One way in which some Republicans hope normalcy may one day return is that Trump will eventually exit the stage without leaving a successor. That’s certainly the unstated premise of Jim Geraghty’s latest musings at National Review:
Vice President Mike Pence is clearly a wildly different personality, and it is easy to picture some Trump supporters finding Pence too nice, too vanilla, too establishment and too boring to truly continue “Trumpism” as a political agenda…
…There is no natural ideological successor, which suggests that if or when Trump retires after two terms, is defeated after one, is impeached, or however he departs the stage, there will be no one who will be able to bring together the same factions in the same way. How much will Trumpism influence American politics after Trump’s presidency?
I have two distinct strains of thought on this.
The first is that when President Nixon went down, his electoral strategy did not. The Southern Strategy was revived by Ronald Reagan in 1980 and has served as a template for Republican presidential contenders ever since. In other words, Nixon was discredited but his politics really weren’t. Using that example, we should expect future Republican candidates to continue efforts to hold together a barely adequate coalition based on white working class antiestablishmentatian grievance.
The second strain of thought is that the Watergate Era favored a continuation of Nixon’s politics in a way that our current environment does not. The establishment was temporarily vindicated, the media became heroes, and Congress embarked on a period of vibrant reform. But this hid that this was a period of deep decline for trust in our institutions. The lies of the Vietnam Era took a massive toll on how much trust people put in government. The exposure of the CIA’s family jewels and the FBI’s Cointelpro program and other abuses added to the public’s skepticism.
Meanwhile, the 1970’s saw stagflation, two major oil crises, an end to the postwar economic boom, a decline in the power of organized labor, and finally a foreign policy crisis in Iran that made us look impotent. While the way Watergate was ultimately adjudicated initially looked like a giant win, those gains were ephemeral. That is why the country was ready to give Nixonian politics a second look even when offered by a thinly credentialed B-List actor.
But the Southern Strategy was then in its infancy. It is now facing demographic doom. In fact, it’s accurate to describe the whole phenomenon of Trumpism as a kind of collective panic attack about that demographic doom. One obvious way to visualize the difference between today and 1972 or 1980 is to look at the Electoral College maps over time. The Southern Strategy brought the Republicans resounding victories in every presidential election, excepting 1976, until Bill Clinton broke its spell. But the Republican victories in 2000, 2004 and 2016 have been among the narrowest ever recorded. Two of them involved popular vote losses, and the other turned on the single state of Ohio.
Clearly, the strategy is gasping for air and will soon slip below the waves for good.
That doesn’t augur well for future Republican presidential candidates who seek to replicate Trump’s electoral success. But, of course, that doesn’t necessarily tell us what will happen. Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis did not make enough of a course correction to stave off their humiliating defeats in the 1980’s, and that’s in large part because the party base would not have tolerated it if they had made the attempt. Both were pushed to the left in the primaries, and neither of them was assured enough of winning the nomination to offer truly heterodox positions.
It may take a similar amount of time for the Republican base to come to terms with the fact that Nixon and Reagan’s politics are dead and will not be coming back.
Another factor here is that Trump is likely to be discredited in a different way than Nixon. Nixon was seen as a competent president who abused his power. When the Republicans suffered big losses in the 1974 midterms and went down to defeat in the 1976 presidential election, it wasn’t seen as a repudiation of Nixon’s policies so much as of his character. Jimmy Carter told the American people that he would never lie to them.
The electoral losses that the Republicans suffered in the 2018 midterms are already being blamed on Trump’s policies more than his character. His threat to pre-existing conditions coverage, environmental extremism, inaction of guns, child separation policies, and xenophobic campaign messaging are mostly in line with Republican orthodoxy and rhetoric, even if they may be more extreme than has typically been the case. Nonetheless, Trump is taking heat for leading the party out of the mainstream and costing them critical support with women, the college-educated, and suburbanites.
Another way of putting this is that in the 1970’s, the GOP could replace the scowling Nixon with the more genial Ronald Reagan and go on pursuing a racially polarized law and order platform with great success, but there’s little prospect that the GOP can get rid of Trump and keep his policies without suffering shattering defeats.
In some ways, Trump’s failings are masking conservatism’s failings. And this should be clearer if we stay focused on the fact that Trump let Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell largely define his legislative agenda during his first two years in office. His policies are unpopular because the Republicans’ policies are unpopular.
