Who Inherits the GOP

[Fiddytree]

No one for the short term. But I have the suspicion that Ryan Republicans will have to do a four way battle with moderates, Tea Party populists, and Trump-like populists.

The Tea Party populists were previously the biggest foes to vanilla Republicanism. In several short months they went from being the pariahs to the last hope of salvaging the Republican Party. I think this was a delusion, but Republicans were headed there because an even greater exaggerated populist presence was emerging from one candidate. Sometimes, much to the dismay of Tea Partiers, a number of their brethren were more taken in with Trump than would on the surface seem compatible with their movement. That's a continued failing of true believers in the Reaganist conservative movement, because they have been most unwilling to see the rancorous populism that had been brewing for quite some time within the grassroots conservative movement. It didn't surprise me much (but it did disappoint me) that Trumpism hit it off so well within the GOP base. It wasn't an alien infection, it was largely a virus from within.

Despite Cruz's more-than-obvious ploy for the soul of the Party at Cincinnati, Cruz ended up isolating at least half or more of his valued donors and his Texas delegation. Kasich has salvaged some reputation, like Cruz, with the intent of 2020. He will have some measure of success, but the more likely outcome is to once again rely on some of the most talented Young Gun Republicans available--most notably Paul Ryan.

Right now, though Ryan has the best shot at uniting the party, he does so against not just the small band of moderates like Bush and Kasich, but a populist-dominated GOP. Neither the Tea Party nor the Trump crowd are big on public policy, preferring instead to stay active at rallies, cheering and jeering at the sharpest, most divisive rhetorical jabs. Ryan's policy agenda had always ironically missed the boat with a movement he desperately wanted to be aligned with, for many Tea Partiers were wanting to have the conservative welfare state off-limits for market reform, preferring instead to kick off "undeserving" populations receiving those and additional programs. This always meant that the white working and lower middle classes needed to be secured from minority and disabled populations. Ryan's attachment to small government, free market principles never fully matched the varied impulses found within the disjointed Tea Party movement. A substantial number will be willing to join Ryan because they too believe in many of those principles, but the Tea Party ranks are divided and most anti-intellectual. It's not an easy thing for an avidly intellectual candidate to sway such crowds.

 

[Fiddytree]

To my mind, strategically, I do not think the problem with republican candidates is that they are not conservative enough, but that they have not learned yet how to sell their version of conservatism to the current makeup of the US. Let me use an example:

Republicans tend to see their lack of support among black people and hispanics and get frustrated. The result of that frustration is talk of them wanting "free stuff", government hand outs, and so on. That is a stupid way to think of it, and further, being frustrated is a mistake. That low support should be seen as an opportunity. This is an easy area to expand your support. To do that, first you have to stop talking about them as being all welfare mothers, criminals, and having their hands out. People are funny, they tend to not vote for those who are insulting to them(and I really do not think republicans even realize they are doing this, though it is obvious when looking at it from the outside). Then you have to tailor your message to them when you talk to them. You do not change the policy, you change how you present the policy. Why are conservative principals going to make their lives better?
.

This was something that the Young Guns and the reformicons tried to put forward. Energetic government need not require a truly nanny-state, it just needed a government that would respect and respond to the aspirations of its populace, targeting specific populations worse off if need be. I thought a lot of their proposals were still too rooted in the past 40 years to address contemporary social issues, but a number of them were certainly worth pondering.

