Conservatives only: If trump loses, will you still support Trumpism or will you abandon it?

[Saint Milei]

Honestly, I don't see how the GOP could go back to Bushism and still expect to preserve what's left of the base, even if trump loses.

[RI]

It's quite clear that the GOP needs a new direction going forward, but that direction will necessarily incorporate many aspects of "Trumpism" and "Bushism". The structural issues that motivated Trump's election have not gone away and have, if anything, grown worse over the past four years.

[RINO Tom]

"Bushism" and "Trumpism" only mean something concrete to very vocal (and very annoying) minorities.  The GOP is, at its core, a vehicle for maintaining class hierarchy to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off excessive leftist redistribution actions (i.e., "economically conservative") and maintaining societal norms and cohesion to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off rash and flavor-of-the-month cultural movements (i.e., "socially conservative").  Beyond that, it goes where the winds are blowing.

My prediction after Trump likely loses in 2020 is that the GOP will try to dress a "moderately-conservative-but-still-minimally-egalitarian" economic package with a decidedly more articulate, less bombastic and unsophisticated version of social conservatism and traditionalism.  You can support upholding our immigration laws and defending traditional American cultural norms without sounding like a yokel, and you can support maintaining economic stability without being a Randian who doesn't care for anyone but the 1%.  Think John Kasich, without the current flare for anti-Trump-related attention.

[Saint Milei]

"Bushism" and "Trumpism" only mean something concrete to very vocal (and very annoying) minorities.  The GOP is, at its core, a vehicle for maintaining class hierarchy to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off excessive leftist redistribution actions (i.e., "economically conservative") and maintaining societal norms and cohesion to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off rash and flavor-of-the-month cultural movements (i.e., "socially conservative").  Beyond that, it goes where the winds are blowing.

My prediction after Trump likely loses in 2020 is that the GOP will try to dress a "moderately-conservative-but-still-minimally-egalitarian" economic package with a decidedly more articulate, less bombastic and unsophisticated version of social conservatism and traditionalism.  You can support upholding our immigration laws and defending traditional American cultural norms without sounding like a yokel, and you can support maintaining economic stability without being a Randian who doesn't care for anyone but the 1%.  Think John Kasich, without the current flare for anti-Trump-related attention.

This mentality will set the gop back

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Bushism" and "Trumpism" only mean something concrete to very vocal (and very annoying) minorities.  The GOP is, at its core, a vehicle for maintaining class hierarchy to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off excessive leftist redistribution actions (i.e., "economically conservative") and maintaining societal norms and cohesion to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off rash and flavor-of-the-month cultural movements (i.e., "socially conservative").  Beyond that, it goes where the winds are blowing.

My prediction after Trump likely loses in 2020 is that the GOP will try to dress a "moderately-conservative-but-still-minimally-egalitarian" economic package with a decidedly more articulate, less bombastic and unsophisticated version of social conservatism and traditionalism.  You can support upholding our immigration laws and defending traditional American cultural norms without sounding like a yokel, and you can support maintaining economic stability without being a Randian who doesn't care for anyone but the 1%.  Think John Kasich, without the current flare for anti-Trump-related attention.

This mentality will set the gop back

It's actually the only way forward.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have posted my thoughts I think should happen twice before:

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.
 

[RINO Tom]

"Bushism" and "Trumpism" only mean something concrete to very vocal (and very annoying) minorities.  The GOP is, at its core, a vehicle for maintaining class hierarchy to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off excessive leftist redistribution actions (i.e., "economically conservative") and maintaining societal norms and cohesion to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off rash and flavor-of-the-month cultural movements (i.e., "socially conservative").  Beyond that, it goes where the winds are blowing.

My prediction after Trump likely loses in 2020 is that the GOP will try to dress a "moderately-conservative-but-still-minimally-egalitarian" economic package with a decidedly more articulate, less bombastic and unsophisticated version of social conservatism and traditionalism.  You can support upholding our immigration laws and defending traditional American cultural norms without sounding like a yokel, and you can support maintaining economic stability without being a Randian who doesn't care for anyone but the 1%.  Think John Kasich, without the current flare for anti-Trump-related attention.

This mentality will set the gop back

Care to explain?  Seems like the kind of weak ass quip I’d throw together at 2:00 am to get a response in...

