What would you rather see happen to the GOP?

[Tekken_Guy]

What would you rather see happen?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If the GOP returning to its pre-Trump ways results in depolarisation along rural/urban lines, it becoming competitive earlier could have a significant upshot for democracy and reformists of all stripes.

[Hope For A New Era]

Neither.

Collapse, resulting in a near-unopposed reelection of Biden or election of his VP (like Monroe), followed by a split of the Democrats into the Democratic and Progressive parties.

To me, the Republicans have moved beyond redemption.

[Rover]

Both are losing strategies.
An important note though, Trumpism has a lot of support, some parts of Trumpism are very popular(candian merit based immigration reform, new infrastructure projects, massive expansion of vocational apprenticeships, Free and "Fair" trade deals, etc) but trump isn't popular, it's important to disguish the two.
There are no easy answers or quick solutions. The GOP can learn something from Conservative parties abroad i.e. German CDU or progressive conservatives in Ontario, Canada. However, what works in Germany and Ontario might not work in the US.

[MABA 2020]

Neither.

Collapse, resulting in a near-unopposed reelection of Biden or election of his VP (like Monroe), followed by a split of the Democrats into the Democratic and Progressive parties.

To me, they have moved beyond redemption.

This is the future I wanna see

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Neither.

Collapse, resulting in a near-unopposed reelection of Biden or election of his VP (like Monroe), followed by a split of the Democrats into the Democratic and Progressive parties.

To me, the Republicans have moved beyond redemption.

1. That is not possible because Monroe was a rather restrained President, who didn't agree with President power and deferred to Congress a lot. This was an era when the Presidency was rather weak and this was a President firmly opposed to Federal Action. This meant that 1) No on looked to the President to take action and so 2) the Presidency could be overlooked.

2. The Rise of Nationalism within the Jeffersonian Republican Party (Happy Truman? ), meant that there was an embrace for the pre-existing Federalist Ideas of tariffs, banks and internal improvements and thus there was a faction for those nationalists to gravitate towards while shedding the elitism of the Federalist Party.

3. This very same rise in nationalism, created the seeds for the rebellion against elites, the democratization of the electorate and opposition to the businesses that had engrossed into the Republican Party, hence the divide between the National Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans (See, proper usages of the term), later giving way to the Whigs and the Democrats.

4. If you look at the graph on this page: https://voteview.com/parties/all

It illustrates the convergence resulting into the split of the Republicans thereafter.

Long story short, no.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cotton doesn't have good instincts in my opinion. He has his neocon foreign policy, which is practically dead at this point and then there is his staunch opposition to any and all criminal justice reform and his stated reason was that someone would get out, kill someone, and then Republicans would get blamed.

Mass incarceration is a real problem and it is a big sticking point that keeps a nominally small gov't party away from large swaths of minority voters who might be interested in a pro-family message but aren't too keen on hearing it from the people who locked up their father because of weed possession. That is not to say that we should endorse drug use, it is to say that the extent that the war on drugs has broken up families, the Conservative movement has worked at cross purposes and undermined its own message or family and small government.

Foreign conflict works the same way and again runs in direct conflict with a party committed to family and small gov't, because when you send people to die in an unnecessary conflict like Iraq, again you end up hurting your brand and you wall yourself off from a number of voters who like a pro-family message and a small government message, but once again the agenda has worked at cross-purposes and has undermined itself.

Remember, Trump did not run as a traditional candidate, he ran very strongly against Iraq and his whole America first message played to people who were weary of such conflicts and wants a focus back on our country where things are perceived to be in decline.

The path forward has to draw from that, learn the lessons that worked and move on from the things that didn't.

1. Whoever it is cannot behave like Trump, cannot be a narcissist and must have a certainly level of demonstrated competence, preferably as a Governor, but not necessarily so. Military experience is a nice plus, and post trump that would be beneficial.

2. They have got to be in favor of foreign policy restraint and seeking to avoid foreign conflicts, rather than engaging in the kind of saber rattling that many are uncomfortable with. We cannot afford a conflict right now, the pandemic makes that doubly so and another botched conflict would wreck the GOP for decades.

3. Economic Populism.  A. This doesn't have to come in the form of redistribution and perhaps you could use tax credits or something, but you need to have some way to ensure that families can get ahead and support their families. If minimum wage is a no go, then something like the Earned Income Tax Credit being expanded and increased, and structured to incentive work and at the same time lift people off of poverty and off entitlement programs.
                 
