Word from the hospital is that House Speaker Paul Ryan is recovering nicely from the self-inflicted shoulder separation caused by patting himself on the back about the GOP’s freedom from any form of racial bias.

            In a swipe at Donald Trump’s alleged failure to condemn the Ku Klux Klan, Speaker Ryan is reported as saying: “If a person wants to be the nominee of the Republican Party, there can be no evasion and no games—they must reject any group or cause that is built on bigotry. This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals.”

            This is sensitive stuff. I have (or at least I had, before I began writing these columns) many Republican friends and acquaintances. There is not a one of them to whom I would apply the ugly label of bigot, or racist.

            On the other hand, none of my friends or acquaintances have had a role in formulating the grand strategies of their party.

            When you look at some of those strategies, there are some inconvenient facts that are hard to square with Speaker Ryan’s self-congratulatory comments.

            Exhibit 1 is the so-called “Southern Strategy.”

            Once upon a time, the states of the former Confederacy were reliably Democrat. Then, in the mid-1960s, President Johnson signed off on legislation intended to protect the civil rights of American minorities. This legislation did not go over well below the Mason-Dixon Line, where it was seen as an illegitimate federal attempt to regulate matters that had previously been the exclusive province of the individual states. This was code for a continuation of Jim Crow.

            Republican strategists saw an opportunity. Republican candidates began to talk more about “states’ rights,” “federal overreach,” and the virtues of local control. This created political cover for keeping the status quo, those busybodies in Washington be damned.

            The strategy worked. Within a few years, what had been a Democrat stronghold became the Republican stronghold it is today.

            There was a price to pay. African-American voters who previously could be counted on to vote for the Party of Lincoln defected to the Democrats. The increase in the Hispanic vote did not bode well either for the Grand Old Party. The need to minimize the damage caused by these shifts in the body politic led to another self-serving strategy–voter ID laws.

            It is hard to argue against maintaining the sanctity of the ballot box. However, when you investigate the frequency of the voter fraud these laws are supposed to prevent, it becomes apparent the measures coming out of Republican-dominated state legislatures across the country are pretty much a solution in search of a problem. By most accounts, proven cases of voter fraud are few and far between.

            Be that as it may, goes the counter argument, it is not a great burden for a voter to procure some form of identification, typically a picture ID. Courts have agreed with this. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the ID laws have had the effect of lowering voter turnout—and that the lower turnout is most notable within specific subsets of voters, most of whom vote Democrat. It is hard to escape the conclusion the voter ID laws benefit Republican candidates, and act to the detriment of Democrat candidates. Then-Pennsylvania House Majority leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, let that particular cat out of the bag in 2012. While touting Republican legislative accomplishments, he famously (or infamously) said proudly, “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania—Done.” In other words, the primary motivation for the law was political.

            What a convenient side benefit to protecting the ballot box against a non-problem.

            Finally, you have the history of the GOP’s relationship with this particular president.

            It is acceptable to disagree politically, even vehemently disagree, with each and every policy advanced by the man. But is it acceptable to challenge the very legitimacy of the man to hold the office – the man not once but twice elected by a majority of our fellow citizens?

What is the difference between a president being born of an American mother wherever (although in this case it was Hawaii) and a Ted Cruz being born of an American mother in Canada? Why is it that with the exception of Donald Trump, Cruz’s status has been a non-issue, while with the sitting president, it was of earth-shattering importance for years?

Does a political party have an obligation, in order to safeguard public faith in the legitimacy of our political institutions, to challenge erroneous beliefs held by its own faithful? Or is it permissible to sit by and do nothing to set the record straight if there is a political advantage to be gained?

Is it appealing to the “highest ideals” of the party faithful to fail to take an official position against the notion Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and thus, is not qualified to serve as president, if there is proof otherwise? Even today, large percentages of Republican voters believe, contrary to the evidence, that the president (a) was not born in America, and (b) is a Muslim.           

            In its treatment of this president, the GOP leadership has not appealed to the “highest ideals” of the party faithful, but rather has prostituted itself to the baser instincts of a minority within the party—and all for political gain.

            Protestations of political purity and idealism wear thin in the face of such examples of political chicanery and manipulation.