Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Will Capitulation of the GOP Establishment Look Like?
It looks increasingly likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee for President. He has led in the polls for four months, he has more money than all the other candidates combined in spite of which he is the beneficiary of seemingly limitless free media, and his campaign rallies have the excitement of rock concerts.
As my co-host Todd Feinburg and I discuss in this week’s Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast, Trump is rolling on. And that no doubt precipitates PVCs from many of the elites on the right (not to mention utter hysteria from everyone on the left).
So my question is this.
Assuming that the Trump trajectory continues on its merry, ballistic way through Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and on through “Super Tuesday,” what, exactly, is the capitulation of the GOP establishment going to look like if and when Trump begins rehearsing for his acceptance speech in Cleveland?
How do Karl Rove and George Will and Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson (et tu, Kevin?) and Bret Stephens and Daniel Henninger – oh, why not just throw in the whole Wall Street Journal editorial board? – I could go on, but you get the idea. How do these and so many more venerable conservatives reach that final stage (Kubler Ross is trite, I know) of acceptance of the nomination of Donald Trump?
How does Henninger walk back the remark of saying Trump is “beyond the pale” for politicizing 9/11?
How does Goldberg escape his remark that Trump is like a “cat trained to [urinate] in a human toilet?”
During the general election, how does Will equivocate when asked about his remark that “nothing is now more virtuous than scrubbing, as soon as possible, the Trump stain from public life.”
In short, how do these pundits and many more deal with the extreme vituperation they have spewed toward Trump’s candidacy to date?
Because walk back, escape, equivocate and deal with is what they will inevitably be doing if Trump wins the nomination.
Consider the alternative.
Consider first that Trump has a plan to simplify the tax code and (among many other things) lower the capital gains tax to 15 percent. Trump has a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Trump has a plan to fix the VA hospital system. Trump describes (I assure you this is coming) how he will appoint constitutional conservatives with a sympathy for unborn life – in the mold of Samuel Alito – to the Supreme Court.
And these guys do what? Endorse Hillary?
I don’t think so.
Of course it is conceivable that Rove and others will embark on a third party candidacy with Jeb (?) carrying the banner. Psychologists say that people who are terrified of heights are not really afraid of falling. They are afraid of jumping. Perhaps the Republican establishment is not so much afraid of Trump launching a third party candidacy as they are of feeling forced into doing so themselves.
A third party candidacy from the former GOP is probably unlikely. And with Trump proposing clearly conservative positions on many central issues (as I mentioned above), abandoning the GOP for Hillary Clinton is not, for any of the aforementioned pundits, going to happen.
No, the conservative elites have made a big mistake. Conservatism in the classical sense is very much about tone. But the invective of these conservatives toward Trump, far from having the measured and sober tone that might have separated supporters from Trump rather than driving them to him, has had the tone – so often ascribed to liberals – of a hissy-fit.
I believe that the flashpoint of this rage has been Trump’s announced intention to send illegal aliens back to their home countries – a prospect that Neocons who are soppy-sentimental about Ellis Island and Chamber of Commerce Republicans who are soppy-sentimental about potentially going to jail utterly loathe.
But whatever the specific underpinnings of the calumny that conservative pundits have shown to Trump – and they are not a phalanx, their reasons vary – they are likely going to have to find a way back into the fold. And it could get ugly.
But perhaps there is a way. Charles Krauthammer (whom I truly respect) recently opined about Trump:
“I think he’s a much better candidate than he was at the beginning, much better on his feet in an interview.”
“When he started out, he wandered into a lot of Twilight Zone places, the deportation of the 12 million, the thing with John McCain. He didn’t do that [in the Baier interview]. He was a lot more disciplined.”
In other words, “I was right. Trump was a buffoon. But isn’t it marvelous the evolution he has gone through?!” In other words: “I didn’t join Trump. Trump joined me!”
It’s a bold plan. But it just might work.
But they are still going to have to get used to one thing. The 12 million have got to go.
Published in General
I’d say a cat trained to urinate in a toilet would still be better for the country than the likely Dem nominee.
Indeed, a cat trained to urinate in a toilet is a pretty remarkable thing!
Very well reasoned.
There are also a lot of political people out there (did someone say “hacks”?) who depend on the process for a living. They are going to go searching for some of the loot – no matter how outside the Trump sphere they find themselves. Natural that putting bread on the table trumps (sorry) ideology much (most?) of the time.
Well, up till now, Donald can plausibly say he’s had fewer rape accusations than Bill and fewer people have died on his watch than Hillary so I think the glass is half full. And the FBI doesn’t seem to have half their agents working on investigating him.
Cheer up, people.
The number one issue for the survival of our country is controlling our borders. This cuts across several key conservative issues. National security (terrorist infiltration), culture, rule of law, trust in our government. If this issue is not addressed strongly, it will destroy the ability to ever elect a conservative and move the country into a socialist state.
Trump wins on that.
