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.
Can the GOP Survive a Trump Win?
The New York Times tries (unsuccessfully) to hide their gloating over what they believe to be an upcoming loss by Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election, and asks the question, “Can the GOP Survive a Trump Loss?” But what if Trump wins? What then for the Republican Party?
I know there are people who’ll say “That’s ridiculous to even consider. There’s no way Trump is going to win this.” and they may be right. The thing is, though, that for over a year now, Trump has been winning the battles he was supposed to lose.
He wasn’t supposed to be the front-runner for the nomination. He was.
He wasn’t supposed to make it through the debates. He did.
He wasn’t supposed to be winner on Super Tuesday. He was.
He wasn’t supposed to be the nominee for the Republican Party. He is.
With odds like that, do we really want to go into the inauguration without a plan to deal with a Trump Presidency?
I can understand why there are people inside the conservative movement who get indigestion at the thought of a Trump presidency, because there is very little of traditional conservatism inside of Trump’s political philosophy. The presidency of Ronald Reagan was propped up on a three-legged stool of a strong military presence, fiscal conservatism, and moral values, so much so that Mitt Romney literally carried a three-legged stool with him on the campaign trail in an attempt to tie his policies with Reagan’s policies.
But which one of those three legs does Donald Trump support? That’s right, none of the above.
And that’s why we have #NeverTrump.
To be honest, I have no idea what the Republican Party under a Trump administration will look like. The closest analogies I can make are what happened the last two times the United States elected a populist President, when Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt were elected. Both Presidents ushered in sweeping changes to how this country was run, but at a cost to the future prospects of their respective parties.
So I leave it to you, the “smartest, most interesting, most civil” people on the Internet: What will the Republican Party look like under President Trump? Let the world know in the comments below.
Published in Elections
In other words, the same GOP it has been since the New Deal.
I really wouldn’t use this as a yardstick. I have personal experience with a family where the father is a narcissist who rarely questions the morality of his actions and the children are quite decent and trustworthy. Would we say that because Chelsea Clinton has never been accused of financial scandal that that exonerates her parents from charges of corruption?
Trump is way better than HRC on all these legs.
I differ a bit here. Organizational human nature is to suck up to the winner. Been that way since the Pyramid construction project.
The party apparatus will fall in line, the donors will scramble to maintain power and the vocal enemies will be talking a storm about linking arms and getting things done for the Peeeeple.
The executive branch is far too lucrative to write off for a party.
I expect to see a bunch of almost apologies by conservative pundits, followed by their prescription for “Trump Must Do These 10 things”
National Review will run another Trump issue, this time “The Trump Era- It Can Be Good”
The winner? Reince Preibus.
Place your bets, Same thing happened in 1981.
Hmmm, maybe, but you would have thought they would have fallen in line once he was nominated. They did not. That National Review issue will only occur after it is conspicuous that it can be good and it becomes awkward that they don’t acknowledge it.
They assumed he would lose. Watch behavior over the next week. The number of people making moves and switching positions will look like the Moscow Ballet doing a thousand person version of Battleship Potemkin.
“Victory has a thousand fathers, while defeat is an orphan.”
I don’t think so.
Remember, Trump in the 1st Republican presidential debate in 2015? Trump said that socialized medicine works “incredibly well” in Scotland and in Canada. Trump also criticized the other Republican candidates for being willing to reform entitlement programs, programs that are bankrupting the United States. Trump has also called for an expansion of Medicare.
Trump has also bragged about having good relations with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
So, while a President Trump might work with Pelosi and Schumer (and some moderate-liberal Republicans) to increase government spending, I suspect National Review, along with Paul Ryan, will continue to argue for entitlement reform.
Trump said he is “the king of debt.” I think he’s right, which is why I will not be voting for him.
A vote for either Clinton or Trump is a vote for socialism.
That issue will occur right after the owner picks up his phone and calls Lowrey and says “Get on the right side of this, NOW”
National Review went non-profit a while ago. If anything I think being totally donor-dependent makes it more likely that its editorial position will trend “conservatarian” following a Trump victory.
The magazine will enjoy the serenity of holding libertarian positions: you’re never wrong and never accountable because nobody will ever actually govern anything according to your ideas.
You can be above it all and criticize everyone to your heart’s content – how perfectly NeverTrump!
Non Profit does not mean the people who own it do not get concerned about cash flow. Non profit does not suspend economics, it just allows one to play the tax code differently.
If cash comes in and cash goes out and someone owns it, the behavior is driven to maintain cash flow.
Jay will not be willing to make that call. He has crossed the threshold and dwells where neither reason or light can penetrate. I don’t think they have phones there either.
Regarding the title of the OP, I think we should be more concerned about what will happen to the country if either of the two candidates win, rather than what will happen to the GOP. The GOP can be dispensed with. The country cannot.