And just to continue REM-And I feel fine. . Very good piece in the conservative Free Beacon about the effect on the GOP if Trump wins the nomination.
"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."
http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-party-divides/
"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."
The writer, Mathew Continettie, gets most of this history right, though I will quibble a little with the charcactirzation of the Democrats. His framing makes it sound like the Dems lost the white working class because they nominated McGovern when this is backwards. In 1968 they already lost the white working class.
They had little chance but to realign and McGovern was the test case for this as was Goldwater for modern conservatism in 1964.
I think the ways that Confintettie sees the GOP changing if Trump wins the nomination are accurate and from my view point a good thing-though not for him, clearly who likes the previous libertarian, supply side domestic policy and necon foreign policy of the current GOP establishment.
"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."
This is a good point about Trump. He may talk a big game as a strong man on foreign policy but he is decidedly not a neocon. He is not interested in the foreign policy adventurism of the Bushies. Indeed, he is very critical of the Iraq war.
"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."
Trump is not a conservative-something that Rush Limbaugh himself has no problem admitting-but a Right wing populist in the tradition of Pat Buchanan and George Wallace.
George Wallace was never about ending the New Deal or cutting back on the welfare state but about putting uppity blacks back in their place.
You could say that Right wing populism believes in the welfare state but solely for white folks.
"So atypical is Donald Trump’s profile that it is impossible to say where the party will find itself when caucuses are held in Iowa on February 1. It is very possible, even likely, that the party will reject him and retain its identity as the party of Reagan and Bush. But the 2016 election has been, to say the least, unusual. And the crises of international order and domestic governance that give Trump strength are real"
But here I think Continettie-who clearly is alarmed as he is for the libertarian-necon establishment-is too optimistic. I think Trump-along with the support for Cruz and Carson-show that the base has already moved beyond the party of Reagan and Bush.
No matter what happens from here, the GOP will be a very different party when it picks up the pieces in early 2017-after what I believe will be a loss and not a close one.
P.S. As I've argued before one very live possiblilty is that establishment types like Continettie and the base on the other hand may not longer find the party big enough for the both of them.
A possible third party for large parts of the base is a real possibility-whether it goes anywhere in the long term it could further really damage the GOP in the short term, especially if it runs its own candidates in Congressional and state races.
"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."
http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-party-divides/
This is a very common argument-Trump 'only had 25 to 30 percent of the vote' so there's nothing to see here. Lawrence O'Donnell does that one every night. But even if you buy that 30% is an absolute ceiling this ignores the fact that when you ad Cruz and Carson, you get way over 50% support a non-establishment candidate. While this FB piece focuses on what a Trump candidacy would do, what would a Ted Cruz candidacy do? Arguably it would be just as earth shattering.
"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."
Let me just say on the Hillary question I find it laughable that someone with 13 percent of the Latino vote could win-which is half of what Romney had and where Trump is at now.
But if the GOP base thinks Trump can beat her-I'm fine with that. That ups the chance they will nominate him obviously.
And I think FB is right that for Trump to win the nomination would have huge ramifications for the party going forward-though I think Ted Cruz could be the same thing.
"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."
The writer, Mathew Continettie, gets most of this history right, though I will quibble a little with the charcactirzation of the Democrats. His framing makes it sound like the Dems lost the white working class because they nominated McGovern when this is backwards. In 1968 they already lost the white working class.
They had little chance but to realign and McGovern was the test case for this as was Goldwater for modern conservatism in 1964.
I think the ways that Confintettie sees the GOP changing if Trump wins the nomination are accurate and from my view point a good thing-though not for him, clearly who likes the previous libertarian, supply side domestic policy and necon foreign policy of the current GOP establishment.
"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."
This is a good point about Trump. He may talk a big game as a strong man on foreign policy but he is decidedly not a neocon. He is not interested in the foreign policy adventurism of the Bushies. Indeed, he is very critical of the Iraq war.
"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."
Trump is not a conservative-something that Rush Limbaugh himself has no problem admitting-but a Right wing populist in the tradition of Pat Buchanan and George Wallace.
George Wallace was never about ending the New Deal or cutting back on the welfare state but about putting uppity blacks back in their place.
You could say that Right wing populism believes in the welfare state but solely for white folks.
"So atypical is Donald Trump’s profile that it is impossible to say where the party will find itself when caucuses are held in Iowa on February 1. It is very possible, even likely, that the party will reject him and retain its identity as the party of Reagan and Bush. But the 2016 election has been, to say the least, unusual. And the crises of international order and domestic governance that give Trump strength are real"
But here I think Continettie-who clearly is alarmed as he is for the libertarian-necon establishment-is too optimistic. I think Trump-along with the support for Cruz and Carson-show that the base has already moved beyond the party of Reagan and Bush.
No matter what happens from here, the GOP will be a very different party when it picks up the pieces in early 2017-after what I believe will be a loss and not a close one.
P.S. As I've argued before one very live possiblilty is that establishment types like Continettie and the base on the other hand may not longer find the party big enough for the both of them.
A possible third party for large parts of the base is a real possibility-whether it goes anywhere in the long term it could further really damage the GOP in the short term, especially if it runs its own candidates in Congressional and state races.
No comments:
Post a Comment