He has advocated for a stronger military. I thought that was something Republicans liked. He has indicated that he understands the middle class squeeze and tax burdens. He understands regulatory burdens on business. He is pro life. He respects America And the American dream. He is a working class guy with a huge net worth.
I really don’t see much , er, moderation from him.
I really think “experience” is overrated as a condition. Trump would definitely be a better Potus than McCain would have been.
McCain had no exec experience, never saw a military intervention proposed that he didn’t like, had questionable judgement on nearly everything, was more comfortable with Dems than conservatives, and has a petty mean streak.
I heard zero criticism from GOPe on any of these things. So when they bash Trump, it’s because he’s not in their club, pure and simple.
Let’s stipulate that The Donald get’s nominated and then elected in 2016. The resulting downturn caused by his trade policies would bring the Democrats back in 2020, in a big way.
But of course, after four years in the wilderness, the Dems will be gracious in victory.
I don’t have a club. While I don’t endorse some of the comments cited by the OP, my criticism of Trump is really only mitigated by respect for some of his supporters since, at bottom, we’re on the same side. If he’s the nominee, he will face a problem similar to Romney, only with different people. I’d characterize his temperament as mercurial, not a quality that I prefer in a president. I’m not convinced of his sincerity on some issues (abortion), and I consider access to nukes higher on the “survival of the country” scale than millions of gardeners and hotel maids. I’m not an inveterate “lost cause,” but he has a lot of work to do with me and many like me. If that view is “establishment,” so be it.
No. He’s getting bashed because he says ridiculous things. He’s figured out what the base wants but he apparently has no idea how to make it happen.
Interesting. I see Trump criticized as being an unpredictable flip-flopper we can’t trust, yet you know what his trade policy will be and what the effects will be after four years.
I humbly suggest neither you nor I know what the future holds.
If you can find a quote from me calling Trump a flip-flopper, I’ll buy you a beer.
I would agree that he has a strange way of communicating, but the basic content is anything but ridiculous. What’s ridiculous is how the GOP elites keep serving up losers each cycle. Jeb this time, Romney and McCain.
Mc Cain was their guy. He said ridiculous things continually. He suspended his campaign! He chose the unready Sarah Palin in a desperate attempt to placate conservatives, who had good reason to be wary of him.
I have to note that he is running as a Republican. Considering that the party establishment appears to love John McCain, who was seriously rumored to be switching parties twice in my recollection, I suggest that the “R” label Trump has applied should be enough.
As opposed to the establishment’s darling, Jeb Bush, who most explicitly was telling us exactly what we did not want to hear. Nastily.
I remembering hearing him on the Limbaugh show years ago. Apparently he is friends with Rush, who seems quite favorable to him. I suspect your criticism is at best incomplete.
Your call. But remember not voting is the same as voting for Hillary. Please reconsider.
You’re not the only person criticizing Trump.
I’d hope that those of us who are members of Trump Bashers Anonymous (“Hello, my name is Hoyacon”) would take this seriously. I’ve been critical of those who stayed home for McCain and Romney because they were RINOs. Thanks for Barack. So let’s be acutely aware of the alternatives to Trump.
Fair enough.
My predictions on Trump’s trade policies are based on what he says they are. If Trump is a flip-flopper, that becomes a moot point.
This raises a question about your Trump support. Are you hoping that he is a flip-flopper, or that he’s not?
Great post, Michael. I like it whenever Ricochet veers away from predictable, dogmatic, surprise-free conservatism.
The conservative print journalist establishment has already lost the bet against Trump, because he has outlasted all the predictions of his imminent demise.
Over the last several months, their tone has gone from dismissive to desperate. They need to calm down. Have a bourbon. Light a cigar. Or whatever they do on NR cruises when elections have just been lost, but hey, we’re still on a cruise!
The commentariat should try passive resistance. Stop vilifying Trump, and he may he yet drop a few points. Think 1964 Phillies, George Will, and get a good night’s sleep.
The WSJ editorial board and the Special Report panelists aren’t so much worried about Trump losing to Clinton, or Trump becoming President. They’re worried about their own loss of influence. They’re feeling outside the loop, like that Weekly Standard delivery guy who had to cut the White House from his route back in January, 2009.
Yes, panelists, you have less influence than you thought. But the good news is, you have a much larger potential audience for a Trumped-up-sideways conservative politics, all those sub-$100K earning Tea Party animals and talk radio listeners, the rally-going, emotion-driven citizens who often forget to go to the polls on behalf of the presidential candidates you’ve directed them to in the past.
Donald Trump could still blow it. He could lose his sense of humor, go on the defensive, and stay there. He could pander to a faction, and undermine his independent image. Or he could just top out at 35%, and face uncertain prospects at a convention.
Right now my best guess is that he will do better than that, and for a reason which I predict his opponents will adopt in retrospect. Trump’s Republican competition was much weaker than supposed. Think about it.