To further back up your last point (but also somewhat challenge it) about minorities and how Republicans talk to them and/or ought to talk to them: Minorities also tend to understand that such appeals to "strictly" universal policy goals do a poor job of masking what is largely a platform designed to the benefit of other discreet populations (depending on the program, policy, or administrative rule) namely, white middle and upper class populations. Before they resorted to attacking minorities for being self-interested paupers who also seemed to suffer from what Marxists used to call "false consciousness," they had been able to put forward a decent rhetorical argument that aspiration for all was a societal good. Conservatism wasn't antithetical to positive social mobility, but in many respects a friend. It just was slightly incompetent in understanding the particular contexts of any given minority's situation and plight. Policy interventions need to be molded to the needs of the populace. Such elementary understandings of public policy weren't challenged or feared when it dealt with a comfortable slice of the population (often the majority), but anger and fear would foolishly be a consistent refrain from conservatives when the matter dealt with a minority interest. A change in rhetoric, though welcome, wouldn't do. Just as various sections of the American populace needed to be kept in mind when crafting a given intervention or opportunity, so too did that need to happen for minority populations not currently voting in large numbers for Republicans.

Over time, however, while their policy proposals originally suffered from a lack of awareness of the minority's condition, the problem had grown to such an extent that the movement was increasingly arguing for rescinding the offer for minority social mobility because that inevitably harmed the status of white, non-elite America. We started to see the Party reemerge as embracing white [non-minority] identity politics, instead of rebuffing such charges.

 

[Patrickt]

It's possible the Democrats will come out of the closet and be the Socialist party and the Republican liberal lites will join them. The Republicans remaining would fragment into fiscally conservative folks who would join the Libertarians and the fundamentalists would join the Prohibitionist Party.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Gary Johnson

 

[RAMOSS]

"went all Zyphlin"



Canadian. Ineligible Owens Ineligible.



Agree 100%



I agree. I simply think the Democrats have been far more successful at it over the past 15+ years. Prior to that, I'd say the Republicans were far more successful at it, with the whole "family values" shtick being a perfect example of it back then.

The way the 'family values' backfired is the folks that pushed it kept on getting caught with affairs and divorces... It's hard to show you are 'family values' when you are doing actions that show you aren't. It makes it look hypocritical.

 

[fmw]

If my assumption is correct, who takes over the wreckage that is the Republican party?

What wreckage is that? The republican party has lost presidential elections in the past - lots of them. The current problem doesn't relate to Trump really. They've had bad candidates before. The current problem is that the republican voters supported someone who put the status quo in danger. Those in power view staying in power as more important than winning an election. The next person that wants to take on the establishment will have to do it when in office, not threaten it during a campaign. The voters don't like the status quo. The politicians do. That's all it is.

 

[Perotista]

OK, I'm assuming Trump loses and loses big. Yes, things can change between now and the election, especially with the debates still in play, but right now the smart money is on Hillary. And I think Trump may suffer the worse Republican defeat in my generation. But this isn't what I want to discuss. If my assumption is correct, who takes over the wreckage that is the Republican party?

Will it be Trump or someone who picks up his "ideology"? I think Trump himself won't stick around after a loss, but someone could try to pick up the mantle and lead his followers with anti-PC, anti-trade, anti-immigrant, isolationist message. I don't see anyone the horizon though. And a good portion of Trump's supporters are not traditional Republicans. Many are typically apolitical. I think there is a good chance without Trump stiring up their passions they fade back into the background.

Will it be the establishment? Some folks have said the establishment will respond to an epic loss this year by saying to the Tea Party/hard right/extremists (their terms, not mine) "See we tried it your way and we loss massively". But Trump really isn't a hard right guy or a Tea Partier, at least in the original sense of the term. And there are still plenty of folks on the right who loath the establishment, while not being Trump backers. Many of the issues that caused people to embrace an outsider like Trump are not going away, even if Trump does.

In fact Ted Cruz was Trump's longest lasting rival and commanded a significant following of his own. He's more of the true Tea Party, fiscal conservative, anti-establishment guy. And I think after Trump goes down in flames, he's refusal to endorse Trump at the convention will be seen as a principled and correct stand. Endorsements mean little these days in terms of actual votes, so you can't really blame Cruz for a Trump loss, especially if I am correct and Trump loses big. But Cruz taking a public stand will be seen as brave and principled compared to establishment folks like the Bushes, McCain, Romney, et all who just sat things out. And much better than sell outs like Ryan who surrendered any shred of principles they may have still had when they endorsed Trump.