So, in answer to Geraghty, the future of the Republican Party without Trump is likely to be bleak. Just as with Nixon, the party will suffer a lot of splash damage that rightly or wrongly will bring them distrust and discredit with the American people. But, unlike with Nixon, they won’t be able to simply find a more agreeable messenger for an ascendant political movement. Conservatism is reaching the end of its life cycle, just as the FDR/Truman/JFK/LBJ Democratic Party reached its end cycle in the late 1960s.
It took the Democrats a very long time to find a path out of their wilderness, and I expect that the Republicans will take a similar amount of time to remake themselves.
The final irony is that the McGovern coalition that went down so hard in 1972 that it traumatized the left for generations is now pretty much the mainstream of American politics. There’s zero prospect that we will be saying the same about the current GOP forty-six years from now when the 2064 elections roll around.
OK, so does the following scenario come to pass? Trump simultaneously becomes so desperate for a win and for a way to change the subject that he decides to work with Democrats on something. Following his “I could shoot someone” logic, he chooses a subject at random, except that he chooses one that enrages his base and that’s what finally destroys his coalition. Could that happen?
Yes I think so. Given what we know about his personality (malevolent narc), his lack of attachment to anything other than self centeredness, his lying … I would say yes, it’s possible.
What’s constraining him from doing this is what we don’t know. I suspect there is something – perhaps it is in Moscow – that is making this a no-go.
Based on that I think it’s unlikely, because he is not free to move. I thought when he was elected that while horrible, a narc like him could easily be manipulated. It hasn’t worked so far. He isn’t in this purely for the wins.
So for better and worse, the leopard is not going to change his spots.
“It hasn’t worked so far” because Putin etc. assumed a basic level of competence and maturity (and, may not have the best understanding, themselves, of how Washington functions).
Trump seems to have believed that, as President, he could simply issue King-like decrees (even as tweets), or simply express his desires to the press, and the stuff would happen. (His business “leadership” probably worked like this, with others attempting to conduct some kind of plan based on his statements, but that never went well anyway…the television version, which he evidently believed was real, confirmed his self-delusions about his own “leadership”.)
The irony is that a competent person in Trump’s Manchurian Candidate position could have done serious, lasting damage — and covered his/her tracks very effectively. Trump never came close to having a “win” to begin with…he had no idea how to achieve them.
It looks likely to be our good fortune that the Russians chose Trump as their tool. If they had picked somebody like Hungary’s Orban we might be in very deep trouble. Unfortunately they will probably try against and they too have noticed this.
Oh God! Are you still peddling that “Russia stole the election from Hillary” bullshit?
. . . skull impenetrable by evidence.
. . .
It really has nothing to do with Hillary one way or the other. The Russians own Trump and somehow or other he happens to be president of these You-nighted states.
This is one of those difficult “what if” questions. The “WWC” were attracted to Trump not just because of his highly destructive foreign nd domestic views but also his well-known public image, his flamboyant showmanship and his disregard for any democratic norm or ethical behavior. I really can’t think of any other Republican who combined that particular combinattion with a clear readiness to collude with a foreign enemy. I think Putin took advantage of an amazing opportunity and decided to roll the dice.
Trump was a black swan event in the history of this country.
Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog comments today that it may be Trump’s failure to build the wall which finally does him in with his deplorables:
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2018/12/trump-can-survive-multiple.html
So. You see repudiation of the Southern strategy but a resurgence of Clintonism. The country is truly fucked, except for our Wall Street masters.
I just said that McGovernism is now the mainstream of American politics.
Well McGovern was anti-war and both major parties are now war hawks.
How did you get so cynical? No, the entire Democratic party is not hawkish. There are hawks within the party. It’s a broad coalition that includes the realist / cynical perspective but also includes other perspectives. I think your cynicism mirrors theirs.
You and I don’t differ in seeing challenges ahead. It just seems that, rather than fight the good fight, you’re curled up in a fetal position with a sign on your back that reads “kick me!”
Obama’s wars.
Just for starters!!!
And he was the “Peace President?”
Please!!!
Voice is not being cynical. He’s just telling the truth of the matter.
You write:
That is quite true. The entire Democratic Party is not hawkish.
But…that “Democratic Party” is…and has been at least since Clinton I…ruled and controlled by hawks.
Voice wrote:
If a party is controlled by war hawks, then it is a war hawk.
Why do you think that Bernie Sanders was criminally pushed out of the way in 2016 by the DNC?
Because he is against the rule of the Permanent War/globalist Corporate class.
Simple as that.
