Long term planning is not a strong suit for these organizations, even if there are certain issues that have been historically identified with each party. Most of these are smoke and mirrors, as well. Kind of like professional wrestling, where the babyface can turn heel depending on how the wind is blowing, and give a credible performance in either role (some media conservatives certainly fit this category as well). Others are the result of continued pandering to their respective donors and voting blocs.

Some of the continued noise is from the media who, like the above, literally profit from stirring up trouble (think 'if it bleeds, it ledes/leads'). And many in the media are the beneficiaries of modern education, where there has been a closing of the minds among the faculty, and to get into that club, you had better talk the correct talk. Besides, its more interesting to be controversial, in a non-controversial way. A professor (think Ward Churchill among a wide bunch of others) can create their own little mini-cult, protecting their flanks from academic attack, make extra money (books, lectures, etc.) and to be perfectly crass and perfectly honest, get laid.

Some of the continued turbulence is from professional agitators, who make a living only if trouble is stirred up (in a different arena, think Jesse Jackson). Some, too, is undoubtedly from a small group of agitators who, for whatever reason, are 'true believers.' I actually can feel sorry for this group. They are not the organizational leaders, they are the rank and file. And they are the ones who tend to get it in the neck when it suits the other categories. This last group does not tend to be organizationally strong and, without the cynical support from one or more of the other groups, would not sustain a whirlwind such as the issue of illegal immigration has provoked. Face it, when the big guys decide to ignore the little guys, they can do a pretty good job (some exceptions here).