The rebirth of the Democrat Party and the coming implosion of the GOP

After the 2004 Presidential election, many believed the Democrat Party to be in permanent decline. Jonah Goldberg gleefully contemplated that the GOP will have to divide into its social conservative and libertarian factions just to provide the American people with at least two realistic options on election day. In the real world, the Democrats came roaring back two years later to retake the House with a gain of 31 seats, and to tie up the Senate with 5 additional Senators. In 2008, they took the presidency, with further massive gains in Congress. Oh well, so much for the GOP’s Goldberg era.

The Democratic victory in November 2008 led to another round of triumphalism, and predictions for the demise of one of America’s great political parties – this time the Republican Party. Once again, the hegemony was short lived. The Tea Party came out of nowhere in 2009 to crush the Democrats in the 2010 midterms.

You can see what I am getting at. Given the recent past, it’s hard to believe that the new era of Republican domination will last any longer. In fact, I will go one step further. Normally I don’t make predictions, but I believe that one distinct possibility is that the 2018 midterms will be a replay of the 2010, except with the parties reversed.

Why do I think this is possible? For starters, losing gives the loser a number of advantages and the winner a number of disadvantages. Think of it as a negative feedback loop designed to stabilize the system. Their recent losses have given the Dems two big gifts. First, all the Clinton baggage is now gone. They no longer have to defend the e-mails, Benghazi, the Clinton Global initiative, etc. Second, they now have a clear enemy to focus on.

Contrary to popular belief, people to not come together by talking out their differences. That only leads to more acrimony. In the real world, what inspires people to work together towards a common goal is a common enemy. This election gave them that: Donald Trump. Every Democrat agrees that Trump is the enemy.

One big disadvantage for the winner is that he has to govern. And governing is hard. It’s not about promises any more. It’s about picking the least worst option and justifying to the voters all the negative consequences that flow from the decisions you have made. All the electoral reverses I cited were precipitated by mistakes made by the governing party. For 2006 and 2008, it was the Iraq War, the reappearance of chronic deficits, and the 2008 crash. For 2010, it was Obamacare, the Stimulus Package, and trillion dollar deficits.

In 2016, it was a race war that Obama started in 2011 to mobilize minorities against Mitt Romney. Trayvon Martin, Ferguson, Missouri, and Black Lives Matter were all designed to make blacks fear whites (and by extension, the white party – the GOP). They wood Latinos with wide-open, illegal immigration. As a result, to the white working class, it seemed that the Obama coalition thought of them as a bacillus to be eliminated. Unfortunately for Obama, the white working class reciprocated the hostility. It is instructive that while Donald Trump received fewer votes than Mitt Romney or John McCain, he did get a boost from rural rustbelt whites who flocked to Trump. They were telling Obama that there are now two sides to this race war. The most insightful pundit of this election, John Schindler, in this must-read column, calls it “America’s emerging nationalism crisis.”

So why do I think the GOP might get routed in the near future? First of all, the Republicans are in an very weak position for a winning party. This is mainly because of the extraordinary unfitness of Donald Trump. Speaking as somebody who thought Barack Obama was the most unfit man to ever be President, I think Donald Trump now holds that title. While he has all the inexperience of Obama, Trump has a series of grave weaknesses all his own. While Barack Obama is emotionally stable; Donald Trump is impulsive, vengeful, prone to angry outburts, and driven by petty grievances. Obama is literate; Trump has never read a book in his adult life. Obama is a family man; Trump cannot govern his lusts.

Even worse, in a shocking scandal completely ignored by the media, Donald Trump is in cahoots with a hostile foreign power that regards the United States as its “greatest strategic adversary”. For details, see my previous writings or those of the aforementioned John Schindler. This situation is unprecedented in American history. The closest analog is the 1948 Progressive candidate, Henry Wallace, who was also a witting agent of the Kremlin. I don’t think most Americans realize how dangerous the situation in Eastern Europe is, or how close we are – right now – to a conventional war in Europe.

For too many Americans, the only wars they know are the counterinsurgency campaigns of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, they don’t understand that the butcher’s bill for a conventional war can be far, far higher. Against this background, the US – the country that has ensured peace in Europe for the past 70 years – elects a man personally tied to the region’s aggressor. If war comes to Europe, Trump – and the GOP - will own that catastrophe. All of it. And Americans will learn how expensive isolationism can be.

In addition, this election has laid bare a number of the GOP’s structural weaknesses. The first is the alternative media. If you asked me six months ago, I would have said that talk radio, Fox News, conservative Internet sites are conservatism’s greatest strengths. No more. This wretched election cycle has exposed about 80% of them to be “infotainment hacks”, to use Jay Cost’s memorable phrase. While some in the conservative media are insightful and honest news disseminators, too many are ignorant fools propagating nonsense to goose ratings.