                                  B. Some kind of economic revitalization program, that backs away from the Trump's approach but still involves a pro-active posture against abuse like dumping and recognition of China's actions and trying to mitigate them. Generic across the board tax cuts don't work for this, as they help those areas that are already doing well for the most part. I know to the libertarian that might seem fine, "the market place choosing" but the GOP base isn't in San Francisco and New York City, it is in the suburbs of Louisville and St. Louis, as well as the post industrial towns the dot the rust belt, Appalachia and South Central United States. If you don't service the economic needs of your base (which are needs shared by a number of others that presently vote Democratic like say rural minorities), they will just overthrow you like with Trump. These places initially grew with a target program of industrialization: subsidization, protectionism and technical education. Its going to require a similar combination, perhaps with tax incentives as opposed to direct subsidies, the pro-active trade posture described above and a renewed focus on skilled trades (which have been ignored in favor of four year education for years).

4. Small Government and the Family: If strong families are the best defense against dependency on government, then the GOP needs to back away from all of the big gov't social/defense positions that have directly contributed to the splitting up of families: elective foreign war, the war on drugs, the war on crime, mass incarceration and so forth. When you consider the negative side effects of these policies and the dependency it creates you begin to see how a big government deviation begets more big gov't via increased dependence on entitlement programs, the exact opposite of what should be happening.
 

[Del Tachi]

If the GOP's "pre-Trump ways" were competitive, then Donald Trump would have never come along.  Alas, Obama beat the Republicans twice (and even had a Senate majority for 2/3 of his administration!)

I know some posters are still trying to wrap their minds around this, but Trump won.  Both the Republican primary and the national election - Trump won them both.  As the incumbent president, there's still a very decent chance he wins a second term in November.   

Trumpism has not been a losing proposition for the GOP, just as the "pre-Trump" coalition was no reliable winner.  If either of these things were true, the current equilibrium would have never been reached. 

[Non Swing Voter]

anyone who thinks Democrats won't become just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the current GOP if they had permanent majority status is crazy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

anyone who thinks Democrats won't become just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the current GOP if they had permanent majority status is crazy.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Winning coalitions tend to shed support over time as once you get in power, people see who gets rewarded and who gets screwed, not to mention all of the scandals that occur in the process of serving out those rewards.

[UkrainianRepublican]

If the GOP's "pre-Trump ways" were competitive, then Donald Trump would have never come along.  Alas, Obama beat the Republicans twice (and even had a Senate majority for 2/3 of his administration!)

I know some posters are still trying to wrap their minds around this, but Trump won.  Both the Republican primary and the national election - Trump won them both.  As the incumbent president, there's still a very decent chance he wins a second term in November.    

Trumpism has not been a losing proposition for the GOP, just as the "pre-Trump" coalition was no reliable winner.  If either of these things were true, the current equilibrium would have never been reached.  

But what if Trump loses ala McCain this November? Then Trumpist candidate loses in 2024? Then what? Currently yes, Trumpism has an upper hand in the party, because it shown that it can squeak an impossible wins in impossible situations. If Trumpism gets crushed in next two elections, things may change.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Since when was the pre-Trump GOP been competitive? And who's to say that someone more competent, articulate and less toxic than Trump would make the "Trumpist" party more appealing?

[Agonized-Statism]

If the GOP's "pre-Trump ways" were competitive, then Donald Trump would have never come along.

[Del Tachi]

If the GOP's "pre-Trump ways" were competitive, then Donald Trump would have never come along.  Alas, Obama beat the Republicans twice (and even had a Senate majority for 2/3 of his administration!)

I know some posters are still trying to wrap their minds around this, but Trump won.  Both the Republican primary and the national election - Trump won them both.  As the incumbent president, there's still a very decent chance he wins a second term in November.   

Trumpism has not been a losing proposition for the GOP, just as the "pre-Trump" coalition was no reliable winner.  If either of these things were true, the current equilibrium would have never been reached. 

But what if Trump loses ala McCain this November? Then Trumpist candidate loses in 2024? Then what? Currently yes, Trumpism has an upper hand in the party, because it shown that it can squeak an impossible wins in impossible situations. If Trumpism gets crushed in next two elections, things may change.