And…if a real revolution in the Democratic Party does not happen within the next two years, the hawks will win using the same tools and powers that they used in 2016 and there we’ll be in 2020, caught once again between a PermaWar DemRat Scylla and a PermaWar RatPub Charybdis.
Watch.
AG
Overall a very thoughtful and interesting essay. This was the only statement I didn’t understand.
It seems to me that “McGovernism,” whatever that is supposed to mean in this day and age, has for years and years been continually invoked by “centrists” as the specter that haunts the Democratic Party and guarantees losing elections.
Maybe you’re thinking of the recent bipartisan vote on withdrawing support for the Yemen war? That does remind me of McGovern, but I didn’t know it was the mainstream of American politics today. I hope it is.
I think the mainstream of American politics today is left-wing populism, as David Leonhart wrote in an excellent op-ed today.
Trouble is, don’t think the Democratic Party as a whole really gets this yet. And it’s easier said than done. As Upton Sinclair noted many years ago, ” “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
“The man” I am thinking of in this case is the typical Democratic Party honcho — not the voter.
Right now we’re seeing a fight for the soul of the Democratic party. I see it here in Washington state where the Democratic governor wants to raise taxes on the back of the middle and upper middle class, leaving the wealthy unscathed. That’s a recipe for disaster in my opinion, turning the middle back to the right after a hard fought win. They need to take on the people who provide money and the establishment wing of the Democratic party is afraid to go there. But go there it must, as it’s the only way forward. Hopefully they’ll figure it out. Otherwise we are truly fucked!
You are so right. That is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. “… the establishment wing of the Democratic party is afraid to go there. But go there it must, as it’s the only way forward. Hopefully they’ll figure it out. Otherwise we are truly fucked!”
Look st what’s happening in France right now. Look at the mess the UK is in. All the same thing.
New York City is now being torn apart by so-called “progressive” Democrats, in a spectacular example of the same thing you’re talking about. (There is more international capital per square inch sloshing around New York than practically any place in the universe.)
. . . of the proposal you characterize as the Dem gov
I concur that that would be disastrous, along with indefensible and astonishingly politically tone-deaf to the current political moment. But exactly those reasons leave me a bit skeptical that your description is fully accurate/fair — at least enough so that I’d need to assess that for myself from the evidence rather than assume the description is fully accurate.
Here is a very interesting piece on McGovern, Goldwater, Reagan, the Democrats … published less than three years ago, and still having to explain how “The party took all the wrong lessons from McGovern’s landslide loss to Richard Nixon in ’72.”
I rated this excellent by mistake and couldn’t change it.
Sorry you feel that way. Try logging out and in again.
I didn’t intend to down rate, either.
That is truly a preposterous conclusion to draw from that post. I do not see how you could arrive at that.
The DLC style Democrat is all but gone. The few that remain in the House had their asses handed to them by Nancy Pelosi.
I don’t see how you can see many -if any- of the winning candidates as analogs for DLC/Blue Dog/New Democrat style politics.
I know we try to minimize the use of troll ratings, but if any comment deserves a ZERO it’s yours.
Nancy Pelosi heads the pack!
But again, Nancy Pelosi isn’t a DLC Democrat. She’s not a Clintonite. Five seconds or less on the google how does it work:
And on and on and on. Mewanwhile, you’re predicting a return to Clintonism? Please. Nancy Pelosi destroyed the remnants of the Blue Dogs two weeks ago. It’s not 1992.
I agree. I have never thought Pelosi was a Clintonista.
Nancy Pelosi’s job is to maintain power by fundraising, making political favors, cashing in political favors, and knowing how to count votes. Her ideology is largely irrelevant, although she is on the left side of the caucus. It is then to utilize that power and form it into the consensus of the caucus. Counting votes is part of this. The center of gravity is now such that Blue Dog Caucus, such that it even exists anymore, includes people who support a public option. The Progressive Caucus is making demands for being obnoxious Ways and Means. Why are you taking about Clintonism?
You are totally correct on Pelosi’s job. That’s exactly what she does, and she does it very well.
And “Clintonism”…whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean…was based on the same sorts of “jobs,” only on a national electoral level. The only addition was image-making.
What these people say and do in public and what they say and do in private are often totally at odds. There is no morality other than winning under the current conditions. One could say that this has been true throughout the history of this political system, but I am not sure that’s entirely accurate. Lincoln and FDR come to mind immediately.
They had another layer of expertise.
Call it moral expertise for want of a better term. They were also “all about winning,” but there was a moral core to their actions. I cannot say that about the Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and most of the rest of the current Dem power players.
