Burning Down the GOP to Save It?
By Jonathan S. Tobin
With the South Carolina primary only three days away, the Republican Party finds itself at a crossroads moment. The outcome of that contest won’t determine the outcome of the battle for the GOP presidential nomination. There are still far too many states and delegates left to be decided, and the shape of the race may be altered if more candidates drop out after South Carolina. But with the publication of polls that were the result of interviews coming after last Saturday’s debate, it’s clear that Donald Trump has maintained a double-digit lead in the Palmetto State. If, even in a deeply conservative, religious, and pro-military state like South Carolina, Trump can get away with spouting views that, however inconsistent, still sound like they are the product of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, then it’s clear that what we may be witnessing is a sea change in American politics.
As is the case with many of his wild, intemperate, and often blatantly false remarks, Trump’s supporters don’t mind that he is not an ideological conservative. In fact, they seem to like the fact that he’s an equal opportunity offender, blowing up conservatives and their beliefs with the same relish that he uses to attack liberals. The realization that Trump’s surge is not a passing fancy or something that will fade once voters figure out who he is, is finally sinking in on the right. This has provoked an interesting debate as some voices point out that conservatives have long given Trump’s supporters short shrift and that their revolt is the understandable result. That is the conceit of a thoughtful piece by Michael Brendan Dougherty inThe Week.
NPR’s Steve Inskeep has a different take in a New York Times op-ed in which he compares Trump to Andrew Jackson. But whether you view the forces he is responding to as a function of working class angst in the post-industrial age, as Dougherty does, or as a revival of Jacksonian populism, it amounts to the same thing. Moreover, as Dougherty pointed out, there are no apparent answers to the demands Trump’s angry supporters have of the Republican Party. In order to satisfy them, the GOP would have to transform itself into a party that espoused a combination of Know-Nothing policies on immigration (just to keep the 19th century political analogies flowing), economic protectionism and anti-Wall Street class rivalry (something the anti-bank Jackson would have instinctively supported) with no guiding principles of conservatism or liberalism that would provide a coherent worldview.
To that criticism, some Trump supporters, conservatives among them, say this is fine. In order to save the Republican Party from the clutches of the dread establishment, it must be blown up first much in the manner of the awful cliché from Vietnam in which Americans were said to believe they had to burn villages down in order to save them from the communists. Trump acolytes tell us the only way forward for the GOP is to follow Trump or be consigned forever to the intellectual dust can of history.
Are they right?
The first caveat about the Trump camp’s confidence is to point out that, even if he wins South Carolina by the same kind of plurality that he did in New Hampshire, that still leaves him in command of only about a third of Republican voters. If the three moderate/establishment rivals continue cannibalizing each other (Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich) while also trying to tear down the more conservative Ted Cruz as the race continues into March, then Trump could well sweep through to the nomination without ever needing to win a majority or anything close to it in any state. Nevertheless, it is still possible for the outcome in South Carolina to not only be closer than that in New Hampshire, but that a strong showing by either or both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio could create a two or three man race that might prove that Trump’s hold on a third of the electorate isn’t enough to win him the nomination.
If Trump does prevail in South Carolina and goes on to run the table in subsequent primaries and caucuses, that doesn’t mean that conservatives are obligated to cease pointing out Trump’s flaws or inconsistencies. More to the point, they are under no obligation to surrender their principles just because Trump has tapped into a deep vein of resentment that runs through both political parties. Dougherty describes the disconnect from conservative voices who have denounced Trump as something that they and Republican Party have created. He believes it is the inevitable result of their “cultural and economic secession from the rest of the American nation.” He describes this divide as stemming from anti-statist ideology that is in the service of the donor class. Though he has no specific recommendations as to how to rescue conservatism from the clutches of libertarian principles and a belief that government interventions in the market are inherently dangerous without transforming itself into something that is neither conservative nor a bulwark of support for America’s necessary role on the global stage, he believes such a solution must exist.
The need to offer the working class something more than a sermon about bootstraps is something that Rick Santorum tried to tap into in 2012 and deserves consideration. But as even Dougherty pointed out, Trumpism is as much about belief in a strong man as it is in populist economics. While early 19th century Americans believed a military hero could solve their problems in spite of his shortcomings, many of their early 21st century successors are ready to place their faith in a billionaire reality TV show star. But that faith in a man on horseback (or his modern moral equivalent) is antithetical to the constitutional principles that are the foundation of modern American conservatism. I doubt there is a way to bridge the gap between Trump’s Peronist appeal to the masses and the historical duty of conservatives to stand athwart history and yell “stop” to ideas and movements — whether their origin is on the left or the right — that threaten the nation despite their superficial appeal.
The rage of many voters is real and cannot be dismissed. But conservatives must insist that the answer to our problems is the application of conservative principles, not their abandonment in the service of a self-proclaimed avatar of greatness. Like that apocryphal Vietnamese village, the Republican Party cannot be saved by being put to the torch. Trump may do the conservative movement great damage by either hijacking the GOP or by ensuring the election of a Democrat with a futile third party run if his opponents ultimately prevail. But if it is to remain the repository of the principles on which it has stood, then it cannot allow itself to be seduced into believing that Trump’s populism is the new faith that must supplant conservatism.
