New Yorker: "The Republican Identity Crisis After Trump"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wouldn't refer to the reversalist role as Sanders/Warren lite or even as reversalist. I would refer to it as Bismarckian.

It expressed a number of the points that I made as far back as 2016 in terms of how and why Trump got nominated. The disjointed message between social stability and economic turbulence of unregulated capitalism are operating at cross purposes and something had to give here, and hence you got Trump. The fact that Trump failed to deliver here is entirely because of his personal deficiencies, but it doesn't mean that these go away.

I also think it is a mistake to necessarily separate out the remnant approach from this reveralist approach as both agree that the pre-2015 GOP is dead and think the path forward on economic policy is the same. The difference is how wide a net it is going to cast and while the former casts a narrow one, political necessity dictates that the latter increasingly becomes the operative strategy. Indeed they are the same on this aspect, the difference is whether you are rallying white resentment or working to get the black percentage up in South Side Chicago to flip Illinois.  Yes, racial annimous is a powerful force but power and control are also and that along with math will dictate certain actions here. It is not inconceivable for things to evolve in this direction.

I also would caution against Rove's interpretation of McKinley for the obvious reality that McKinley was an economic nationalist and in fact he was the poster boy of the protectionist system and was able to use this rally industrial votes against the Bryan agrarianism, that was going to wipe out their industrial jobs.

Lastly, in terms of business. This is not the first time the country was dominated by a pro-free trade elite dominated by internationally oriented trading systems, foreign powers and international cartels and conglomerates. That is precisely what the the Federalist Supporting Merchants of New England (destroyed by the embargo) were and the Plantation Owners of the south (destroyed by the Civil War). Also the Websterite Whig supporting Textile owners (Speaker Winthrop) were not too keen on the anti-South shift of politics in the 1850's. The businesses that didn't adapt were destroyed by the Civil War, and those that did became the dominant tycoons of the Gilded Age.

People don't understand the dynamics of nationalism and business well because they have spent years studying neoliberal and other schools with this stuff basically white washed from existence. It works like this, you destroy the internationally oriented business entities and then in their place a new crop of business and a new business mindset is created, that is nationalist and while very much in favor of pro-business policies internally are very much concerned with everything being couched on the basis of being for the good country or benefit of the country. Either directly (nobless oblige) or indirectly (success uplifting others), but all operating on a basis of a nationalist economic mindset. This was very much (more so the latter) how business in America functioned in the late 19th century mindful of being destroyed by the British Juggernaut economically with their free trade policy and the agrarians internally.  This is the "pro-business nationalism" that defined the GOP economic policy in the late 19th century and it is certainly the policy that McKinley was very much steeped into.



If you read Holt's work on the Rise and Fall of the Whig Party and his discussion on 1854 in MA, the similarities between the Whig Establishment and the Paul Ryan types and between Gardner's American Party and Trump are striking. Reading this in 2015 was what led me to predict that Trump was the disruptive agent, he was not the final end result, and I still hold that to be the case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over. 

[Cassandra]

The reversalist path is by far the most intriguing to me. And it feels natural. The material base of the Democratic party is shifting towards that of the business/elite/upscale metropolitan class. This dovetails with capitalism's incorporation of "woke" ideology. Therefore it makes sense that the Republican party would shift to become a more working class party. I think people over-estimate the necessity of naked racism as an animating factor in the Trump coalition. Obviously it's there, but IMO it's overplayed by a mainstream/liberal media newly conscious of its political role.

The right leader (who may or may not be Rubio, that was a wrinkle that caught me by surprise), could promote an economic nationalist position without the racial animus, pealing off enough black and hispanic working class (and mostly younger) voters to create a new majority coalition. Never assume that current trends will last forever. Remember when the Democrats had a permanent majority after Obama? The Republican party won't be buried by Trump; it will reinvent itself, synthesizing his intervention with other factors (like, say, the 2012 autopsy).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The reversalist path is by far the most intriguing to me. And it feels natural. The material base of the Democratic party is shifting towards that of the business/elite/upscale metropolitan class. This dovetails with capitalism's incorporation of "woke" ideology. Therefore it makes sense that the Republican party would shift to become a more working class party. I think people over-estimate the necessity of naked racism as an animating factor in the Trump coalition. Obviously it's there, but IMO it's overplayed by a mainstream/liberal media newly conscious of its political role.