The only two current big-time Dems who seem to have some of that extra level are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Are they skillful enough political players to win against the super-hustlers who continue to do their jobs of “…maintain[ing] power by fundraising, making political favors, cashing in political favors, and knowing how to count votes?”
I don’t know. Sanders certainly failed in 2016.
Will 2020 be any different?
Will the two neophytes O’Roarke and Ocasio-Cortez shake things up sufficiently to make some kind of difference to the Dem power chip counters now in control?
I don’t know that, either.
Let us pray it so.
Later…
AG
. . . such a blatant misrepresentation of what booman wrote, but which was attributed directly to booman nonetheless?
Sure, I could understand just ignoring it if you didn’t think it egregious enough to downrate. But uprate it? Seriously?
Yeah, ag’s ag, and it’s transparently obvious in this case that this is just yet another of his abuses of the ratings system for tribal solidarity.
But you, HotR, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
. . . explain. My sincere apology.
There will remain, alas, the Senate. Norm Ornstein notes that “by 2040 or so, 70 percent of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30 percent will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than the 70 percent. Unsettling to say the least.”
https://twitter.com/normornstein/status/1016789064379334656?lang=en
This is the biggest, most consequential “gerrymandering” we face. One that is built in to this system.
A relative calls it constitutionally mandated gerrymandering.
Nixon pioneered a form of politics that fractured the New Deal Coalition (or at least exacerbated the growing fractures). But he was an ideologically heterodox president who embraced Keynes at some point. Nixon cared about power more than outcomes. He first exploited the grievances of white Americans on race and culture in order to win elections.
Reagan provided the ideological underpinnings that further deepened the Nixonian Coalition. But ultimately, it’s hard to argue that the Reagan Ideology was more popular than the Nixon Politics. Reagan played the Nixon tune, but with a more pleasing Irish tenor.
Republicans convinced themselves that Reagan was a more ideological figure than he actually was, creating this rigid Reagan Box. It wasn’t low taxes/deregulation that turned on Republican voters. It was race and culture.
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, the realignment in Romney-Clinton suburban communities appears to be well underway, and this will alter the way both parties approach state and national elections. I can’t help but worry about a different scenario, though.
What if the goal of the GOP isn’t to win elections anymore? What if they think that vote suppression, defanging popular referendums, and stripping popularly elected Democrats of power will depress turnout among the Democratic base? What if constant shutdowns (and threats to shutdowns) lower government worker’s morale and produce bad governance, turning GOP’s criticism of the public sector into a self-fulfilling prophesy?
The obvious solution is to vote as many GOP officials out of office as we possibly can. I hope that enough Democratic officials win in the next few years to convince the GOP to stop using fascist tactics. (There certainly doesn’t seem to be any resistance within the party, at least from what I can tell.)
. . .
Come to think of it, that looks like the first-in-line obvious solution for . . . well . . . pretty much every current issue that comes to mind off the top of my head!
[cue what-aboutist/both-siderist nay-saying from one Village Idiot or the other]
There’s no question that the GOP’s goal isn’t to win elections, at least not honestly. The outrageous power grabs in almost every state where they’ve lost a trifecta (WI, MI, and NC), appointing a Republican operative head of elections in Broward County, extreme vote suppression everywhere, extreme gerrymandering – all show they’ll do anything to get and maintain power. This is really part of a worldwide move to sham elections, where people vote, but combinations of gerrymandering, candidate restrictions, voter restrictions, and election fraud prevent the vote from being meaningful.
The horrifying reality is that if this proceeds far enough there’s no solution but revolution, and that is a difficult route that often has disastrous side effects. The incoming Republican governor of FL, for example, will appoint several FL Supreme Court justices, so at that point there will be no recourse whatsoever within the state of FL against even the most outrageous abuses unless some of the Republicans still have a bit of residual conscience. It seems unlikely there will be enough. Only one WI Republican legislator, for example, opposed their outrageous power grab.
I agree. There’s a very real chance we slip into authoritarianism. We’re part way there already. It’s a very dangerous time.
Apparently, Geraghty was not around from 1994 to the present when Newt Gingrich went to war not just with the Democrats but also with the Republican Establishment and the currrent nihilistic, corrupt and pseudo-Randian ideology was laid down. Gingrich has always been very proud of his accomplishent but it was always ultimately a dead-end of free-floating destruction and rampant corruption and the destruction of democratic norms.
Trump is truly the GOP’s Frankenstein monster, simple as that (but without the sympathetic aspect to the monster).