But Cruz has some weak points as well. He's not a very charismatic candidate to put it mildly. His likeability is low. I think Cruz will run for the nomination again in 2020 and have a very good chance, but is no lock to win. But I think the true fiscal conservatism he represents has a real chance of taking control of the party. That may or may not come tied to hardline social conservatism (which Cruz also represents quite well). Rand Paul could mount a comeback (though he has his own flaws as a candidate). Maybe someone who is not even on the radar.

In my mind, the Trump nomination has been an embarrassment and a disaster for the GOP. A low point for a party that I left 10 years ago for its continued failure to act upon the rhetoric it campaigns on. But in the wreckage, I hold out some hope that maybe something good can re-emerge. If that is the case, then maybe Trump's nomination isn't a total loss.

With Trumps habit of moving from party to party to independent to minor third party and back to the major parties, if he loses in November, Trump will probably be back being a Democrat again come 2018. He isn't really a Republican, just one who registered as one back in 2012. He hold no loyalty to the party, he doesn't even know what the traditional values are for the GOP. He is a opportunist who took advantage of a bunch of pent up anger at the Republican elected officials and the party leadership. Remember Trump won the nomination by receiving only 40% of the total Republican vote. Far from a majority. But in his case a plurality was plenty.

The question is who will take control of the GOP after the election? Will it be the Trump faction or will the lifelong traditional Republicans return to power? Either way it seems the party will shrink. You have today 20% of the GOP in the Never-Trump column, its doubtful if they all return if the Trump faction takes control. You have 40% of the GOP as Trumpsters, if the old guard regains control, a lot of them will depart also.

Could next year when the dust settles and whatever faction wins, could we be looking at a Republican Party around 20-25% of the electorate instead of 28% it is today? Very possible regardless of who takes control. There are tons of other things to consider when debating the fate of the GOP after November. Mainly what effect will a Hillary Clinton presidency have on them. She could be the great uniter of Republicans bring all factions together to oppose her regardless of who wins the battle for control of the GOP.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Fair enough. I think people either forget, or don't know, that the Republican party all but didn't exist before it elected it's first President. In the cycle before, it hardly registered. So parties can and do rise from either nothing, or from the ashes of what they had become.

I have been a registered Republican for quite a long time. Call it many decades. I too am not pleased with the direction the party has taken in recent years, perhaps even a decade or so. I am not pleased with the influences that have been allowed to have greater impact than they I believe they should. However, I am a realist. I don't get everything I want all the time. Not suggesting you require that yourself.

I am heartened by the results of this election cycle in regard to the candidate for the Presidency. Not necessarily by the person selected, but by the voters who told the status quo to take a hike. That is a step in the right direction.

The problem is that that party apparatus and most republicans in congress over the last couple decades at least have become democrat party-lite. They actually still write and at convention times vote on and approve a conservative platform.....however that is where they leave it. They certainly to not govern by it. They are afraid to do anything other then maintain the establishment status quo where they listen to their big donors, and only lip service to actual conservative causes. They largely ignore their core voting base other then during elections. That is why the 2016 race blew up on the party. That is why only candidates running as political outsiders stood a chance. I thoroughly dislike Trump. However if he does win, perhaps the establishment oligarchy will be broken up and the party will return to listening to it's constituents, more then it's big donors. Many democrats on the board seem to be gloating, however the democrat party is in even worse shape.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Cruz has too long a string of failure without wins(plus he has painted himself as a religious nutjob), and Ryan has not produced either, both face almost insurmountable obstacles. As much as I find this disgusting I think Kasich is in the best position.

I predict that Cruz will be elected president within 16 years.

 

[MAGAnificent]

my guess is that Paul Ryan makes a run for president pretty soon; probably 2020, if Clinton wins. if Trump wins, the GOP is in real trouble, IMO.

I disagree. Whether Trump wins or not, the GOP will likely rise from the ashes as a party with the establishment oligarchy broken up. The democrat party could use the same medicine.