The right leader (who may or may not be Rubio, that was a wrinkle that caught me by surprise), could promote an economic nationalist position without the racial animus, pealing off enough black and hispanic working class (and mostly younger) voters to create a new majority coalition. Never assume that current trends will last forever. Remember when the Democrats had a permanent majority after Obama? The Republican party won't be buried by Trump; it will reinvent itself, synthesizing his intervention with other factors (like, say, the 2012 autopsy).

I agree that there's a possibility for color-blind, non-white supremacist economic nationalism - but I don't think it's possible to bring the current crop of GOP voters around to it in sufficient numbers. It's not just the racism; it's the bone-deep commitment of a good segment of the rural and rural-aligned base to bigotry on race, on gender, on education, lifestyle and a host of other things (including an increasingly large dose of conspiracy theories) and that they see it all as patriotism. The only way I can imagine to get Ameristan to step away from its burning hate for other parts of America is to re-direct it against a very obvious foreign threat. And I'm skeptical even that would work or be healthy for the nation. And even then, while they might see other Americans as "allies", the white supremacy aspect of the movement is going to push hard to make sure the Ameristanis are on top, and they will be endlessly aggrieved when they're not.

But maybe I'm wrong. I certainly have no real understanding of what goes on inside the heads of Republicans. (My statements above are from watching their behavior from the outside.) They certainly obediently gobble up and regurgitate whatever they're fed by Fox News (or their "conservative" mind-poison of choice), and Donnie certainly had them dancing to his tune on things like Russia very quickly. Maybe the right cult leader can turn them onto a new heading, like a school of fish. I'm skeptical of any real success - even Dubya levels of success - being achievable. Practical government requires at least one foot in reality, and I doubt Republicans are capable of achieving that any more; there's just too much money in feeding them easy lies.

[Former President tack50]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over. 

Isn't the GOP nomination a "Who is the most Trumpist" litmus test now though?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over. 

Isn't the GOP nomination a "Who is the most Trumpist" litmus test now though?

Not really, no.  There is more diversity in issue positions amongst Republicans these days.  As long as the candidate endorses Trump, there is wiggle room for issue positions.

At one time a guy like Jeff Van Drew would have been primaried out of office even after switching parties due to being recruited for being insufficiently conservative.  The GOP is over that now.  Van Drew is a moderate Republican, but he'll be OK so long as he supports the national ticket (which he does). 

[Former President tack50]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over. 

Isn't the GOP nomination a "Who is the most Trumpist" litmus test now though?

Not really, no.  There is more diversity in issue positions amongst Republicans these days.  As long as the candidate endorses Trump, there is wiggle room for issue positions.

At one time a guy like Jeff Van Drew would have been primaried out of office even after switching parties due to being recruited for being insufficiently conservative.  The GOP is over that now.  Van Drew is a moderate Republican, but he'll be OK so long as he supports the national ticket (which he does). 

This directly contradicts my point though?

As for Jeff van Drew, he might not be all that conservative, but he is still a Trumpist?

[Alcibiades]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over.  

Isn't the GOP nomination a "Who is the most Trumpist" litmus test now though?

Not really, no.  There is more diversity in issue positions amongst Republicans these days.  As long as the candidate endorses Trump, there is wiggle room for issue positions.

At one time a guy like Jeff Van Drew would have been primaried out of office even after switching parties due to being recruited for being insufficiently conservative.  The GOP is over that now.  Van Drew is a moderate Republican, but he'll be OK so long as he supports the national ticket (which he does).  

