The Republican Party continues to be wrestling with a deep cultural divide within the party. The protests over the weekend show this divide is getting worse, rather than better. And, with a looming presidential election, that trend is likely to continue.

The question is whether the party can hold itself together, allowing for the deep divisions to get worked out amongst themselves.

If they can’t, the consequences may extend throughout our body politic.

To refresh, the Republican Party in Washington State has largely galvanized between two factions: Traditional NW Republicans and Trump Republicans.

I explained some of the nuances of the two groups in this post from February.

The Traditional NW Republican caucus is a big tent. It includes “good government” Republicans like Dan Evans, traditional pro-business Republicans like JT Wilcox, and small government conservatives like Joe Schmick, Mark Schoessler and Dino Rossi.

This is the legacy NW Republican, built locally by Slade Gorton and Joel Pritchard, with Evans, but given national voice in Ronald Reagan.

The Trump Republican is reactionary. It doesn’t draw experience from the long histories of the various elements of Republicanism. In fact, it often rejects those in favor of what appears to gain near term political advantage.

We see this style of Republican in Doug Ericksen, Jesse Young and Clint Didier.

It’s clear the divide in the party has been significant for some time.

In the race for governor in 2012, Rob McKenna tried to walk this line between the two camps. For the most part, he did a good job managing a complicated balancing act.

McKenna was and is a Traditional NW Republican. He campaigned on thoughtful solutions to a range of real problems faced by Washingtonians.

But, in 2012, only two years after the Tea Party election of 2010, he had to tack towards the more reactionary wing of the party to forestall a primary challenge, a wing I refer to today as Trump Republicans. Back then, he was trying to ward off a possible primary challenge from Clint Didier from his more reactionary right flank.

When the 2012 Supreme Court decision on the ACA came down (NFIB v Sebelius) with a complicated and complex ruling in mid-summer, Mckenna had extinguished the threat of a primary. He was now fully in a general election campaign. However, he was concerned about the turnout of the Tea Party / Trump Republicans, particularly with Mitt Romney leading the ticket for president that year.

So, when asked to respond to the Supreme Court decision, McKenna’s work to hold the Republican Party together while appealing to a moderate class of suburban voters began to fray.

He both signaled his support for Medicaid expansion and his opposition to it, sending contradictory signals in a polarized and fast moving debate.

It marked a turning point in the campaign. McKenna had started ahead of Inslee by 15 points in late 2011 according to private polling. With some questionable TV commercials out later that summer as important context, the lead McKenna held evaporated and wouldn’t return.

The lesson is this: it’s very difficult to hold a fraying Republican Party together, and has brought down some of the best Republican statewide candidates as a result.

Picking one side or the other of the Republican Party makes creating a winning majority very difficult to do. However, in a statewide race, it will be almost impossible to make it through without irritating one side – or both – of the divide.

Today, that challenge is playing out in the governor’s race.

On the one hand you have rallies like those held over the weekend. A few thousand angry Trump Republicans gathered in Olympia and the Tri-Cities to voice their disregard for the public health measures in place as a result of COVID. One Republican legislator, Rep. Sutherland, spoke to the “moral” need for a revolution.

At the protest, Washington State Rep. Robert Sutherland called for the start of “a revolution,” then came back to say it would be a “revolution of love,” then cited the the Revolutionary War, then said that’s not their intent, then said the people have a moral obligation… pic.twitter.com/H1r0SJyTwc

— Mike Baker (@ByMikeBaker) April 19, 2020

Republican candidates for governor made appearances, including Tim Eyman, Joshua Freed, and Phil Fortunato. Their presence signaled their alignment with the more reactionary wing of today’s Republicans.

However, alignment with that side of the party alone will not be enough to win in November. If the goal is to get a majority of votes, strong alignment with folks openly calling for “revolution” is not it.

That’s the absolute opposite approach to winning a majority in Washington State – and even farther away from what it takes to govern.

One of the candidates for governor, Joshua Freed, is trying hard to walk the line between the two factions. While he was at the protest in Olympia on Sunday, on Monday he released a “5 Point Plan for Education during COVID.”

It was a thoughtful contribution to education policy discussion in a time of COVID. It includes creating take home packets for school work in districts that don’t have laptops or which have connectivity issues. It includes support for teachers that need guidance to transition to distance learning.

And, it includes $2,000 payments to families to help with costs like laptops and other tools to support distance learning.

These are thoughtful policy considerations – but not necessarily those you’d find from Tea Party Republicans. In fact, it’s the kind of approach that could draw in suburban moderates to a voting bloc, though it may threaten a loss of the right edge of the Republican Party.

Thus is the challenge statewide Republicans face. Building and maintaining a viable majority bloc while holding together the dividing factions within the party may be impossible.

One thing is for sure, however: threatening revolution is not a way to win over a majority of votes among a generally even-keeled Washington State electorate, whether that’s in the primary or the general election.

If the point is to win elections, those should stop.

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.