 

[Helix]

I disagree. Whether Trump wins or not, the GOP will likely rise from the ashes as a party with the establishment oligarchy broken up. The democrat party could use the same medicine.

Ryan will be billed as the next Reagan, and more accurately so than all of the other ones. the establishment GOP isn't going anywhere, though Trump will probably do some temporary damage. my guess is that he loses, so that will mean less damage to the party than if he were to win.

this is, of course, my opinion. a lot can happen in politics in four years, so it is what it is. however, that's the extrapolation that i see given the current data. it will be interesting to see how it plays out, though. also, i don't support Ryan at all. his health care proposals are the opposite of the direction that i would like to see us move in where that issue is concerned.

 

[ocean515]

The problem is that that party apparatus and most republicans in congress over the last couple decades at least have become democrat party-lite. They actually still write and at convention times vote on and approve a conservative platform.....however that is where they leave it. They certainly to not govern by it. They are afraid to do anything other then maintain the establishment status quo where they listen to their big donors, and only lip service to actual conservative causes. They largely ignore their core voting base other then during elections. That is why the 2016 race blew up on the party. That is why only candidates running as political outsiders stood a chance. I thoroughly dislike Trump. However if he does win, perhaps the establishment oligarchy will be broken up and the party will return to listening to it's constituents, more then it's big donors. Many democrats on the board seem to be gloating, however the democrat party is in even worse shape.

We are on the same page.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Ryan will be billed as the next Reagan, and more accurately so than all of the other ones. the establishment GOP isn't going anywhere, though Trump will probably do some temporary damage. my guess is that he loses, so that will mean less damage to the party than if he were to win.

this is, of course, my opinion. a lot can happen in politics in four years, so it is what it is. however, that's the extrapolation that i see given the current data. it will be interesting to see how it plays out, though. also, i don't support Ryan at all. his health care proposals are the opposite of the direction that i would like to see us move in where that issue is concerned.

The problem is that at this point in time, Ryan is the leader of the establishment in the House. He is part of the problem. He represents nearly every bad stance that led to the outsider movement. He will have to grow a spine and start listening to the republican voting base or he will eventually be tarred and feathered and run out of town just like John Boehner and Eric Cantor were.

 

[Fiddytree]

The problem is that at this point in time, Ryan is the leader of the establishment in the House. He is part of the problem. He represents nearly every bad stance that led to the outsider movement. He will have to grow a spine and start listening to the republican voting base or he will eventually be tarred and feathered and run out of town just like John Boehner and Eric Cantor were.

When I see things like this, I feel like Republicans are replaying the fight between Danton and Robespierre.

 

[Helix]

The problem is that at this point in time, Ryan is the leader of the establishment in the House. He is part of the problem. He represents nearly every bad stance that led to the outsider movement. He will have to grow a spine and start listening to the republican voting base or he will eventually be tarred and feathered and run out of town just like John Boehner and Eric Cantor were.

completely disagree. he just needs to keep out of this Trump debacle as much as he can and keep doing the calm and considered "above it all" thing for four years (eight at most.) if he does that, he'll sail to the nomination more easily than even Hillary Clinton did. the right wing will get behind him, and that includes those on the right who hate the establishment before voting for them anyway. if he's nominated in 2020, he'll probably win against an incumbent Clinton, and that's all that will matter to the right by then. ****, they probably made a serious effort to draft him for this election just like they did for SOTH, but he's smart to bide his time.

 

[MAGAnificent]

completely disagree. he just needs to keep out of this Trump debacle as much as he can and keep doing the calm and considered "above it all" thing for four years (eight at most.) if he does that, he'll sail to the nomination more easily than even Hillary Clinton did. the right wing will get behind him, and that includes those on the right who hate the establishment before voting for them anyway. if he's nominated in 2020, he'll probably win against an incumbent Clinton, and that's all that will matter to the right by then. ****, they probably made a serious effort to draft him for this election just like they did for SOTH, but he's smart to bide his time.