[Saint Milei]

"Bushism" and "Trumpism" only mean something concrete to very vocal (and very annoying) minorities.  The GOP is, at its core, a vehicle for maintaining class hierarchy to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off excessive leftist redistribution actions (i.e., "economically conservative") and maintaining societal norms and cohesion to whatever extent seems reasonable/stave off rash and flavor-of-the-month cultural movements (i.e., "socially conservative").  Beyond that, it goes where the winds are blowing.

My prediction after Trump likely loses in 2020 is that the GOP will try to dress a "moderately-conservative-but-still-minimally-egalitarian" economic package with a decidedly more articulate, less bombastic and unsophisticated version of social conservatism and traditionalism.  You can support upholding our immigration laws and defending traditional American cultural norms without sounding like a yokel, and you can support maintaining economic stability without being a Randian who doesn't care for anyone but the 1%.  Think John Kasich, without the current flare for anti-Trump-related attention.

This mentality will set the gop back

Care to explain?  Seems like the kind of weak ass quip I’d throw together at 2:00 am to get a response in...

What trumpism stands for is what a large portion of americans stand for. I don't accept the notion that trumpism is just for a small minority and everyone is close to the middle. Most voters in middle america would be very responsive to trumpism. The GOP is no longer the hierarchical party anymore. It's going to be the traditional working class party that most Americans felt defined our nation for decades.



This whole egalitarian outlook by the moderate GOP wing will only enrage the base and push more people away. The moderate wing of the GOP has real disdain for middle america and that's exactly why the wing fails to produce results

[Nightcore Nationalist]

This mentality will set the gop back

Care to explain?  Seems like the kind of weak ass quip I’d throw together at 2:00 am to get a response in...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/12/larry-hogan-2024-republicans-358051

As rumors swirl that Larry Hogan is eyeing a run for president in 2024, the Republican governor of Maryland has some advice for the post-Trump GOP: Be more like me.

“I don't know what the future holds in November, but I know that the Republican Party is going to be looking at what happens after President [Donald] Trump and whether that's in four months or four years,” Hogan said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


That, Hogan argued, should include becoming more inclusive.


“I think they're going to be looking to, ‘How do we go about becoming a bigger tent party?’” he told host Chuck Todd.

Hogan pointed to his 2018 reelection as the model, when he won in Maryland, a deeply Democratic state by twelve points. He also cited the fact he won votes from suburban women, Democrats and Independents, the latter two groups being groups that appear to have ditched President Trump.

I love this man so much. I don't care if he has minimal chance in a GOP primary. I believe in him, and think he would make an amazing president.

Platitudes about inclusiveness and being a "big tent" party are all well and good, but any presumptive GOP leader has to back it up with a policy platform that is sustainable long term and will actually win an election.  The last thing I want to happen is the party to regress back to 2012 which seems somewhat likely if the nevertrumpers take control of the party again, and arrogantly decide that they control the GOP and any populism should be stamped out.

The GOP reverting back to 2010 suburban support is impossible, and the National Review platform of pro-corporatism and social conservatism is a dead end.  The Nevertrumpers have to understand that their party platform has to evolve to fit a changing world and changing demographics.  Nationalism in a geopolitical sense and pro-worker populist policies is the way forward for the GOP.

Some establishment Republicans understand this-see Rubio supporting Ivanka's parental leave proposal and "common good" capitalism, and the hawkish views on communist China Nikki Haley (and much of the party) have adopted.  This is the path of least resistance for the GOP and will help recover with suburban voters-at least compared to fire-breathing nationalists.

My preference is Trumpism with someone less polarizing and more competent, with moderate policies on police accountability and college debt.  If establishment Republicans want to re-take control of the party, they have to make concessions to pro-worker and pro-middle class issues, and adopt a foreign policy fit for the world of the 2020s and 2030s, not 2003.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

What trumpism stands for is what a large portion of americans stand for. I don't accept the notion that trumpism is just for a small minority and everyone is close to the middle. Most voters in middle america would be very responsive to trumpism. The GOP is no longer the hierarchical party anymore. It's going to be the traditional working class party that most Americans felt defined our nation for decades.