True. Yet I have no doubt they’ll try to put a prettier face on it, just as Reagan was a prettier face on the Southern Strategy than Nixon. The question is how fast the demographics shift and whether people of color can be co-opted because we know they’ll try that too. Just as the white coalition that took shape in 1968 was different than the WASP coalition that preceded, in which Jews, Italians, Irish, etc. were not seen as fully part of the in-crowd.
Color’s a harder line to cross but Karl Rove is still out there, as are others of similar bent, seeking a way to make classes of minorities acceptable to the mainstream GOP and interest those minorities in voting Republican. The underlying script remains divide and conquer. It’s just a different set of fears and prejudices that get played.
Nixon’s southern strategy created a long-term Republican majority in almost every state and national election between 1968 and 1992. This was because the white working class was deeply racist, so that when the Democrats passed the Civil Rights bills, and started to take integration seriously, they immediately started moving to the GOP because working class whites do NOT want to belong to the same party as minorities. Hence the “Reagan Democrats”. Being polite the new media endlessly talked about their “economic anxiety.” But, economic anxiety was always due to racism, pure and simple.
What they objected to was non-white people, and women starting to demand equal opportunity and create a truly integrated society.
But, there were limits to how bigoted they could become, because in the 60’s and 70’s there were only 3 networks. SO, political news was by definition middle of the road. As a white christian conservative, you didn’t have your own network telling you “it’s OK! You’re not a bigot. They’re the bigots for pointing out your bigotry, and misogyny.”
Now they have Fox News telling them that they’re the “Real Merkins.” They’re right and all their prejudices and crank opinions are patriotic and wonderful. They’re not against Latin immigrants because they’re small minded bigots creating hysterical nonsense about the “caravan that is pouring across our borders” to hide under our beds and grab our ankles when we get up in the night to pee, and kill us with Ebola!
NO! They are patriotically defending the homeland against foreign invasion by migrants trying to come here and find a better life!
But, they’re not a majority now. Nixon won 60% of the vote and 48 states. Trumpites would never call themselves the “Silent Majority” today. They know they’re not a majority or anything close to it. But, they still think they’re the only righteous people in the country and they get to run everything forever.
They know they’re not winning anything real – whether they build that wall or not will change nothing. Being cruel to immigrant families makes them feel good, especially because “Libtards” complain about their stupid and pointless cruelty. But it’s not going to lead to anything of lasting significance for them.
Because what they really hate is that people are making choices they don’t approve of – gay people coming out of the closet and marrying! Integration and racial intermixing! Oh, no! It’s not going to be a White country any more! We need to do something. But there’s literally nothing they can do. Short of massive ethnic cleansing like Queen Isabella getting rid of the Jews and Muslims from Spain, which is never going to happen, there is no way to re-create ’50s America. So their entire cause is stupid and futile.
Thanks, Booman. Interesting analysis, as always.
One minor quibble: In 1980 Ronald Reagan wasn’t a “thinly credentialed B-List actor”. He’d been a national political figure since his speech for Goldwater at the 1964 convention. (Think: Obama at the 2004 convention.) He’d been a successful two-term governor of the nation’s largest state. He’d nearly defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination. In short, he’d been a major political player for over 15 years. (Note: not counting his experience as a national spokesman for GE and as a labor union president.)
Regarding the theme of your post, one can only hope.
I will say that I came to California at the end of the Pete WIlson era and no one would have predicted how things would turn out there. Especially after Schwarzenegger won the recall election.
While I see the demographics leading the GOP toward a time in the wilderness, what’s not clear is whether they can put a nicer face on Trumpism and in the shorter run pull back in some of the suburban vote. Could a Romney or a more sincere looking trickster, perhaps a Paul Ryan, pull it off? White people remain the majority for now.
In the longer run, we know there will be efforts to redraw lines of grievance to include some of those we think of today as minorities, just as minorities of the past are now included within the white coalition. It was in my lifetime that I can recall black people telling me that I shouldn’t trust white folks to see me as white because I’m Jewish, the idea being that we’re a mix of black and white. Every minority was seen this way at one time. Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. Outsiders, interlopers — dirty and dangerous.
Trump will never see places where people have dark skin as anything but shit holes, but a new generation of bigots could include people of color. The GOP’s appeal is to division. Are people wise enough to recognize this and not allow themselves to be co-opted? That’s the real question because human impulse in human impulse and people of all ethnicities and religions are subject to the same dark temptations.