Van Drew is an interesting example, but would you not agree that, with the exception of trade and perhaps foreign policy, and in spite of his rhetoric, Trump has essentially governed like a standard movement conservative, policy-wise? From the tax cuts and attempted repeal of Obamacare to the appointments of conservative judges, his domestic social and economic policy has to a large extent been a continuation of GOP orthodoxy. For his first two years, he basically supported whichever legislative initiatives Paul Ryan did, and he’s let the Federalist Society hand-pick his judges.

[Vespucci]

If I were to sum up "Trumpism" in a sentence as far as it relates to what kind of party the GOP is/will be, I would say that the Trump GOP is a party that welcomed the Ross Perot Republicans back into the fold and forced the movement conservatives to tolerate them.

The days of the race for the GOP nomination being a litmus test for "who's the most conservative" are over. 

Isn't the GOP nomination a "Who is the most Trumpist" litmus test now though?

Not really, no.  There is more diversity in issue positions amongst Republicans these days.  As long as the candidate endorses Trump, there is wiggle room for issue positions.

At one time a guy like Jeff Van Drew would have been primaried out of office even after switching parties due to being recruited for being insufficiently conservative.  The GOP is over that now.  Van Drew is a moderate Republican, but he'll be OK so long as he supports the national ticket (which he does). 

This directly contradicts my point though?

As for Jeff van Drew, he might not be all that conservative, but he is still a Trumpist?

I think what he's saying is that a candidate just has to say "I like Trump", but their actual positions don't need to mirror Trump's. I don't entirely agree but it's a coherent agrument.

[AltWorlder]

If MAGA wanes, could the Tea Party make a comeback? Or is the latter squarely an Obama era opposition movement. I just don’t know how Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio (well he’s been rebranding himself as more of a Catholic common good type), and others of their ilk will call themselves. There will still be plenty of small government types in the GOP who don’t care about protectionism and leave immigration as a secondary concern.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If MAGA wanes, could the Tea Party make a comeback? Or is the latter squarely an Obama era opposition movement. I just don’t know how Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio (well he’s been rebranding himself as more of a Catholic common good type), and others of their ilk will call themselves. There will still be plenty of small government types in the GOP who don’t care about protectionism and leave immigration as a secondary concern.

The Senate GOP seems to think we are on the verge of a Tea Party comeback, but I don't necessarily think so at this point.

Even if there is a populist wave or discontent, I don't think it is going to be exactly like the Tea Party and will almost certainly contain a much more populist element.

[Indy Texas]

If MAGA wanes, could the Tea Party make a comeback? Or is the latter squarely an Obama era opposition movement. I just don’t know how Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio (well he’s been rebranding himself as more of a Catholic common good type), and others of their ilk will call themselves. There will still be plenty of small government types in the GOP who don’t care about protectionism and leave immigration as a secondary concern.

The Senate GOP seems to think we are on the verge of a Tea Party comeback, but I don't necessarily think so at this point.

Even if there is a populist wave or discontent, I don't think it is going to be exactly like the Tea Party and will almost certainly contain a much more populist element.

They're being incredibly idiotic if they think there is literally going to be a Tea Party 2.0 where spending/taxes is the focal point.

If anything, the coming GOP backlash will be even more racially and culturally animated than the Tea Party was. And it will be happening with a president who's an old white Irish Catholic guy who is quite literally a throwback to the earlier America these people keep insisting they want to restore.

[AltWorlder]

Also don't forget that the Trump machismo culture is also being embraced by some male Latino and Black voters, meaning that all sorts of animus will be intersectional!

Even if there is a populist wave or discontent, I don't think it is going to be exactly like the Tea Party and will almost certainly contain a much more populist element.

I just wonder if the Tea Party, which didn't exactly have ideological fibre to spare, has much steam left in terms of policies. Also not a big fan of populism being interpreted as specifically "social conservative, welfare-friendly/protectionist on trade" these days.