This whole egalitarian outlook by the moderate GOP wing will only enrage the base and push more people away. The moderate wing of the GOP has real disdain for middle america and that's exactly why the wing fails to produce results

As you say, The GOP needs to tack to the center on economic/worker/family issues.  It still has a looming reputation as the cosmopolitan/elite/neoliberal party that doesn't care about the bottom 80% as long as corporate profits rise and top marginal rates fall.  Establishment republicans who think that's a viable political future are kidding themselves.

Here's a perfect example of a conservative article with an elitist, condescending premise going after Biden's recent strategy of economic populism: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/economic-policy-buy-american-dangerous-canard/

I had a more detailed response but I accidentally deleted my tab

[Saint Milei]

What trumpism stands for is what a large portion of americans stand for. I don't accept the notion that trumpism is just for a small minority and everyone is close to the middle. Most voters in middle america would be very responsive to trumpism. The GOP is no longer the hierarchical party anymore. It's going to be the traditional working class party that most Americans felt defined our nation for decades.



This whole egalitarian outlook by the moderate GOP wing will only enrage the base and push more people away. The moderate wing of the GOP has real disdain for middle america and that's exactly why the wing fails to produce results

As you say, The GOP needs to tack to the center on economic/worker/family issues.  It still has a looming reputation as the cosmopolitan/elite/neoliberal party that doesn't care about the bottom 80% as long as corporate profits rise and top marginal rates fall.  Establishment republicans who think that's a viable political future are kidding themselves.

Here's a perfect example of a conservative article with an elitist, condescending premise going after Biden's recent strategy of economic populism: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/economic-policy-buy-american-dangerous-canard/

I had a more detailed response but I accidentally deleted my tab

Yeah, perception is key.

[Roemerista]

I think the people that think Trumpism has a life beyond Trump are going to be disappointed.Let's be frank. Trump doesn't have a coherent world view. Nor advocates one.

Trump has a strong emotional appeal to a large group of voters. And voters, especially conservative leaning ones, are much more driven by emotional appeals.  This is not unique. Bushism, Reaganism, the same. Do you think America became enraptured with deregulation or neocon foreign policy? It was just the emotional appeals that fit the times.

[Saint Milei]

I think the people that think Trumpism has a life beyond Trump are going to be disappointed.Let's be frank. Trump doesn't have a coherent world view. Nor advocates one.

Trump has a strong emotional appeal to a large group of voters. And voters, especially conservative leaning ones, are much more driven by emotional appeals.  This is not unique. Bushism, Reaganism, the same. Do you think America became enraptured with deregulation or neocon foreign policy? It was just the emotional appeals that fit the times.

I don't think deregulation has been a mindset, but it's absolutely true America was brainwashed by neoconservatism. You could see it in the GOP. And the left is now being brainwashed by neoconservatism once again.


I also reject the notion that trumpism isn't coherent.

[Reluctant Republican]

I'm definitely more sympathetic to Trumpism flavored populism than the old Bush-era GOP. I won't go back to voting for the McCain's or Romney's. Sadly for me though, I strongly suspect the country as a whole does not share my views. Does the GOP? I think we'll see a more restrained Republican party when it comes to foreign policy, especially as younger voters continue to come of age, having grown up in a time where foreign intervention was nothing but one disaster after another for us. But as a whole, I am very pessimistic about the Republican party's future and expect it to spend a long time in the wilderness. Things do change, mind, but the Dems seem to me to be clearly the plurality of America-- they've won the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections (and I don't see how they lose it in this one even if Trump wins), and with D.C. and possibly Puerto Rico becoming states and Dems likely to win control of redistricting in several important states, I expect this advantage to only grow.

Anyway, yes, I expect I'll be voting for the more Trump friendly candidates in the primaries for the foreseeable future. I also think Trump, being very likely to be more vocal than past presidents have been, will retain control of the party for a longer period of time. I could easily see him tweeting out support for a primary for anyone he viewed as particularly troublesome like Murkowski for example, and I think he'll still be popular enough with the grassroots for awhile that many politicians will still be hesitant to break with him too strongly.

[Del Tachi]

What is Trumpism?

[RINO Tom]

What is Trumpism?

Ding ding ding

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This thread is hilarious because the title assumes that almost all conservatives on this forum support "Trumpism", which seems very wrong.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I think the people that think Trumpism has a life beyond Trump are going to be disappointed.Let's be frank. Trump doesn't have a coherent world view. Nor advocates one.