The “establishment” faction was from the start loaded with candidates strong on paper, but dull as dust in personality driven media. Walker. Jindal. Kasich. Bush. Pataki.
The rest had far less executive experience than Trump. Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, and Carson are, collectively, 2-1 in statewide elections, all for the Senate. Ordinary voters are still smarting from the last fresh face elected President during his first Senate term.
The one who doesn’t fit into either of these baskets is Chris Christie. If Trump beats Cruz in South Carolina and Rubio in Florida, could Christie surface as acceptable to both the establishment and “in your face” factions? He’s been doing one thing right. He’s been very polite to his friend Donald Trump. Unfortunately, the big guy was also very polite to President Obama a week before the last election, during Hurricane Sandy. Winning back trust is a hard thing.
Frozen lives in Minnesota. If Trump is the nominee, his voting Trump, Clinton, or not voting would all have pretty similar impacts.
Nonetheless, I agree with the principle that not voting places one’s personal purity over one’s duty to one’s country and that we ought not to sink to it. When the wicked rule, the nation mourns, as a wise fellow once said.
If Trump wins 30-35% of most of the WTA and modified WTA states, he’d lose in a landslide. We have the pre-Super Tuesday and Super Tuesday races to narrow down the field, such that after that we should have just one other meaningful candidate. For Trump to win, he would have to be winning over 50% of the vote by that stage. This isn’t impossible, but his style is better suited to a large field, where louder voices are helpful.
If Trump becomes President, I predict that 20 million potential Democrat voters will “stay home” in the following election cycles: 2018,2020,2022,2024…..
Interesting explanation of motives. Is there anybody anywhere that might have a good reason to oppose Trump?
Or maybe they just think he is actually a charlatan and a buffoon with no clue what the job of being president entails, and who would be an even bigger and incompetent disaster than Obama, in what are becoming increasingly dangerous times. The man did manage to go bankrupt running casinos multiple times, after all.
Stick to mystery fiction, Jim.
I will worry more about Trump when he starts winning primaries.
I believe your evaluation of Trump’s trade policies is based upon faulty premises, but since I don’t want to derail the thread I’ll remain silent on that point.
I suspect Trump is being a politician, and so far a successful one. Since I have often been astonished at just how little the establishment folks appear to understand that I’ll put it this way: I’ve watched the usual suspects betray their supporters over and over again in such a clumsy way that it has driven vast numbers of potential supporters away from the GOP. I think people who are paying attention to politics at this early date know full well that politics is the art of the possible, and evaluate Trump on that basis. Those people, whom the establishment simply despises too much to hide their contempt, have been brought back to the political process by Trump.
So I think the charge of flip-flopping is meaningless in that context. People know Trump won’t be able to get everything he talks about, but since no one trusts the establishment- thanks to the experience I reference above- Trump still seems like a better deal.
Thanks for the positive vibes, Jim.
Very interesting comments about the establishment faction. Somehow I was hoping that Walker would turn out to be a diamond in the rough but he ended up being duller than Bush.
And I am perpetually amazed at how horrible a candidate Jeb Bush is (pleasantly amazed, I should say). I saw a commercial he is running in New England and he stands like a vulture with arms at his sides and his head sticking out throughout the whole thing. *That’s* what $120M buys you with this guy?!?
I still vote in Michigan, so I’m in the same boat.
Edit after roughly two seconds- unless Trump can convince enough “Reagan democrats” to vote GOP again.
No, they split the vote of the Republicans, from which they came. The following election was close, as they came back home. The election after that saw a Republican landslide, with Roosevelt’s party being joined by the Catholics that Taft had started to woo and other factions.
Third parties that do not win their election never advance their cause. In every single case where their impact has not been trivial, it has been helpful for the other side. Greens kept the most environmentalist President out of office. Libertarians keep small government advocates out of office. The Dixiecrats saw Jim Crow die faster. In the UK, Thatcher won time and again because the leftist vote was split (she never got a majority).
I should note that this is only true where there is a policy aim. Perot, for instance, wanted to reduce the deficit and took out the greatest deficit cutting President in decades. One could argue, though, that he was motivated by personal hostility to Bush. Third parties can be successful, to the extent that their aim is a personal attack on their ideological allies.
Do you think Trump will try to get everything he talks about? Like, for example, the trade restrictions he says he supports?
This is of course an excellent point.
I said in one of these Trump-mania threads that Trump must fail on his own merits.
If he peeves his supporters enough to walk away on their own then it is completely different from the establishment spending tens of millions to carpet-bomb him like Mitt Romney carpet-bombed Newt Gingrich in Florida.
Suicide is not the same as murder.
It should be noted that before any capitulation from the establishment or the other GOP contenders that they and their PACs will unleash a hellstorm on Trump that will burn with the heat of a thousand suns.
If Trump survives that, which is doubtful, he will have to endure even worse attacks from Hillary and the Dem PACs.
Good luck with that, Donald.