Some may dismiss this article because it’s from the NY Times but I think it presents some of the best arguments for why Trump is about to be the GOP nominee. Everyone should read the entire piece, it’s worth it to learn how the Grand Old Party got to this point and why Trump may be the only way to save it.
For decades our party has talked about smaller government, more power to the people, and a better economic climate. But what have they actually done to make any of that happen? Trump is addressing those economic concerns.
A party with a long history of cultural populism — hatred of elites combined with direct appeals to “the forgotten man,” “the silent majority” and “the moral majority” — has grown curiously deaf to the authentic distress still troubling millions who have been struggling in the Obama years. Rather than proposing concrete programs to help the middle class and the poor, the Republicans’ own elite continues to insist that the gravest threat to our economic security comes from government itself.
Yes, bigger government is a threat but what have Republicans proposed to change that? So few of our Representatives on Capitol Hill care enough to even try to help those forgotten by the Obama administration. Talk is cheap. Whether he can do it or not, Trump is proposing things Americans want to hear. Without closing our borders, the middle and lower classes will continue to struggle as immigrants take the jobs and lower the pay for Americans.
Will Trump be as pragmatic as Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon? Eisenhower, like Trump was not a politician, partnered with Democrat Senate Majority leader Lyndon Johnson and Democrat Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn to accomplish great things in Washington including the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
In 1962 Leesburg resident and writer Russell Baker said,
“The assumption was that the electorate would no longer support a party whose prime goal was negative,”
Crowds love Trump because he’s optimistic about America, putting our country first, and doing what is best for Americans.
Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush made compromises with a Democratic congress. That’s how it’s supposed to work but as our party has moved to the right and more ‘purity’ we have lost the battles and the war. Republicans haven’t won the popular vote since 1988!
Trump has said he is a negotiator and compromiser who will free the gears of government in Washington. Is that what the Republican party needs now? Perhaps. While many of us cling to our ‘principles’ we continue to lose and the people of the country continue to suffer. If conservatives refuse to support Trump, are they prepared for what 8 years of Hillary will do to the country? Are we prepared to lose the Supreme Court for the next 50 years? Are they prepared to flush the lower and middle classes further down the drain for the sake of purity? If Hillary is elected our party is lost. Do we stand on purity and let that happen? Or do we become more pragmatic?
The challenge for Mr. Trump will be convincing voters that he really does mean to improve conditions for working-class and middle-class Americans and not just play to their grievances. If he does, and brings the party along with him, he could be a formidable foe to Mrs. Clinton, especially if the email controversy continues to dog her. But even in crushing defeat, he could be a kind of reverse Goldwater who shifts the party closer to the center. Trumpism, if not Mr. Trump himself, might return the party to the pragmatic conservatism of presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon.
Is the author of the Times piece, Sam Tanenhaus, correct when he writes,
Years of fossilized ideology on the right created this choice, and some conservatives admit it, though it has not made them happy. Mr. Trump’s nomination will mean the demise of “a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics,” the columnist George F. Will warned in December. (Mr. Will has since announced he will quit the G.O.P. and seek asylum among the “unaffiliated.”)
Whatever the outcome in November, this reckoning may be exactly what the party needs. Mr. Trump seemed to say as much in May, as he was closing in on the nomination. “This is called the Republican Party,” he said. “It’s not called the Conservative Party.”
Are Republicans ready to accept that?
29 comments
Sorry, but Trump’s statements indicate he is every bit the totalitarian that HIllary is.
I’m no Trump fan, but Trump is the nominee, and he does have the potential to change the change the electorate. It’s interesting though, how so many hated Romney because he wasn’t “ideologically pure”, yet they’re more than fine with Trump who supported a single payer health care system.
I am voting for Trump, but we must teach everyone that Government is the problem, and not the solution to the problem. Trump needs to do these things:
1) Nominate conservative judges to all levels of the federal court system
2) Build the wall with Mexico
3) Kill off the EPA
4) Kill off Obama Care – and replace it with a more market based system. This will be tough as Democrats in the Senate will demand alot, and here we may have to yield a bit on things.
If Trump can do all these things, he will go down in history as a great President.
It would be great if Trump did these things. But (in your heart) you and I both know he won’t. I am nervous to find out if Trump supporters will confront him or give up all their principles to support him and complete the transformation of the US into a socialist country like Europe.
Obama Care is all but dead. The next President will have to deal with that 1st off. Even though Trump has in the past said he supports a single payer system, that will not happen with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in the US Senate. Assuming Trump wins in November (no sure thing), a massive deal will be made, and we won’t like parts of this deal. But Obama Care will be dead.
I tend to trust him on the judges – not sure why though.
He will have little choice but to build the wall with Mexico. If Trump renegs on this, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham will make his life a living hell.
