Fun fact: this post originally had more color coding, but it turns out forum yellow is disgusting and unreadable.
The funny part about the Permanent Democratic Majority arguments that always go on is that as far as evil plans go, it's easily derailed. All the Republicans have to do is stop doing....everything Trump is doing, and the attempt to turn Mexican-Americans into the borg or whatever will fail.
Ah, but the problem is essentially that the
Republican Party is
two parties. The old generation was leaving. The new generation was supposed to be people like Paul Ryan: young, intellectual, upstanding conservatives with a
Libertarian bent: deregulating, simplifying, etc. The new Republican was going to be a fusion of the traditional Republican base with a newfound Libertarian edge that would revitalize the party, seek to capitalize on the market share proven to exist by the Libertarian Party, and stay modern while bringing in new voters to the Grand Old Party. That was where a lot of Republican party elders assumed the party was going to go, and they made room, which is why Ryan, despite his greatest accomplishment being "was VP", is currently Speaker of the House, and has this reputation (deserved or not) as a hardcore policywonk who just reads economic textbooks for fun. The Tea Party, in its initial stages, seemed like it would be this sort of thing. Do you guys recall when people cared about the debt, half a decade ago? I did. People talked in existential terms about government spending, and that's when Sequestration got put in. Military Republicans screamed bloody murder, but the party let it happen to give the movement room. 2010 was the great Tea Party wave. Mitt Romney, as a businessman and all-around rich guy, seemed to go down this line as well, blending traditional conservatism with financial and social libertarianism into something new. It seemed like things might have gone that way.
Could they? Who knows. What matters is voters didn't buy it. The Tea Party didn't buy it. At the end of the day people really didn't care for tax cuts for the wealthy. The connection between the high-concept Paul Ryan and the image of the "cut welfare to them damn slackers" hill-billy was too distant. The Tea Party (to the extent that it still is relevant) is now more about immigration then anything else, and this has been true since the immigration deal. There was conservative passion and rage, but it wasn't the type Republican leaders were responding to. There is a reason Republicans get more traction out of attacking their leadership than Democrats (want proof? Trump won, Sanders lost), and its that there is a real gap between the heads of the party, who were trying to make room for Paul Ryan's upstanding young libertarians, and Ted Cruzans.
Trump proved something. He proved that there is a market for this sort of thing. It's not just "
C+". It's qualitatively different from the direction Republican leaders were going with: instead of being the party of personal freedom,
Trump's GOP was the party of powerful government. Trump was a businessman like Romney, so you would expect him to be along the same path, right? Nope. Trump gives lip service to deregulation, but I'd bet for every time he mentions cutting rules, he mentions his ability to take corrupt rich people to task using his insider knowledge at least twice. What is the "worst deal ever" according to Trump? NAFTA. Too loose. People take advantage of us. What is the logical opposite of these statements? Closed trade;
regulated trade. Strength. Dealmaking. Respect. Tell me, can you imagine Trump saying "The government that governs best is the one that governs least?" Fuck no! You'd hear him call that sad! Loser talk. His GOP is strong governing. Powerful governing. Governing from the top down.
I could go on, but the point is the distance between
Ryanism and
Trumpism. So then what; the path forward is Trumpism right? No. That's the problem. First, party leaders don't want it. Trumpism is a real and significant break with what they envisioned. Many genuinely believe its the wrong path, or it is too great a break with Reagan and their traditions, etc. You don't get to be a party elder by being very open-minded, after all. Second: They believe it is nonviable. They believe that this new movement cannot coexist with the current coalition. Even beyond the toxicity we all know so much, it just doesn't fit.
Three:
They are right. Trumpism is not big enough to be its own coalition. Neither is the rest of the party. Both blocs are large, but not large enough to operate without the other. They need each other to be viable, but they don't fit together. They fucking hate each other, and on November Ninth it will all spill out into the streets. So many people are talking about what happens if Trump refuses to concede; what if he blames his own party? I mean really think about that. Trump's followers are fanatical. If he lets them loose on his party (and that is pretty damn likely!), what damage can they do? What if the GOP responds with equal viciousness, now that Trump lacks the mandate of the Republican Nominee? Who wins? What even happens?
Trump at his best was only ever strong by taking in all of his base, plus traditional Republicans, plus the disaffected middle voter (and even with all that, its debatable whether he ever broke even with Hillary). Trump manages himself by taking his voters, plus traditional republicans who just always vote republican due to loyalty to the party, the lipservice to the Republican Nominee, etc (the traditional coalition is largely in this group: parts of the religious right, the small government groups, etc). But consider: Trump is doing poorly with the rest of his coalition even though that part of the coalition is basically defined by "being Republican". He is struggling as a republican with voters whose sole qualifier is "Republican Y/N". I'm being hyperbolic, but there is a reason: Do you think Trump's coalition would have that same sort of loyalty? Or better yet:
Will they? Because it's going to happen. Four years from now, Republicans will almost certainly NOT nominate someone like Trump. The leadership will do all in their power to prevent it from coming to pass. But when a "traditional" republican takes the stage, how will Trump supporters respond? It depends on November 9th, November 10th, etc: If Trump blames his party, and if he continues attacking them, and he stays a lasting (if considerably weakened) force, then he can deal fatal damage to the party.
Will Trump lead his base away from the party? Would they follow him if he did? If the answers to both are "yes" (and there are strong reasons to believe both), then Trump can damage the party immensely. If you take away the Trump base, then the GOP is left with a completely non-viable party. What does that mean? Certainly losing the Presidency, Senate is probably, House is debatable. Either way, it'll be a
bloodbath.
Author
Topic: Doc Helgoland's Asylum for the Politically American: T+0 (Read 1420640 times)