Party loyalty to specific individual(s)

[TML]

This year, it seems that many Republican politicians are unwilling to break with Trump on most major issues - in fact, I can recall at least one Republican politician explicitly stating that the party is "the party of Donald J. Trump." This made me wonder: could this kind of mentality spread to the Democratic party when they return to power in the future? In other words, could there be future Democratic politicians who will say something to the effect of "We are the party of [Insert name of Democratic Politician]"?

[Yank2133]

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

[Virginiá]

Both party's voters share similar qualities, although Republicans seem to more wildly adjust their outlook based on which party controls the presidency. Democrats haven't shifted so violently in policy/other outlooks when the White House changed hands. Pew even noted this in an article showing how people viewed the economy over numerous presidencies.

However I think Democrats could get just as defensive of a president they really liked, but it's important to keep in mind that not every president begins and ends their tenure beloved by their people.

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

Agreed, but they don't even need to be successful to become God-like to the party base. Trump's signature accomplishment has been to blow up the deficit/debt to get a few bucks to his base / others, and most Americans (?) don't even think they are getting any benefits from the change. Then he royally bungled negotiations for his godforsaken wall, arguably the biggest symbol of his campaign. Everything else is basically the same things ANY Republican would have delivered: conservative judges and repealing some regulations.

These kinds of presidents just make a connection with their base during the campaign that is almost completely separate from policy. In Trump's case, if they point to these policy achievements, they are likely just reaching for some reason to rationalize how their unconditional love for Trump is actually conditional, despite it not being so.

[Yank2133]

Both party's voters share similar qualities, although Republicans seem to more wildly adjust their outlook based on which party controls the presidency. Democrats haven't shifted so violently in policy/other outlooks when the White House changed hands. Pew even noted this in an article showing how people viewed the economy over numerous presidencies.

However I think Democrats could get just as defensive of a president they really liked, but it's important to keep in mind that not every president begins and ends their tenure beloved by their people.

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

Agreed, but they don't even need to be successful to become God-like to the party base. Trump's signature accomplishment has been to blow up the deficit/debt to get a few bucks to his base / others, and most Americans (?) don't even think they are getting any benefits from the change. Then he royally bungled negotiations for his godforsaken wall, arguably the biggest symbol of his campaign. Everything else is basically the same things ANY Republican would have delivered: conservative judges and repealing some regulations.

These kinds of presidents just make a connection with their base during the campaign that is almost completely separate from policy. In Trump's case, if they point to these policy achievements, they are likely just reaching for some reason to rationalize how their unconditional love for Trump is actually conditional, despite it not being so.

True.

It really depends on how we define success. By most historical measures that we rate presidents by, Trump is pretty much a failure. But by how the base judges him (trolling liberals), he is resounding success.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

That's the weird thing though, the Republicans are making an unsuccessful President their standard-bearer.

[Izzyeviel]

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

Not really. it's common to be loyal and supportive of your leader, its another to do the same when said leader goes against the values and policies that you've had for decades.

Trump could convert to islam, piss on the statue of Lincoln, implement communism and  a pig on live tv and his base would still adore him.

[Globalise Operation Rising Lion]

The republican devotion to trump is like if democrats were ultra loyal to Jimmy Carter

[Mr. Smith]

The republican devotion to trump is like if democrats were ultra loyal to Jimmy Carter

Or Obama, aka the guy who lost them all those seats downballot, did almost nothing on what he said he would in 2008. All for what, a grand bargain where everyone was happy?

[Beet]

Both party's voters share similar qualities, although Republicans seem to more wildly adjust their outlook based on which party controls the presidency. Democrats haven't shifted so violently in policy/other outlooks when the White House changed hands. Pew even noted this in an article showing how people viewed the economy over numerous presidencies.

However I think Democrats could get just as defensive of a president they really liked, but it's important to keep in mind that not every president begins and ends their tenure beloved by their people.

Democrats already do that. Right now they are the party of Barack Obama, and before him they were the party of Bill Clinton, and before him they were the party of FDR (and Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson). Parties make their successful presidents their standard bearer.

Agreed, but they don't even need to be successful to become God-like to the party base. Trump's signature accomplishment has been to blow up the deficit/debt to get a few bucks to his base / others, and most Americans (?) don't even think they are getting any benefits from the change. Then he royally bungled negotiations for his godforsaken wall, arguably the biggest symbol of his campaign. Everything else is basically the same things ANY Republican would have delivered: conservative judges and repealing some regulations.

These kinds of presidents just make a connection with their base during the campaign that is almost completely separate from policy. In Trump's case, if they point to these policy achievements, they are likely just reaching for some reason to rationalize how their unconditional love for Trump is actually conditional, despite it not being so.

No, Trump's signature achievement is named Gorsuch, and, very soon, Kavanaugh. With these two appointments he has done more for social conservatism than Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, or George W. Bush combined. Would those presidents have delivered these judges? Reagan and H.W. Bush had a chance, but didn't. Dubya might have, but he didn't have the chance. But you are right that it is not all about policy. It is psychic and spiritual, it is a big F You to the people who look down on the hicks from flyover country.

In reality, I do not like cults of personality. I find them dangerous, as they can be used by the left (see Hugo Chavez or Mao Zedong) as the right. However, the liberals feed Trump's cult of personality via their constant attacks on him for everything he does, major or minor. It makes it obvious he is being treated unfairly, and the natural human impulse is to defend people who are being treated unfairly. I got caught up in this with Hillary Clinton back when I was a Democrat. I never thought she was such a great person or politician, but I reacted negatively to the fury of the attacks on her. Now that I am a Republican, I feel the same about Trump. Nothing he does is ever good enough for the left, which makes the things he does, paradoxically, a lot more understandable.

[Virginiá]

For all the millions of people who might feel upset by all the attacks on Trump, there are also millions of people who are practically dizzy from the sheer level of dishonesty, scandal, incompetence and offensive remarks from Trump. It's quite possible these people just don't care how his supporters feel, especially when they constantly try to twist and change reality to put their guy on a pedestal.

So in the end I don't think it matters one way or the other. It's been pretty clear for a while now that, maybe barring an economic catastrophe, his people will never stop loving him regardless if he is attacked or not.