Even worse, the Republican Party’s ideology is now broken. From Abraham Lincoln down to 2016, the Republican Party was the party of Anglo-Saxon conservatism, that is of Edmund Burke, free enterprise, classical liberalism, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and a respect for tradition. Now that Trump is its de facto head, the GOP is being governed by a central European, nationalistic, socialistic ideology. This doesn’t mean that every Republican, or even most Republicans, think this way, but it does mean that the GOP will be pulled in this direction by a leader who thinks like a South American caudillo. Will the GOP revert back to its roots when Trump is gone? Hard to say. I hope so. More to the point, this ideological schism makes it hard for the party to pick itself up after the next electoral loss.

Unfortunately, the GOP has nobody to blame but itself. Coming off of 8 years of Obama misrule, winning in 2016 was almost preordained. The Republican Party didn’t need to take the problematic direction it did. But it did, and it will pay the price.

Comments

[Martin]

You mention the Republican party as being "the the party of Anglo-Saxon conservatism, that is of Edmund Burke.."
I am not at all sure this philosophy can be attributed to any one ethnic group. Burke himself was Anglo-Irish, many of the signers of the US Declaration were Scots, or Scots-Irish as were many US Presidents.Celtic statesmen had an enormous influence on American political philosophy, which cannot be labeled as "Anglo-Saxon"

Designating conservative internet sites as about 80% useless is harsh in my opinion. It is the mass oriented main line TV and print organizations that have been exposed as Democratic
sympathizers, or outright operatives; their analysis, polls and predictions have been spectacularly wrong. It will be some time before credibility can be restored to these sources. Readers must weigh carefully different stories and comments, but not all conservative sites are faulty. A healthy degree of skepticism is required in digesting any current news information or commentary.

[Cincinnatus]

Very perceptive comment Martin. You are of course correct about Burke. What I mean by "Anglo-Saxon conservatism" is the conservative ideology practiced in the English speaking world that is distinct from the conservatism on the Continent. There is a huge different between the two. The former sort of conservatives are the champions of freedom. The latter sort are authoritarians and fascists.

[bmatkin]

Wow, you still on the neverTrump schlock?
Let me put it to you this way.
The Republicans have the WH, the congress 32 state governors, 67 state legislative bodies, the majority of the elected officials like Sec. of state etc.
You're assuming a lot. You obviously thought Trump would lose and now you're just looking for "I told you so" moment.
It is my understanding that Trump got the same Latino votes as Romney and picked up black votes.
Trump, as you have stated many, many times isn't conservative. He's a populist and can more to whatever direction he needs to stay relevant and ahead of the curve.
Conservatism as you describe is dead. Not the principles, the name. The left has isolated it, boxed it, attacked it and smeared it. The word conservative now sounds like a bible thumping preacher word which turns a lot of people off. Trump doesn't.
I expect the exact opposite in 2018. I expect a bigger Republican win and even some blue state victories.

[Martin]

Yes I know what you mean, and there are labels to cover that.
British, Anglo-American,and so on. Anglos-Saxon just does not cover the northern part of the UK adequately and people there have had a disproportionate influence on English speaking philosophy.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Martin:

Point taken. IN the future I will use the phrase "Anglo-American conservatism".

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Bmatkin:

1. I did not assume Trump would lose, I feared he might win. There is a difference.

2. Winning is not the same as being right. That is also a difference.

3. I agree with you that Trump is not a conservative. But if this is the case, what reason would I have for supporting him?

4. Alternate explanation for Trump's increase in minority votes: the multiracial Obama is much more appealing to minorities (especially African-Americans) than an old, entitled white woman. Trump's vote goal was the same as Romney. Hillary got a LOT fewer votes than Obama. Trump won because Hillary lost.

5. I fight for conservative principles, and fight against opposite principles. Therefore I intend to battle the odious Trump vigorously and often until he is in the ash heap of history.

6. A GOP pick-up in the 2018 midterms would only happen if Trump's presidency were successful. Given what we know about Trump, this is not the way to bet, but I would be the most relieved wrong person in history if that ended up being the case.

Mark

[Autoguy]

The key here is to see how Trump does.
Will he be soft on Putin's ambitions? Will he remove the regulatory barriers to job creation? Will he stick to his campaign promises?
We now simply have to sit back and watch. All of the prognostications are going to be tested by reality.
I believe that to be a better thing than if Hillary had been elected. Hopefully I'm right.

