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
Stick to nano science, Michael.
Two questions:
I can’t speak for the rest, but honestly, I’d vote for Sanders or Clinton before Trump.
So, I won’t be capitulating. Trump is, and will always be a terrible candidate, person, and leader.
I can’t imagine myself ever being comfortable with this man representing how I’d lead, and the tone of conversation I’d lead with.
Clinton or Sanders aren’t exactly a whole lot better, but at least they don’t claim to represent me.
Even if Trump is advocating these things at the moment, it is a bit over the top to call them plans.
Without a political gang to staff the agencies, it is unlikely that Trump can influence much in DC; even his executive orders could be ignored/delayed/interpreted by the bureaucracy. It is more likely he would be a larger scale version of Governor Ventura.
What a compelling idea, that the Republican elites would muster a third-party candidate to run against the Republican standard bearer. It brings a smile to my face to ponder such an idea. The Republican elites abandon the Republican party. Since they long ago abandoned the Republican base, it would be poetic justice.
I would vote for Trump over Sanders or Hillary but if you think I am going to “fall in line” and stop calling him an awful choice you are out of your mind.
Might as well argue that is McCain had won in ’08 Conservatives would have rallied behind him.
The bile runs deep. Is there an actual issue that you disagree with Trump on, Ben?
They’re pundits. They’re used to being wrong. They have no consistency, and no shame.
Is the implication that, if you oppose Trump, you are ipso facto part of the “GOP establishment”? I’m old enough to remember when the left made “establishment” a pejorative term, but I can’t agree that Trump’s opposition is primarily devoted to preserving some type of “established” order in the GOP. I think it’s more devoted to opposing some of the absurdities that come out of his mouth, and the belief that he’s a loser to Clinton in the general election.
And that’s not even dealing with the overly-optimistic premise that he’ll be the nominee.
Ben is willing to vote for a Democrat if the wrong Republican wins the Republican standard. There goes the neighborhood.
Leading in the polls for months does not equal the nomination.
Please shelve this story and come back to us in March 2016 when we have some data to support conclusions.
I am certainly not predicting that Trump will be the nominee – just that it is increasingly likely. If Jeb Bush had Trump’s poll numbers many pundits would be calling the race over.
And of course I am not saying that opposition to Trump implies GOP establishment. In fact, I think the opposite. What I am writing about principally is the unhinged, over-the-top response of much of the GOP commentariat to Trump as expressed in print.
LOL. (really, I did).
If I lived in Boston or some other hegemonic slice of progressive voting I too might think that Hillary! or the socialist might win the upcoming election. After all the hero of Chappaquiddick hailed from thereabouts and he never failed to win election.
I don’t live in Boston or some other hegemonic slice of progressive voting. Lucky me! I actually planned it this way!
I would suggest that “the sky is falling” belongs to the other party, not the conservatives; although if the Republican elites run a third-party candidate all bets are off.
I think we could easily flip this premise. Is it possible that your location gives you an overly optimistic view of Trump’s chances?
It really has been insane. It is increasingly difficult for me to take the republican appratus as a party and media presence seriously.
If they were smart they would quietly start getting policy people working for him prior to the general.
Bret Stephens un-ironically began a recent column with “If you don’t find [something Trump said] appalling, you’re appalling.” That’s close to a direct quote. How do you backpedal that? The rest of the column was a complete temper tantrum.
I dislike Trump viscerally. But I also dislike Hilary the same way, and even more. Trump’s bad on trade. That’s about the only thing he’s bad on. Does the establishment dislike him for this alone? Or do they dislike him because he’s not one of them?
If you’re a conservative, the only justification for voting for a liberal Democrat is if you’re voting for president and you truly believe the Dem would be much better on defense, and that the Republican would be dangerously less so. For example, someone like Obama running against someone like Ron Paul. If both suck, you’ve got to vote defense over all else. Otherwise, sorry, you’re not a conservative.
If the eventual Republican nominee is Trump (who I don’t particularly care for but will vote for come to that), the GOP establishment will stay home.
The same people who will say to the Trumpistas “OK, the primary is over, Jeb! (or Kasich, or whoever) is the candidate, now fall in line and vote for him” will sit this out. This is what always happens when the establishment’s Chosen loses a primary. And look for the bien pensant wankers of the establishment commentariat to skitter around like bugs on a hot griddle damning him with faint praise while they work at undermining his candidacy.
[Sorry, I know I’m getting repetitive, but this has been a looooonnnng primary season. I’ll be glad when it’s over]
@Bob W, I think Trump is wrong on Trade too. I never had a visceral response one way or another – though I see why one might. But I have seen him in person (at one of his big rallies) and he is actually rather charming when you get to see the whole show and not just sound bites.
Barry Goldwater and NO.
I am with Jay Nordlinger on this one. If the majority of Republican primary voters choose Trump then perhaps I am no longer a Republican.
Does it really matter *what* you (or Nordlinger) are? Isn’t the only question that matters *who* will you vote for?
This is the most thought provoking and positive post yet about Trump. And it identifies the chorus of erstwhile conservatives bashing him in a coarse manner.
Michael should shut up? You didn’t respond to any point, just stuck it to Michael. This is a great example of the reflexive dismissal of Trump that I’ve been whining about for weeks.
Gee, thanks Ben. Your attitude is part of what gave us Satan for eight years. Can’t even believe you wrote that.
What is it about Trump that leads you to maybe choose to sell our progeny into financial slavery and Islamic oppression?
This is simply balderdash. Ron Paul might not have gone out looking for wars to jump into with both feet, but to say he wouldn’t have defended the US is preposterous. When you are faced with a flawed Republican vs a modern (2015) Leftist Democrat, you vote flawed Republican unless that Republican is pretty much the Leftist Democrat from the 1990s. Otherwise you stay home.
Hey wait a minute a few weeks ago on one of my OPs somebody already said that Rubio was Satan. There can’t be two can there?
It is a fascinating dynamic. I think the establishment is at a disadvantage they have money and media influence (all of Ruperts outlets) but the GOPe doesn’t have actual voters.
If the Republicans attack Trump that will bring in more conservative leaning Dems over to him, while he will lose none of his supporters on the right.
The big story is the establishment has lost control.
Couldn’t one argue Ronald Reagan and YES?
Has he taken a consistent enough stance on the 2nd amendment, abortion, healthcare, eminent domain, or trade for me or anyone else to fully understand his views? Has he proven himself ideologically consistent on even one issue? I mean, just one. Just one issue that he has remained consistent on for more than 5 minutes. Anybody?
And don’t say illegal immigration because Trump hotels and golf courses have been utilizing them as cheap labor for decades.