You are missing the point of what is going on with the republican party. You like generally like Ryan because he is a moderate. The republican base is sick and tired of status quo moderates. Ryan is the head moderate (RINO) in the GOP House of representatives. He need to do more then just bide his time. He needs to start listening to the conservative base. He needs to start honoring campaign promises.

 

[MAGAnificent]

When I see things like this, I feel like Republicans are replaying the fight between Danton and Robespierre.

yawn.

 

[Absentglare]

The problem is that at this point in time, Ryan is the leader of the establishment in the House. He is part of the problem. He represents nearly every bad stance that led to the outsider movement. He will have to grow a spine and start listening to the republican voting base or he will eventually be tarred and feathered and run out of town just like John Boehner and Eric Cantor were.

Luckily, there are a lot of republicans who are aware that 'establishment' is not synonymous with 'bad'. Ryan seems to be a good leader, his inheritance would be a best case scenario for the GOP. That's the reality.

 

[Helix]

You are missing the point of what is going on with the republican party. You like generally like Ryan because he is a moderate.

nope, and i wouldn't vote for him. he wants to privatize a program that i want to expand into single payer, and with a friendly congress, he has a very good chance of getting that done. i consider him to be more dangerous than even the Ted Cruz types, because he can actually get **** done. i'm making a prediction based on the current data. if you think that i want him as a "moderate," compromise president, though, you are incorrect.

The republican base is sick and tired of status quo moderates. Ryan is the head moderate (RINO) in the GOP House of representatives. He need to do more then just bide his time. He needs to start listening to the conservative base. He needs to start honoring campaign promises.

yeah, and Bush was a RINO, too. if Ryan gets the nomination, enough of the base will show up to pull the lever for him.

 

[Fiddytree]

yawn.

Out of curiosity why does that draw the yawn?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Luckily, there are a lot of republicans who are aware that 'establishment' is not synonymous with 'bad'. Ryan seems to be a good leader, his inheritance would be a best case scenario for the GOP. That's the reality.

I'll grant that Ryan is a better leader then the pile of crap that he replaced, however he is still a leader over the establishment status quo RINOs that the core conservative voting base is rejecting. Have not not given any thought to why the only two GOP primary candidates with any chance of winning the primary ran as outsiders? As a diehard librul democrat you have no clue what the GOP realities are. You have learned absolutely nothing from the primaries.

 

[MAGAnificent]

nope, and i wouldn't vote for him. he wants to privatize a program that i want to expand into single payer, and with a friendly congress, he has a very good chance of getting that done. i consider him to be more dangerous than even the Ted Cruz types, because he can actually get **** done. i'm making a prediction based on the current data. if you think that i want him as a "moderate," compromise president, though, you are incorrect.



yeah, and Bush was a RINO, too. if Ryan gets the nomination, enough of the base will show up to pull the lever for him.

Not if he continues to take a dump on the GOP platform.

 

[Helix]

Not if he continues to take a dump on the GOP platform.

it's bunny pebbles in comparison to what Trump is currently doing to the party.

 

[Absentglare]

I'll grant that Ryan is a better leader then the pile of crap that he replaced, however he is still a leader over the establishment status quo RINOs that the core conservative voting base is rejecting. Have not not given any thought to why the only two GOP primary candidates with any chance of winning the primary ran as outsiders? As a diehard librul democrat you have no clue what the GOP realities are. You have learned absolutely nothing from the primaries.

You're free to your opinion. I don't think you can fairly assert that i have no clue, i have as much a clue as anyone else.

Ryan appeals to a wider audience than a Trump or Cruz ever could.

 

[MAGAnificent]

it's bunny pebbles in comparison to what Trump is currently doing to the party.

What exactly is Trump doing to the party? The republican party was destroying itself at least a couple decades before Trump joined the fun. I am no Trump fan, however the oligarchy in both the major parties does need to be broken up,