February 17, 2016
Commentary Magazine
Commentary Magazine
With the South Carolina primary only three days away, the Republican Party finds itself at a crossroads moment. The outcome of that contest won’t determine the outcome of the battle for the GOP presidential nomination. There are still far too many states and delegates left to be decided, and the shape of the race may be altered if more candidates drop out after South Carolina. But with the publication of polls that were the result of interviews coming after last Saturday’s debate, it’s clear that Donald Trump has maintained a double-digit lead in the Palmetto State. If, even in a deeply conservative, religious, and pro-military state like South Carolina, Trump can get away with spouting views that, however inconsistent, still sound like they are the product of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, then it’s clear that what we may be witnessing is a sea change in American politics.
As is the case with many of his wild, intemperate, and often blatantly false remarks, Trump’s supporters don’t mind that he is not an ideological conservative. In fact, they seem to like the fact that he’s an equal opportunity offender, blowing up conservatives and their beliefs with the same relish that he uses to attack liberals. The realization that Trump’s surge is not a passing fancy or something that will fade once voters figure out who he is, is finally sinking in on the right. This has provoked an interesting debate as some voices point out that conservatives have long given Trump’s supporters short shrift and that their revolt is the understandable result. That is the conceit of a thoughtful piece by Michael Brendan Dougherty inThe Week.
NPR’s Steve Inskeep has a different take in a New York Times op-ed in which he compares Trump to Andrew Jackson. But whether you view the forces he is responding to as a function of working class angst in the post-industrial age, as Dougherty does, or as a revival of Jacksonian populism, it amounts to the same thing. Moreover, as Dougherty pointed out, there are no apparent answers to the demands Trump’s angry supporters have of the Republican Party. In order to satisfy them, the GOP would have to transform itself into a party that espoused a combination of Know-Nothing policies on immigration (just to keep the 19th century political analogies flowing), economic protectionism and anti-Wall Street class rivalry (something the anti-bank Jackson would have instinctively supported) with no guiding principles of conservatism or liberalism that would provide a coherent worldview.
To that criticism, some Trump supporters, conservatives among them, say this is fine. In order to save the Republican Party from the clutches of the dread establishment, it must be blown up first much in the manner of the awful cliché from Vietnam in which Americans were said to believe they had to burn villages down in order to save them from the communists. Trump acolytes tell us the only way forward for the GOP is to follow Trump or be consigned forever to the intellectual dust can of history.
Are they right?
The first caveat about the Trump camp’s confidence is to point out that, even if he wins South Carolina by the same kind of plurality that he did in New Hampshire, that still leaves him in command of only about a third of Republican voters. If the three moderate/establishment rivals continue cannibalizing each other (Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich) while also trying to tear down the more conservative Ted Cruz as the race continues into March, then Trump could well sweep through to the nomination without ever needing to win a majority or anything close to it in any state. Nevertheless, it is still possible for the outcome in South Carolina to not only be closer than that in New Hampshire, but that a strong showing by either or both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio could create a two or three man race that might prove that Trump’s hold on a third of the electorate isn’t enough to win him the nomination.
If Trump does prevail in South Carolina and goes on to run the table in subsequent primaries and caucuses, that doesn’t mean that conservatives are obligated to cease pointing out Trump’s flaws or inconsistencies. More to the point, they are under no obligation to surrender their principles just because Trump has tapped into a deep vein of resentment that runs through both political parties. Dougherty describes the disconnect from conservative voices who have denounced Trump as something that they and Republican Party have created. He believes it is the inevitable result of their “cultural and economic secession from the rest of the American nation.” He describes this divide as stemming from anti-statist ideology that is in the service of the donor class. Though he has no specific recommendations as to how to rescue conservatism from the clutches of libertarian principles and a belief that government interventions in the market are inherently dangerous without transforming itself into something that is neither conservative nor a bulwark of support for America’s necessary role on the global stage, he believes such a solution must exist.
The need to offer the working class something more than a sermon about bootstraps is something that Rick Santorum tried to tap into in 2012 and deserves consideration. But as even Dougherty pointed out, Trumpism is as much about belief in a strong man as it is in populist economics. While early 19th century Americans believed a military hero could solve their problems in spite of his shortcomings, many of their early 21st century successors are ready to place their faith in a billionaire reality TV show star. But that faith in a man on horseback (or his modern moral equivalent) is antithetical to the constitutional principles that are the foundation of modern American conservatism. I doubt there is a way to bridge the gap between Trump’s Peronist appeal to the masses and the historical duty of conservatives to stand athwart history and yell “stop” to ideas and movements — whether their origin is on the left or the right — that threaten the nation despite their superficial appeal.
The rage of many voters is real and cannot be dismissed. But conservatives must insist that the answer to our problems is the application of conservative principles, not their abandonment in the service of a self-proclaimed avatar of greatness. Like that apocryphal Vietnamese village, the Republican Party cannot be saved by being put to the torch. Trump may do the conservative movement great damage by either hijacking the GOP or by ensuring the election of a Democrat with a futile third party run if his opponents ultimately prevail. But if it is to remain the repository of the principles on which it has stood, then it cannot allow itself to be seduced into believing that Trump’s populism is the new faith that must supplant conservatism.
Article Link to Commentary Magazine:
0 Response to "Burning Down the GOP to Save It?"
Post a Comment