[Cincinnatus]

Hi Autoguy:

First up is who the Secretary of Stae will be. Some of those rumoured to eb considered are good. Some are atrocious. We shall see...

[monkey]

Generally concur. I would describe myself as more a moderate conservative, sort of similar to John Kasich, but I do not think Donald Trump's win will bode well for conservatism in the long-run. The demographics he was strongest amongst are declining in numbers and even if he wins them by bigger margins next time around that can only work so long.

Had Clinton won instead, I believe it would have been good for the GOP. This would mean in 2018 winning a bigger majority in the house, likely getting a filibuster proof GOP senate, and holding the majority of state legislatures which is important as who wins them gets to re-district (BTW I oppose gerrymandering by either side, the boundaries should be drawn by a neutral independent body like they are in Canada and UK). And with the Democrats controlling the white house for 12 years, the GOP likely would have won in 2020 and be in a good position to move ahead on its agenda.

Instead, if Trump is even half as bad as he has suggested the GOP will lose the house, will have a tough time picking up senate seats and possibly lose a few and almost certainly lose it in 2020. And the next Democrat leader will likely be a progressive in the mode of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders not a centrist like Hillary Clinton. I actually said to some of my progressive friends, a Donald Trump win could be the best thing for them as things like single payer health care, $15 minimum wage, and free college were DOA had Hillary Clinton won due to GOP control of the house while in 2020 if Democrats control both they just might be able to pass it. Finally in the long-run, the GOP still cannot be a whites only party, it needs to do better amongst minorities and some groups like Latinos and Asians are naturally conservative leaning so those are groups the GOP should win not lose yet choosing someone as toxic as Trump could permanently damage the GOP amongst non-whites and even hurt them amongst college educated whites.

On foreign policy, he is scary. Interesting in Europe that far right leaders like Le Pen and Geert Wilders are actually being backed by Putin much like Trump. Putin is not someone who cares about the West, whomever he supports is whomever he thinks will weaken the West most which is what he wants so if Putin is happy that is probably a bad sign. I suspect in your home country Estonia many are terrified of Trump since despite being a NATO member there is no guarantee he would defend them if attacked by Russia, which off course Putin would love to do if he could get away with it.

[bmatkin]

Dear Cinncinn cynic.
How does one advance a world wide conservative renewal if the Sup. Court of the US is full of Globalist, progressive hacks?
Never trumpers like you never answer the question.
How does the US become conservative when it is flooded with illegals, disrespects the rule of law, uses weaponized government agencies to harass its opposition etc.
After answering that, how does the world become more conservative without the US moving in that direction.
You have become illogical and self serving. Grow up.
You have not even give Trump a chance to do the right thing, as if Hillary would have ever done the right thing.
I shake my head in disbelief. Conservatism as a word is dead, it has a negative connotation to most people thanks to the Progressive newspeak attack.
If Trump just puts conservatives on the court, restricts illegal immigration, stops trying to help the Islamists like Obama has, and shrinks government, it is more than any other so-called conservative has ever done.

[Cincinnatus]

Hi Monkey:

I am a right-wing conservative but I agree with almost everything you wrote in your analysis. I agree that the Trump win may end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the GOP - for pretty much all he reasons you listed. I will only add that long after Trump is gone, the Dems will hang the Trump name around every Republican they can, the way the GOP tied every Dem to Jimmy Carter for decades.

And yes, in Estonia, they are terrified. The western liberal order that Ronald Reagan forged is coming apart. Too many people take for granted the historically anomalous peaceful times we live in. This goes especially for conservatives, who are baying at the moon about comparatively trivial incidents.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Bmatkin:

First of all you contradict yourself. You describe Trump as not a conservative at all but then hold him up as some kind of a conservative standard-bearer. I will believe that when I see it.

With regard to giving him a chance, did you give Barack Obama a chance when he won his much more impressive victory? Or did you, like me, assume (correctly) that he was a closet socialist and attack him from day one?

With regard to why I don't like Trump, read my anti-Trump articles. I have been very explicit in my reasons. As I have tirelessly pointed out, the problem is world peace. Having a dictator-lover like Trump in charge of the world's biggest liberal democracy is like throwing a lit match into a gas station. This issue is simply far, far more important that the supreme court of any one country. And that's assuming that he is 100% reliable on delivering on that. (I have my doubts on that score.)