What concerns us Tea party supporters is everything else. My thoughts is the US Government’s job is to patrol the borders, have a strong military, and not much else. Not sure Trump will abide by any of that. Other than the wall.
Other than the judges, I’m betting he won’t do any of those things. Because of Trump we will lose the Senate and they seem to control everything.
He’ll have 0 choice but to do the wall. And Obama Care is dying a horrible painful death. The next President, be it Hilary, Gary Johnson, or Trump, will have to deal with that fact.
He’s already backing off on the wall. It won’t happen. Congress won’t fund it. Obamacare will continue to be propped up because Congress won’t do anything else. They wouldn’t even defund Planned Parenthood much less Obamacare.
What we call “Social Conservatives” today were probably more aligned with the Democrat Party 60 years ago. The shift from Democrat to Republican began in the 50’s and continued into the Reagan era. That a block of voters change party affiliation is not new. The Republican Party of 1860 has little resemblance to the constituencies of today.
The party has to continue to change or it will die. Remember when there was a Progressive wing of the Republican Party? We captured 3 consecutive Presidencies. Republicans endured the Roosevelt-Taft Progressive split in 1912 and came back to win the 1920,1924 and 1928 elections.
It’s happened several times before. It will happen again. It’s probably good for the party in the long run. Perhaps this can even break the deadlock in Washington and we can actually return to getting something done there. We have no record of getting anything done in Washington on spending (supposedly a conservative cause) in 16 years.
It’s not all about winning elections – ie what team jersey you wear. The victories of the Progressive Republicans led directly to the behemoth state we have today and the loss of individual freedom.
You see, it’s the freedom. not the party name that counts.
What freedom have you granted me? You’ve won so many congressional seats, there ought to be some.
Perhaps the freedom to look out in every corner of our country and see an illegal alien work for minimum wage or below.
The freedom of Free Trade or the Fiefdom of Free Trade?
The right to carry arms or the right to carry arms over to Iraq and Syria and whatever other 3rd rate Islamic hole and fight another stupid war?
The right to balance a budget or rack up more debt because you won’t compromise?
No one said that you had to give up you world view. You can go right on believing what you believe. Just accept that your view might not be the only view and allow the party to be electable again.
Every so often, there is a political upheaval of some sort or another. Sometimes, that upheaval results in a political party disappearing. Ask the Whigs. Ask the Know-Nothings. and while you are at it, ask the Republicans.
Funny? Blame the demise of the GOP on the Lord. This is exactly the way Satan would write the script. Backwards.
The real problem is written in the Scripture. The “love of money” is the root cause of most evil, which I identify to a large part as being the establishment.
Go ahead, furfill prophesy, somebody has to do it.
The entire premise of this article is the same boilerplate claptrap peddled by the left (and the moderates in our own party), that if we just get rid of those pesky social conservatives then we will start wining elections again. The author is a leftist who’s credits include the book, “The Death of Conservatism.” Forgive me if I decide not to take advice on how to “save” the GOP from a guy like this.
I especially love this line from the article,
“When Mr. Cruz called Mr. Trump “a big-government liberal, just like Barack Obama and just like Hillary Clinton,” he actually touched on a prime cause of Mr. Trump’s wide appeal. He has accurately read the mood of restive voters. ”
So what he is saying is that Trump is so popular because the people want big government and Trump is going to give it to them.
Congratulations. You have proven the point we real Conservatives have been making all along. Donald Trump is going to transform the Republican Party…into the Democrat Party.
Trump says he wants to turn the GOP into a “worker’s party” – the Democrat’s dream.
The question is – when will Trumpers realize this, how many will turn away from it, and how many will give up the principles of freedom to complete Obama’s transformation of America into a “worker’s paradise.”
The only good thing that can come from a Trumpitarian presidency is if young people, who are so turned off by him, begin to realize that state control of your life is a bad thing, He is just as much of a liberal statist as Hillary. Maybe those young people will turn to conservative, founding principles as a protest to Trump.
Many of those young people are turning to Gary Johnson.
Great article, Jeanine! Yep, good points. What has electing Conservatives gotten us lately??! Answer: Nothing. No, that’s not true – time after time we elect them and THEY SELL OUT! Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio & others – were Tea Party darlings at one point. And they betrayed us. Again and again.
The word, “Conservative” has lost its meaning. It’s just something a Republican calls himself to get elected. And then we are let down again. Until the next “Conservative” candidate comes along and says vote for me; I’m much better, and promises Conservative principles, etc. Ad nausem.
No more Conservatives for me, thank you very much. The pseudo-intellectuals/elites at NR can go suck a lemon; they’re bitter enough. They’re seeing Americans wise up and reject their false narrative. Who gives a fig about ideology purity when real Americans continue to SUFFER despite continually electing Conservatives, and Republicans holding both houses of Congress??