[AltWorlder]

So- any takers?

[7,052,770]

Republicans widely believe that Trump only lost due to COVID, and many believe that he didn't lose fairly at all, so there's no reason to think they'll move away from Trumpism in the near future.

Trump himself is the likely nominee in 2024 if he's alive and healthy enough, and Don, Jr., is the frontrunner if he's not. It will take a much more dramatic repudiation for the GOP to abandon Trumpism, something unlikely to come for many years, as more and more anti-Trumpers grow up and join the voter ranks.

[AltWorlder]

Trump himself is the likely nominee in 2024 if he's alive and healthy enough

He is so old and polarizing it is incredibly unlikely. Trump, Biden, Sanders are all too old to be considered in 2024. If anyone disagrees makes a thread about it in the 2024 forum and we'll continue it there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well the preliminary data seems to indicate a lot of good news for the "reversalist path" at least in terms of the feasibility of making inroads with various minority groups, opening the door to even more gain in said groups with the right platform, messaging and outreach.

[Red Velvet]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/02/the-republican-identity-crisis-after-trump

Very interesting. Accurate potential paths IMO

In terms of what would bring more power in the long term to the party:

Reversal > Remnant > Restoration

Reversal path would make the Republican Party the better party so considering the people who are currently in it, I doubt it will ever happen even if economically left and socially conservative positions would be a really powerful combo of populism, directed especially to the big masses. Imagine democrats confused with a Republican calling them disgusting fake elites that don’t want to share their wealth with the working class? I kinda would live for the gag.

Remnant scenario is the best one that is achievable, keep being economically right and socially conservative like the party naturally is but keeping the populism in rhetoric that Trump brought in order to energize your base. You may get some (limited) credit with non-white working classes that don’t feel represented by the democratic party with the empty for-show speech while keeping the policies the current establishment is comfortable with. The only bad thing of this is that empty populism gives you short-term credit only and people will eventually grow tired after divisive rhetoric without receiving any real gains, it’s easier to stick the argument that you’re just “mean”.

On the reversal scenario you can get away with being divisive much easier because you show with policy/actions you care about the people, pushing the narrative you’re the “good side” and that it’s the other side (democrats) being divisive by not wanting people in rural areas to have the good stuff. The fun of reversal is that Republicans could say something like “Working class people won’t have their taxes raised, it’s people like Hillary Clinton who will have to pay for every stuff we’re going to do, we’ll milk them dry just like they always did to you”. It’s same populist rhetoric Trump used against places like Mexico, but now directed to wealthy unpopular elites in order to push for economically left agenda of taxing the rich.

Restoration is the most boring one and the one that goes against the current trends and winds (It’s not the Reagan 80s anymore), but could possibly happen if there is no adequate leadership for the other two. But if republicans really don’t want to become irrelevant with non-white voters that are continuously growing, it’s absolutely the worst path. On the other hand, it’s the better one to regain white high-education voters that even if they lean conservative, chose Biden over Trump. Which may not be as relevant in the long term, but still are very important.

[R.P. McM]

Also don't forget that the Trump machismo culture is also being embraced by some male Latino and Black voters, meaning that all sorts of animus will be intersectional!

Even if there is a populist wave or discontent, I don't think it is going to be exactly like the Tea Party and will almost certainly contain a much more populist element.

I just wonder if the Tea Party, which didn't exactly have ideological fibre to spare, has much steam left in terms of policies. Also not a big fan of populism being interpreted as specifically "social conservative, welfare-friendly/protectionist on trade" these days.

Well, no one wants to say the quiet part aloud — what Trumpian "populism" actually entails. It's certainly not an expansion of the welfare state. And with respect to trade, allow me to pull back the curtain: Congress will never allow the imposition of protectionism to any significant extent. There's too much money to be lost, and too many Midwestern agricultural interests to alienate. So what's left? Lies and cultural grievances. That's it.