The problem isn’t a narrow majority — it’s narrow-minded Republicans

“Narrow majority.” Every paid GOP influencer has etched those two words indelibly in the conservative media consciousness. What the influencers really mean is: Don’t expect the Republican Congress to fulfill any campaign promises because we can’t do anything with a “narrow majority.”

The problem is not a narrow majority but rather the Republican Party’s wide-open tent, so vast and borderless that it welcomes more subversive elements than the southern border. The real problem isn’t the size of the GOP majority; it’s the party itself. Until Republicans unify around a clear set of principles, objectives, and goals, they will accomplish little beyond Trump’s executive orders — orders that a future Democratic president will overturn on day one.

Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it.

Realistically, Republicans will never hold 60 seats in the Senate, nor will they secure more than a 10-seat House majority, especially with Democratic gerrymandering. So why do they promise the moon when Democrats are in charge, only to claim later they lack the votes? Yes, Republicans don’t have 60 Senate seats — but neither do Democrats. And while Republicans might struggle to reach 218 in the House, Democrats don’t have the numbers, either. Yet, Democrats continue to win on budget bills and must-pass legislation.

The answer is simple: Even with a strong House majority, Republicans would face 95% of the same problems. The problem isn’t numbers — it’s values. The Freedom Caucus, which truly represents the GOP’s campaign rhetoric, is often more ideologically distant from other Republican factions than establishment Republicans are from Democrats.

Until the party builds itself around the priorities of its base — just as Democrats have done — Republicans will never have “enough votes.”

Why not? While the media fixates on the Freedom Caucus, a much larger RINO faction roams Capitol Hill — one that is more than twice the size of the conservative caucus and leans left of GOP leadership. The
Main Street Caucus, ironically a gateway for K Street and Wall Street lobbyists, boasts more than 80 members. It has only grown under Trump’s watch.

Take any major policy priority of GOP primary voters, and you’ll find that 70 to 80 Republicans will oppose it. And that’s before factoring in the establishment Republicans stuck between the Freedom Caucus and the Main Street Caucus — many of whom are just as bad.

Want to shrink government? Name a single member of this group who supports eliminating even one agency.

Want to end vaccine liability immunity? Good luck getting more than 100 votes.

Want to end birthright citizenship or crack down on incentives for illegal immigration — let alone reduce legal immigration? The problem isn’t a three-seat majority; it’s the dozens of Republicans who would block it as a matter of course.

End foreign aid? They’d sooner fight in the Ukrainian army than vote for anything you’d support.

Terminate the Green New Deal? They already
penned a letter demanding it stay.

Social conservatism is a dead end with most of these members and won’t even get off the ground. Yet, so many of them are from deep red districts. The chairman of the Main Street Caucus, Dusty Johnson, represents South Dakota at large, which voted for Trump by a 29-point margin. But these are members who largely believe in fiscal and social liberalism, more immigration, more refugees, Wilsonian foreign policy, global warming policies, and political correctness.

If conservatives continue to ignore primaries, they might gain another 10 seats in the next general election, but the Main Street Caucus will still ensure that conservative priorities are dead on arrival. This caucus is growing faster than the Freedom Caucus because its members can rely on Trump’s support to defuse primary challenges.

While primary challenges were rarely successful in the pre-Trump era, conservatives were making gains in open seats. However, Trump’s endorsements in open races have stalled that momentum.

Is the GOP’s RINO problem simply the result of narrow majorities in swing districts? Red states provide a clear and unambiguous answer.

Republicans hold majorities in both chambers of 25 states, with veto-proof supermajorities in many. If swing voters truly backed Trump’s vision, red states should be using their mandates to the fullest.

They aren’t.

In Texas, a group of Republicans worked with Democrats to elect a House speaker acceptable to Democrats.

In Montana, despite a 32-18 GOP Senate majority, nearly a third of Republicans forced rules changes that gave Democrats control of key committees.

And in Florida, after six years of conservative victories under Gov. Ron DeSantis, state legislative leaders refused to go all in on immigration reform. House Speaker Daniel Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton dismissed DeSantis’ call for a special session on illegal immigration as “premature” and “irresponsible” — even after Trump publicly backed it. They later watered down the reform bill, caving to Big Agriculture’s open-border interests.

Some states, such as Wyoming, are advancing an aggressive conservative agenda. However, this progress is due solely to the Freedom Caucus majority.

Without building Freedom Caucuses at both the state and federal levels, the overall Republican versus Democrat numbers become meaningless — about as useful as trying to differentiate between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

If the goal is to push the Trump agenda in Congress and red states, why does Trump continue to empower RINOs? If every RINO who should be a prime target for a Freedom Caucus challenge knows he can count on Trump’s endorsement, aren’t conservatives losing ground on MAGA rather than gaining it?

It doesn’t have to be this way. But it will remain this way unless the focus changes. Blaming narrow majorities is a lame excuse that distracts from the real issue: the sorry state of the Republican Party itself.