Why No Trump Congress?

 

As you’ve likely heard, Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain coasted to significant victories last night in their respective primaries, in much the same way that Speaker Paul Ryan easily bested his Trumpian challenger earlier in the month. As Charles C. W. Cooke writes writes on NRO, this suggests an obvious question:

In Arizona last night, John McCain beat his primary opponent by ten points. McCain was a key member of the “Gang of Eight.” He has a reputation as a “squish.” He has been an elected official since 1982. Why weren’t these figures swept away? How, in this “climate,” could they possibly have won? Where was the “anger”; the “frustration”; the “revolt”? Back in 2010, the Tea Party became a credible movement because it actually got its candidates nominated — and elected. What, other than benefit briefly from a perfect storm, has the Trump Party done?

Cooke concludes that Trump is sui generis and that his win in the primaries is better understood as a testimony to Trump’s personality, skill, and good fortune than to his policy positions or a genuine anti-incumbency movement.

I’d wager that Cooke is correct and that Trumpism is a one-hit wonder whose success in the presidential primaries will be extremely difficult to reproduce. However, that’s a very convenient conclusion for a NeverTrumper — like Cooke or me — to draw and it’s always a mistake to stop at the first theory fits the facts, especially if it’s narratively satisfying.

One alternative — or, perhaps, complimentary — theory is that the Tea Party is the victim of its own success. To begin with, it taught the Republican Party that a party revolt actually can send long-term incumbents packing, as it did Bob Bennett, Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson, and Mike Castle, among others. If you’ll forgive an unkind analogy, it’s similar to how al-Qaeda’s success on 9-11 made any subsequent attempts to hijack aircraft significantly more difficult. Moreover, several of those once-scrappy-challengers (e.g., Rubio) are now the established incumbents.

The problem with this theory is that it doesn’t explain how Trump could have succeeded at the presidential level (against some of the same players) while his followers have largely failed elsewhere (to be clear, Trump-friendly candidates have won primaries, at least two unseating incumbent congressmen). On the other hand, the 2012 election had no credible Tea Party candidate, so there may have been a mistaken assumption that that sort of thing couldn’t happen at that level.

Any other alternative theories?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    I think that – for primary voters, not Ricochet’s current contingent of supporters – Trump’s support has come from unconventional voters, people who don’t follow politics, and who are unlikely to vote in non-presidential races.  Despite running through the primaries, they in no way represent conservatives, but a previously unknown grievance group that has latched on to this cult-of-personality. I would not expect it to spread, though it may impact down-ballot races by driving away usual voters.

    • #31
  2. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Austin Murrey:If Kanye and Ted run against each other they may agree to settle the election with a duel.

    From Betsy Hamilton to Kim K… how America has fallen. :(

    • #32
  3. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    One thing I do think is worth noting is that the only primary upset this cycle (aside from Donald) was Tim Huelskamp; a man who is anti-establishment to the core. While there were definitely local reasons for Huelskamp’s loss it could also be an indication that Trump has starved the broader (often more ideologically driven) anti-establishment right of much of its oxygen.

    Now, I’m generally more establishment friendly than most Ricochet members, but I hope we can all agree that it would be better to have the anti-establishment wing of the party be motivated by conservatism  than by whatever Donald happens to be thinking on a given day.

    • #33
  4. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    RyanM: I would not expect it to spread, though it may impact down-ballot races by driving away usual voters.

    I don’t think Trumpism as an ideology is likely to spread, but that’s because it’s less an ideology than a personality cult. What I think is more likely, and more worrying, is the unmooring of the Republican Party from even a nominal adherence to constitutionalism and limited government. I’m very concerned that the GOP is shifting from being a (flawed) Burkean conservative party into a right wing populist party along the lines of the French Front National and the Hungarian Jobbik Party. Conservatives like to deride Western European decline. Well, we seem to be intent on emulating it.

    • #34
  5. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Should Trump be elected, I wonder whether Maine’s state motto (dirigo, or “I lead”) is going to be proven true? 

    • #35
  6. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Salvatore Padula:

    RyanM: I would not expect it to spread, though it may impact down-ballot races by driving away usual voters.

    I don’t think Trumpism as an ideology is likely to spread, but that’s because it’s less an ideology than a personality cult. What I think is more likely, and more worrying, is the unmooring of the Republican Party from even a nominal adherence to constitutionalism and limited government. I’m very concerned that the GOP is shifting from being a (flawed) Burkean conservative party into a right wing populist party along the lines of the French Front National and the Hungarian Jobbik Party. Conservatives like to deride Western European decline. Well, we seem to be intent on emulating it.

    Exactly.  Ref: @jamielockett ‘s comment above.  My argument hasn’t been that Trump will result in the end of conservatism, but that he signals the end of conservatism, which is why it is important to stick to the argument, even if you agree with the analysis that Hillary would be worse for the near future.  A populist party is willing to jump on board with these sorts of personality-cults because it allows itself to be separated from ideology by promises of short-term gains (or worse, seeming revenge).  For me, it’s less of a spread of ideology, and more acclimation to compromise of ideology.  Like with kids; the first lie is hard, the second takes some justification, soon after that the truth becomes relative.

    • #36
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    RyanM: Like with kids Clintons; the first lie is hard, the second takes some justification, soon after that the truth becomes relative.

    • #37
  8. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM: Like with kids Clintons; the first lie is hard, the second takes some justification, soon after that the truth becomes relative.

    Certainly.  I was referring to the lesson that is commonly taught to kids, though, not suggesting that it isn’t just as true with adults.

    • #38
  9. Leonard of Port Maurice Inactive
    Leonard of Port Maurice
    @Pseudodionysius

    Hi mom.

    • #39
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.