Then yeah, the party will morph and change to approximate a winning coalition (and the Democrats will react accordingly) but a conscious return to the "pre-Trump" GOP is not in the cards. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pre Trump, the Republican Party was completely boxed in.

They were too socially conservative to win socially moderate suburbs and states like Colorado and Virginia. This also impacted Florida, PA, MN and to some extent OH and MI.
They were too fiscally conservative to win WWC voters by enough to flip places like OH and IA, much less PA, MI and WI.
They were too anti-immigrant to win enough Hispanics to make anything happen in NV and New Mexico and this was also a drag in CO and FL.
They were too pro-war to win over younger anti-war voters and libertarians.


There were two articles published in 2013 that basically in my view predicted what had to happen and in some form what actually did happen, both were on Real Clear Politics:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/09/the_missing_white_voters_revisisted_132308.html (Original Linked inside)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/05/the_libertarian_populist_agenda_118694.html

Which ironically includes a level of dubiousness regarding their ability to govern.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Pre Trump, the Republican Party was completely boxed in.

They were too socially conservative to win socially moderate suburbs and states like Colorado and Virginia. This also impacted Florida, PA, MN and to some extent OH and MI.
They were too fiscally conservative to win WWC voters by enough to flip places like OH and IA, much less PA, MI and WI.
They were too anti-immigrant to win enough Hispanics to make anything happen in NV and New Mexico and this was also a drag in CO and FL.
They were too pro-war to win over younger anti-war voters and libertarians.


There were two articles published in 2013 that basically in my view predicted what had to happen and in some form what actually did happen, both were on Real Clear Politics:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/09/the_missing_white_voters_revisisted_132308.html (Original Linked inside)

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/05/the_libertarian_populist_agenda_118694.html

Which ironically includes a level of dubiousness regarding their ability to govern.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/09/the_missing_white_voters_revisisted_132308.html

"This GOP would have to be more "America first" on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics. "

Heh.

[Escape Pod Zero]

Easily option 1.

Trumpism needs to be abolished.

[R.P. McM]

anyone who thinks Democrats won't become just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the current GOP if they had permanent majority status is crazy.

I guess I'm crazy. No, seriously, in the context of their eras, were either FDR or LBJ as corrupt or bigoted as Donald Trump? The obvious answer is no.

[Chips]

The former even though I like Trump I still mostly want the GOP to win future elections.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Pre Trump, the Republican Party was completely boxed in.

They were too socially conservative to win socially moderate suburbs and states like Colorado and Virginia. This also impacted Florida, PA, MN and to some extent OH and MI.
They were too fiscally conservative to win WWC voters by enough to flip places like OH and IA, much less PA, MI and WI.
They were too anti-immigrant to win enough Hispanics to make anything happen in NV and New Mexico and this was also a drag in CO and FL.
They were too pro-war to win over younger anti-war voters and libertarians.

This is basically everything.  Excellent analysis.

[Del Tachi]

Winning coalitions tend to shed support over time as once you get in power, people see who gets rewarded and who gets screwed, not to mention all of the scandals that occur in the process of serving out those rewards.

It's even more basic than that.  Any vote you get beyond what you need to win is necessarily inefficient and sub-optimal, so the equilibrium is for a party to have the *smallest winning coalition possible.

That's part of the reason why governing parties are so intertwined with their special/corporate interests - it's way more efficient to cater to super organized, single-issue interests than the body politic at large. 

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Winning coalitions tend to shed support over time as once you get in power, people see who gets rewarded and who gets screwed, not to mention all of the scandals that occur in the process of serving out those rewards.

It's even more basic than that.  Any vote you get beyond what you need to win is necessarily inefficient and sub-optimal, so the equilibrium is for a party to have the *smallest winning coalition possible.

That's part of the reason why governing parties are so intertwined with their special/corporate interests - it's way more efficient to cater to super organized, single-issue interests than the body politic at large. 

Not unless that coalition is reflected proportionally across midterms and in the Senate, House and presidency. The ideal is arguably one large enough to overcome the differentials between these bodies and one with consistent turnout.

If you are an obstructionist like McConnell, the ideal is one that skews in the Senate's favour so that you can discredit government by imposing gridlock without actually having to take the White House and expending political capital by holding the presidency.

[dw93]

Neither, but unfortunately I think you're gonna see a hybrid of sorts of both pre and post Trump Republicanism emerge after Trump leaves office (whether that's this year or next).