I’m going to vote for someone who puts American interests first – not illegals, and not corporate wall street. This Tea Party, former “Conservative” gal is all in for Trump.
Why didn’t you check the records of all the candidates? Yes, by virtue of being a politician most don’t keep their promises. But there was one who did and who has paid a price over and over again in the media. You missed the gold nugget by chasing after pyrite. Best to be truly informed next time.
Not sure I see eye to eye with the piece as a whole. Mr. Tanenhaus summarizes conservative politics since the 1950s as a tug of war between ideological purists and the pragmatists. The latter, in his eyes, are the secret sauce. Okay. They were succeeded by purists in the Barry Goldwater tradition. O-kay…
Except that he completely ignores the impact of Ralph Reed and the Christian Coalition. But okay, Goldwater…
Then the author asserts that Trump’s rejection by mainstream conservatives stems from his lack of ideological purity. But these are the politicians many of TBE’s readers accuse of being RINO because they fail to pursue idelogically pure legislation…
He writes “These are serious cause for concern, but not, historically, for conservatives, who for many years have exploited racial and ethnic divisions for political gain. Goldwater’s own national campaigns were built on courting Southern segregationists, which he began to do as early as 1961. Ronald Reagan crudely caricatured welfare recipients. Ted Cruz has called for patrolling “Muslim neighborhoods.””
So I get it. The guy Does Not Like Goldwater! But courting southern segregationists seems to be a dirty-vote grubbing (pragmatic) thing to do, hardly a sign of ideological purity. So he hates Goldwater for pie in the sky ideology, or because he was supposedly unethical (but pragmatic, which he says we should embrace in Trump)? And Reagan’s caricatures of welfare recipients were racial/ethnic in what way? I also have to wonder what he’s implying about Republican voters when he suggests racism isn’t a problem for them.
Finally, he suggests by cherry picking from Trump’s least irrational statements that Trump could be the pragmatist we’ve all been waiting for. However, that part is so light on development that the author could have dubstituted Charles Manson for Trump with no loss of effectiveness. And of course, by taking this tack, the author implies that anybody who is opposed to Trump lacks pragmatism.
The New York Times publishes pieces by authors with a wide variety of viewpoints, but most of them assert conclusions based on some discernable logic. Not seeing it here at all.
Trump supporters were ‘purists’ who hated the establishment and wanted someone ‘fresh,’ ‘not PC.’ But then they were dazzled by the crude talking celebrity and the ‘wall’ that will not be built. So the ‘purism’ that led them to Trump was thrown away and now they support the big-government lying loudmouth who even admitted he is ‘establishment’ because he’s bribed the establishment for personal gain.
I’m concerned that his appeal is part of a greater problem David Brooks outlines here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/opinion/are-we-on-the-path-to-national-ruin.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
If correct, the Republican Party will lose their social conservative wing of the party and that will be unfortunate. However, it will allow the Republican Party to pick up millions of independents and moderates, even some libertarians, making the party more representative of the country as a whole.
I’m somewhat of a social conservative, among other things. Supporting Trump is no problem for me, as long as these perverted social engineers don’t legislate against my Christian beliefs. Moreover, I am sick of the so called conservative purists who, IMO, are not conservative at all, ie. Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, the Bushes, Romneys, etc. etc.
Think of how many prominent Evangelicals have come out for Trump.
Social Conservatives need jobs and a safe country as much as the Libertarian, mainstream, constitutional, and other conservatives do.
BTW, good riddance George Will; take Bill Kristol with you.
Excellent point about jobs. There are, however, many social conservatives who vote on those issues and those issues alone, or stay home. That said, you cannot build a national party on issue voters.
I agree.
No, it will just make them Democrat lite. The day the Republican party loses the social conservatives is the day the Republican Party ceases to be a viable national party.
Are we currently a viable party? Not so much.
Before we nominated Trump? Yes. Now? Not so much. The author of this article states that, even by suffering a crushing defeat, Trump can “save” the GOP by getting rid of social conservatives in favor of people who value pragmatism over principles. I’m sorry, but pragmatism over principles DEFINES the GOPe.
That is what makes Trump’s campaign so ironic. The people that claim to despise the GOP establishment the most are pushing a candidate who will “save” the party by destroying all opposition to the GOP establishment.
No, just no to “compromise” being the answer. Ironically enough, my Pastor spent Sunday morning’s service describing how compromise, pragmatism,”fairness” and things such as that are weapons of hell, forcing you to give up bits and pieces of Godliness to get along with the world until you’re shoved out of a place where you can speak the truth of God. This just affirmed for me that he was right. Compromising our principles, Social Conservatism and small government philosophies in order to win means we’ve lost by ceding the battle of ideas and ideals before we’ve even begun to fight.