominee. If any of the three divorce "parties" is the "cheated on" spouse, it is this party. But don't feel sorry for her: She has been a domineering wife for quite awhile, insisting on her candidates (i.e. McCain and Romney), regardless of whether they were any good.

The religionistas and the Republicans should be able to make up and continue. But the Reagan Republicans are a hard-headed lot, and also the largest part of the GOP. If they leave the GOP, the GOP will be done.

While I hear the Democrats cheering in the background, I would warn them: You have your own issues with the Sanders' Socialists. Also, the Trump coalition is more likely to pull votes from your side than either of the other two GOP "parties". Be careful what you wish for...