A great deal of time and money is about to be spent trying to prove Mr. Cantor's primary loss in Virginia's Seventh district had nothing to do with immigration. Well, the story that dominated every day of the campaign's last two weeks was the flood of children, sometimes alone, streaming across the southern border. It gave a daily and visual sense of open borders, chaos, the collapse of law. While the U.S. government does nothing.

Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal:

Eric Cantor took his defeat with style and dignity. He conceded without bitterness, acknowledged disappointment, blamed no one but himself—"I fell short"—called his leadership position the honor of his life and briskly announced the date he'd step down. He played it straight about who should succeed him and mused to the Republican Conference Wednesday afternoon that while "suffering is a part of life, misery is a choice." "It's almost biblical with him," an aide said. "He talked about his Jewish faith and how you can't get bogged down by one moment." Leaving the Capitol that evening, Mr. Cantor turned to the aide, bemused: "Why is everyone acting like it's a funeral?"

"Eric, a lotta people love you, they need 24 hours to grieve."

"Twenty-four hours, that's it," Cantor said.

"This from a man who just got hit by a truck," says the aide.

Through an unforeseen and truly national humiliation, Mr. Cantor showed grace under pressure. It is now almost startling when political figures comport themselves with class and take responsibility for failure. Good for him for reminding people how it's done.

 

***

 

A great deal of time and money is about to be spent trying to prove Mr. Cantor's primary loss in Virginia's Seventh district had nothing to do with immigration. Well, the story that dominated every day of the campaign's last two weeks was the flood of children, sometimes alone, streaming across the southern border. It gave a daily and visual sense of open borders, chaos, the collapse of law. While the U.S. government does nothing. And Eric Cantor is a high officer of one of that government's branches. His opponent, David Brat, spent those weeks hammering Mr. Cantor on amnesty. His biggest talk-radio supporter, Laura Ingraham, hit again and again on the same subject. So, you know, immigration might have had something to do with the outcome. It was the real and present issue, the galvanic and immediate one.

But no, it wasn't the only one. A loss this decisive would have many causes.

 

Yet on immigration it must be said that a lot of Republican voters are wary of reform measures for reasons that are not in the least ideological. Their opposition and suspicion has to do with commonsense questions. At a time of high chronic unemployment, in what way is it helpful to summon into the labor force a flood of new, low-wage workers? Doesn't any nation have a sovereign right to control its borders? Can it continue as a nation if it doesn't?

  

And Republicans do not trust their own party to do what is right for the country on immigration. They know the party leaders are for reform because they believe the GOP will lose the Hispanic vote forever if they don't move forward. The base not unreasonably assumes that any reform will address the interests of the party and of Wall Street but not necessarily the nation. There is a real failure of trust here. Mr. Cantor got caught in it.
 

There is no relief from the Democrats or the president, who appears highly unflustered by the gathering crisis. Keeping immigration unresolved keeps parts of his base energized and bright with grievance and drives Republicans to murder their own. It is win-win for Democrats; either they get a comprehensive bill that serves their party's interests, or they'll get no bill, which serves their party's interests.

So yes, immigration was an issue, but it was also I think connected to something broader. Voters are feeling increasing anxiety and concern about the state of their country and the direction it's going. All the polls show it. You can almost feel the alarm in the right-track/wrong-track numbers.

A vote for Mr. Cantor, a major member of the House leadership, would have felt like a vote for nothing changing. But why would voters increasingly concerned about how the country is run and anxious about what America is becoming vote for nothing changing?

I don't think they would. I don't think they did. Incumbents beware.

***

Some lessons of the loss: No one should be in party leadership who isn't from a very safe seat. Leadership by necessity makes you look to the party as a whole, less to your district. You compromise and deal, you're always on a plane, always fundraising, always helping someone five states away. "There's a reason Nancy Pelosi's from San Francisco," said an old political hand.

 

Don't get fancy. In the hours after the upset, someone said Mr. Cantor spent too much time in the Hamptons and on Wall Street. He probably did: That's where he was fundraising. Does that make you look good to the people back home?

  

Be careful how you thread the needle. Any Republican leader has to tack between the party proper and the tea party. "Cantor would do his moderate thing on immigration and then be Mr. Tough Conservative on Iran," said a congressional aide. Some of his so-called moderate moves were murked up by rumors of secret deals on issues the base viewed as a threat. The issues on which he was hard-line were often on foreign affairs, at a time when many Republicans feel the nation is still healing from old military wounds.  

 

Get over the idea that TV ads are everything. Who learns from them? Who's impressed? Especially when they're dumb and leaden. Consultants would rather sit around writing ads than fight the ground campaign. Ads are something palpable they can show when they hustle their next client. The Cantor campaign should have focused on grass-roots organizing and knocking on doors. "The conversations you have on somebody's doorstep are a constant feedback machine," said the old hand. They tell you when you're in trouble.

 

***
 

Mr. Cantor faced only one challenger, who benefited from all dissatisfaction. The challenger was a credible person who did not have to lose time explaining he wasn't a witch or what legitimate rape is. College professor David Brat presented himself as a man who cares about issues as opposed to a man who handles them.

 

The morning after his victory Chuck Todd, on MSNBC, went for his throat. Would you arm the Syrian rebels? Are you for the minimum wage? Are you open to big free-trade agreements? "Do you consider yourself an interventionist or an isolationist?"—as if those are the choices. Mr. Brat was surprised, wobbled, recovered somewhat, said almost sadly that he was told to expect an interview about his victory. Welcome to the NFL, as they used to say.
 

But Mr. Todd's questioning showed two things. One is what a low bar Mr. Brat had to pass to beat Mr. Cantor. He hadn't been grilled on these things? And it offered insight into how Democratic operatives will go at Mr. Brat as they try to win the seat in November. The district is safely Republican, as everyone knows. But on Monday it was safe Cantor Country. Life is full of surprise.
 

Can Mr. Brat be painted as radical or out of his depth? Will Democrats do everything they can to beat him? If so, will the Republican establishment come roaring to his side? Or will they perhaps go through the motions and let the tea party learn a lesson?