Matthew Continetti:
The speed with which prominent Republican officials and conservative spokesmen condemned Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States revealed the true stakes in the 2016 election. The future of the GOP as we know it is in question — not the party’s political future but its ideological one. Donald Trump’s candidacy is already intensifying party divisions. Nominating him would alter the character of the Republican Party in a fundamental way.
GOP voters understand this possibility. A majority backs candidates other than Trump. But the huge Republican field splits the anti-Trump vote and gives him double-digit leads in national and state polls. And while it is possible those polls overstate Trump’s support, it’s equally possible that they understate it.
Trump may not even need a majority of traditional Republican voters to win. His unusual candidacy could bring in voters new to the party or even to the political process. Whether Trump wins or loses a general election against Hillary Clinton is less important in this analysis than the effect his nomination would have on the composition and philosophy of the Republican Party. That effect would be profound.
Political parties are not static. They are born, they grow and change, they shrink and die. There is no Mosaic commandment stipulating that a party must hold to one platform over another, no natural law governing the ideology to which the party subscribes. A party is a reflection of its membership. And when the identities or character of that membership is altered, the party is too. The clearest sign that such a transformation has occurred is in the selection of a party’s nominee.
Three examples. Modern conservatism was born in 1955 with the founding of National Review, but the movement did not find political expression until the GOP nominated Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Arizona senator may have been defeated in a landslide, but the conservative activists and journalists and thinkers associated with his candidacy and cause did not disappear. They grew in numbers and in influence, and prepared the way for Ronald Reagan.
The Democratic Party was once the party of the white working class — of trade unionists, Catholics, Cold War hawks. Things changed with the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. The South Dakota senator was also defeated in a landslide, but his coalition of the highly educated, minorities, and liberal antiwar activists was the beginning of the “emerging Democratic majority” you read about today.
Reagan’s nomination and election in 1980 was itself a transformation. It confirmed that the GOP was pro-life, shifted the emphasis of economic policy from deficit reduction to supply-side tax cuts, and signaled the defeat of the Kissinger wing in foreign policy. Reagan drew support from new constituencies: evangelical Christians who had been politically quiescent for decades and urban ethnic voters in revolt against liberalism. This new ideology and social base set the terms of American politics for decades.
It’s possible we are at the beginning of another political recalibration based on national identity. Already center-right parties in Japan and Russia and Israel have lurched in a nationalist direction. And where nationalists do not enjoy outright control, as in Hungary and Poland, they split the center-right coalition, as in France, the U.K., and Germany.
The tendency in Washington is not to take Donald Trump seriously. To describe him as a clown, as someone who will drop out, as someone whose beliefs are non-ideological. I believe that to dismiss him is a mistake. Since declaring his candidacy in June, Trump has been consistent on issues of immigration and trade and security. He has not deviated from building a wall on the southern border, slapping tariffs on imports, criticizing the 2003 Iraq war, praising Vladimir Putin, describing Ukraine as Germany’s problem, not ours, and saying peace in the Middle East depends on Israeli concessions.
Trump’s nationalism has far more in common with the conservatism of Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, than with the conservatism of Ronald Reagan. Support for a “Muslim ban” is par for the course among European nationalists — by calling for it here all Trump has done is confirm how closely American politics resembles European politics. Reagan was an immigration advocate who signed the 1986 amnesty law.
Indeed, Republican nominees since Ronald Reagan have been internationalist in outlook. They have been pro-free trade and pro-immigration, have supported American leadership in global institutions, and have argued for market solutions and traditional values. A Republican Party under Donald Trump would broadly reject this attitude. It would emphasize protection in all its forms — immigration restriction, trade duties, a fortress America approach to international relations, and activist government to address health care and veterans’ care. Paeans to freedom and opportunity and equality and small government would give way to admonishments to strive, to fight, to win, to profit.
The Republican Party has already gamed the delegate system so that an independent such as Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina or Paul cannot even qualify to be nominated at the convention.
See, a candidate must get 50% plus 1 delegate in at least 8 states to have his name go into nomination.
Delegates are NOT all picked by the popular vote of the people.
Not even close!
Most delegates are establishment Republicans in state offices: the governor, state congressional seat holders and even some leaders in the state’s RNC organization.
None of these will vote outside the establishment group of candidates: Bush, Kasich, Rubio, Christie.
One of these will win the nomination under the new rules.
Unless…..
Unless Trump can garner over 50% of the popular vote in each of at least 8 states before March 15th.
That’s a pretty big hurdle to jump.
No wonder you’re seeing squawking from Trump, Carson and Rand Paul today.
It’s like they JUST read the rules!
If Trump is the nominee, the Republicans MIGHT lose. If he is the qualified candidate and they screw him out of it and he decides to run as an independent, they WILL lose the election.
@Bill: I am not so sure. The American people are fed up. They are fed up with the lying and deceit from BOTH parties. They are tired of illegals and muslim refugees being the priority. They are tired of jobs disappearing and the economy being stagnant and so forth and so forth. They are plain sick and tired.
I don’t agree with everything Trump stands for. (I would be naive to believe I should or would agree 100% with any candidate hopeful) However, I do agree with him that our country can be great again, and that American citizens should be the priority. We are not the ones that are going to bear the burden of the current administration but our children and their children. Will they have the freedoms that we had as a child? Will the red, white and blue be flying above the WH when they are adults? The way things are going, I am fearful it won’t.
If Trump doesn’t like the rules and he goes third party he very well could take the election by popular vote, many democrats are looking at Hillary and saying hell no and await Biden or anyone else to run. Santorum got screwed the last election by the party and they chose another loser. The Elite in both Parties are afraid of losing the power to run the country into the dirt while they live in splendor. I am sure Hillary still has her nose out of joint having to return over $200,000 worth of stuff she stole as they were evicted from the whitehouse. The last thing they want to do is trust the voters to choose our representative.
@kitt: Kitt and enchanted Do you realize how difficult it would be for a 3rd party candidate to win POTUS? Has never happened. Just to get on the ballot in 50 states—remember it is still electoral college not popular vote–Perot got 20% of vote yet not a single E.C—If Trump runs 3rd party–Palin V.P?–assures HRC WIN.
@Rich Wheeler: Just saying he could do as much or more damage to the Dems as to the Reps. Palin really??
@Rich Wheeler: You are correct, but there is always faith. As far as a VP, I just hope it isn’t a republican that is not eligible like cruz or rubio.
History is cyclical and cycles have bouts of evolution and recessions. Following WWI the Red Scare saw a similar reaction to the spread of what many saw as radical and dangerous leftist ideologies such as socialism, communism and anarchism that threatened the American way. The first Red scare was from 1917-1920, in the 50’s the Red Scare= the new McCarthyism.
Dig a litter deeper and a subtle but developing consequence is arising from the very complex process of globalization. Underdeveloped states are not reaping the economic benefits of globalized trade and economic infusion that was to occur with this interaction. The spread of globalization in the 19th and 20th centuries have frequently undermined local economics. The reader has to think outside the box.
The matrix and influx of immigrants are from countries that have a failed economy infra -structures as a result of globalization. The route of the Red Scare to McCarthyism now to the media bashing of Trumpism represents another cyclical failure in American history. Recall that the presstitutes learned their lessons from Ted Turner and associates.