Trump has a strong emotional appeal to a large group of voters. And voters, especially conservative leaning ones, are much more driven by emotional appeals.  This is not unique. Bushism, Reaganism, the same. Do you think America became enraptured with deregulation or neocon foreign policy? It was just the emotional appeals that fit the times.

Which is ironic, considering how much of contemporary conservative partisan rhetoric revolves around Republican perceptions of liberalism as being too emotional and effeminate ("snowflake," "bleeding-heart," "facts and logic," etc.). But it's not that surprising considering that the Republican Party has always been the party for unabashed American nationalists, and nationalism is a concept where Romanticist sentimentalism coils deeply around its roots, attracting the most hot-blooded of idealists.

Reactionary nationalists are of course running the showboat at this point, displacing the other wing of the party constituted by even-keeled businessmen and professionals embodying a far more subdued strain of conservatism emphasizing stability. Bush and Reagan brought these wings of the party together, but the Trump populists have decided that forcing the genteel conservatives of the party's inner circle into a submissive status was a far better arrangement.

Trump may not have a cohesive worldview, but populist right-wingers love the fact that he brought the party's elite to heel. They'll gravitate towards whichever individual emerges to promise a similar configuration of internal party politics that puts them front and center. The establishment tried to pull the base by the strings for too long and got burned for it, and while I'm sure some might think that it's possible to take things back to how they used to be, is that something that the reactionaries would be willing to tolerate again? Trump has invariably altered the party's internal dynamics in a way that could take decades to be untangled.

[Chips]

Trumpism sounds promising on paper but doesn't work so well in reality.

[Idaho Conservative]

They need to move more in that direction.  Trump has governed as a social conservative, but needs to be more populist on foreign policy and economic policy.  Not saying move left, the GOP should be non-interventionist from a nationalist perspective, that logic will get the base on board with being more anti-war.  On economics, supporting tax cuts for the middle class, lowering education costs, and moving to the center on healthcare would greatly increase appeal.  These policies might not only appeal to the white working class, but also college whites and minority voters.  Republicans need to expand their coalition while maintaining their core base.  Those who suggest the GOP become a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" party are out of touch with the Republican party and honestly the country as a whole. 

[RINO Tom]

They need to move more in that direction.  Trump has governed as a social conservative, but needs to be more populist on foreign policy and economic policy.  Not saying move left, the GOP should be non-interventionist from a nationalist perspective, that logic will get the base on board with being more anti-war.  On economics, supporting tax cuts for the middle class, lowering education costs, and moving to the center on healthcare would greatly increase appeal.  These policies might not only appeal to the white working class, but also college whites and minority voters.  Republicans need to expand their coalition while maintaining their core base.  Those who suggest the GOP become a "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" party are out of touch with the Republican party and honestly the country as a whole. 

Zero people have suggested that.  All that's been suggested is that the GOP restores some dignity and class to its message.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Trumpism is here to stay, and thank God for that.

[RINO Tom]

Trumpism is here to stay, and thank God for that.

Meaningless term if it can’t be defined ... I think Trump’s appeal as he rose was much broader and more ideologically diverse than his hardcore supporters OR his detractors want to admit.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

As far as policy goes, I support Trumpism on one issue, which is immigration. I truly believe the main reason Trump won in the primaries is because the GOP primary voters did not trust the other candidates on that issue.

Other than that, no. The next Republican President needs to be focused on foreign policy, an area where I find Trump to be undesirable. An America that withdraws from international institutions is an America that leaves a power vacuum that China or other bad eggs will be happy to fill.

So to answer the real question, my views on Trump’s policies won’t change.

[S019]

The GOP's only path is to go back to some form of Bushism, it's either that or going back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the 60's and 70's. As a former Republican, who actually once had some faith in Trump, I've become completely alarmed by his racism, sexism, xenophobia, as well as his total incompetence in office. The GOP needs to have a platform that is more than "Dunking on the libz" if it wants to actually have a future. I think their best path is actually to nominate a Baker/Scott ticket in 2024 and try to reach out to the Romney Republicans and other voters who have become disenchanted with the modern GOP, and yes this falls into the second category.