[bmatkin]

Dear Cinn:
What?
You're still telling us all that you would have preferred a criminal (Hildabeast) in the white house with a radical supreme court, a weaponized bureaucracy, an open border, more disasters like Obama's policy in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran.. hell the whole world.
That's what you're telling us.
You don't have any real reasons for not liking Trump, just the same old rehash of the MSM propaganda.
Fine,like the neverTrump crew and the rest of the establishment types you have become largely irrelevant. So be it.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear bmatkin:

There is no need to speculate about my reasons. I have been very forthright about them, and I am happy to entertain specific counterarguments.

As far as all the Hillary/Obama stuff you mentioned, that is most definitely a concern, but a lesser worry than peace in Europe and the breakdown of the liberal world order.

These would have been paramount factors for me with any other Republican candidate (except for Rand Paul). But with the nomination of Trump, I am only working out the least-worst option as best I can. If the GOP serves me up a shit sandwich, I have no obligation to eat it.

[bmatkin]

Dear Cinn:
One last question. Have you rubbed your face in a bowl of Cheetos lately???

[Cincinnatus]

Ha ha :)

[monkey]

My other concern here is worry Trump's win will hurt the conservative cause in Canada which I don't want. Trudeau's government has been fiscally irresponsible yet with Trump's unpopularity in Canada and the fact too many associate him with conservatism (he is not one especially here in Canada) I feel attention to Trudeau's poor economic performance is being ignored and thus why he still has sky high approval ratings. As much as many Conservatives may not like the Democrats, we actually tend to do better electorally when the Democrats rather than Republicans are in power. The Republicans are a bit too far right for your key swing voter so it helps when the Liberals cannot use that to attack the Conservatives. That doesn't mean the Conservatives cannot win in 2019, far from it, but a Trump win doesn't help.

By contrast with Hillary Clinton, I think that would have been better for Conservatives in terms of winning. Unlike Obama, she is not nearly as popular in Canada so Trudeau wouldn't get any brownie points by cozying up to her. And unlike Sanders she wouldn't adopt any hard left policies (with Sanders my worry is it would embolden progressives to go further left as one of the few things holding back the left in Canada is we have to stay competitive with the US). That being said had John Kasich become president, I think it might have worked on our favour as he is more in line with Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush and we had no trouble winning when they were in power.

On foreign policy, Trump is definitely a gift for Putin and I suspect even China is happy as he will probably move up the timetable as to when China's GDP surpasses the US. What Mitt Romney said last March about him was bang on IMHO.

[Cincinnatus]

Hi Monkey:

When MItt first came on the scene I didn't like him much. I thought he was a spineless RINO.

But he keeps making one good call after another.

[monkey]

Cincinnatus - I think Romney was more a flip flopper than anything. The problem he faced is Massachusetts is a very liberal state and you cannot win as governor unless you are RINO. Lets remember the last Republican to even crack the 40% mark in that state was George HW Bush in 1988 and the last to win it was Ronald Reagan. It was the only state other than DC to vote for George McGovern in 1972.

Off course to win the GOP primary you have to move to the right as those who vote in primaries in both parties tend to be more ideological than your median American voter. When it came to the general election the US as a whole is more conservative than Massachusetts but not as conservative as those voting in the GOP primary thus why he flip flopped on so many issues.

Now Ted Cruz who is the candidate I believe you backed had a much easier time as he is from Texas which is a conservative state so you can run on an unabashedly conservative platform and win there. So I think that was probably more the reason he was a RINO is it was about electability as governor rather than actually being a RINO. Pretty much any recent governor from a solid blue state will likely be a RINO otherwise they would never win.

[Autoguy]

Folks, the speculation is fun but a waste of time. Watch how he does and comment by Canada day - by then we should know.
Anyone who says they KNOW what Trump is going to do is off their meds. Some of us think that Clinton would have been (much) worse, some of us think that Trump is worse. We will find out in a short while.
Lastly, the only thing that I am truly grateful for is that the establishment GOP got HAMMERED this election. Too many promises broken to their base and the electorate in general. They finally got their comeuppance.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Autoguy:

So let me paraphrase your argument, anybody who says at this point in time that he knows Trump will be a good President is "off his meds".

P.S. Most GOP senate candidates achieved higher vote totals than Trump. Paul Ryan was reelected with 65% of the vote.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Monkey:

Good point.

[Autoguy]

Cincinnatus - Yep, absolutely. Trump is a wild card and only time will tell.
P.S. The GOP senate candidates that 'ran away' from Trump had serious issues on election night, and that includes the ones that failed in their re-election bid. Paul Ryan didn't exactly run away from Trump, he was lukewarm.

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Autoguy:

Of the three GOP senators who disavowed Trump and lost, all had the same vote total as Trump or slightly higher.

[Autoguy]

Yep, but they lost and he won. Kinda the point there...