Like David O, I think the key phrase in this essay is: "unless we are witnessing mass psychosis, most Republicans will move on." Since the 2016 presidential campaign, I've thought the most trenchant analyses of the Trump phenomenon were being produced by a set of people I would've disagreed with more often than not before 2016: Never Trumpers. In part, that's because they have an inside track to working in the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement, so they aren't just repeating the predictable critiques of the left. But it's also because many of them grapple with their role in either laying the foundation for some aspect of our current circumstances or failing to see the warning signs that made many of us Never Republicans.
As I read Linda Chavez here, she is somewhat optimistic about the prospect for Republicans moving on from a nationalist, populist, racist, lawless, authoritarian Trump cult of personality and reconstructing a normal conservative party. Like those in the more somber, pessimistic corner of Never Trumpism, I fear that's unlikely. We don't need "psychosis" as an explanation for why we shouldn't place our bets on that outcome. Just understanding what comes of activating all the fear and pleasure centers Trump and his crew have activated should keep us up at night (note: as I write this, I'm up at night). For the record, like Yascha Mounk, I also identify as left-of center but am more willing to identify with the center than ever before. At this point, I view the evacuation of the center of US politics with alarm, fear the effects of the deliberate destruction of vital institutions, and would be thrilled to see the construction of a healthy conservative movement with which I could disagree without fear of anyone being drawn and quartered.
I’m not sure it’s a mass psychosis I believe it’s a blind tribal adherence regardless of facts. I have no faith in any body that doesn’t believe in the truth and factual data. I’m scared that this is only the beginning of some thing that ends up being a blight on the country I love
Linda Chavez is always interesting. This article was focused on who belongs in the Republican and understandably did not get to the issue of what the party principles will be going forward. Yet I wonder if these issues are really separable. She identifies the core Republican principles as "a strong national defense and a vibrant, free-market economy, and . ...individual liberty and rights, not group classification or preferences." That is the core of the 20th century party, and the issues that still appeal to the majority of college educated Republicans. But even before Trump the center of gravity of the party had shifted to voters who tended to focus on social issues like abortion and tended to have a high school education (although obviously some college education Republicans are also socially conservative, the percent is smaller.) Trump moved the party wit giant thump towards a populist high school educated base. Needless to say, he had no coherent policy agenda, but those who follow might. What will a populist Republican policy look like? Presumably social conservatism grows even greater in importance. Economic policy I'm not so sure about. Pessimistically, the populism will provide cover for crony capitalism. Optimistically maybe Republicans will become more open to addressing inequality. But truly I cannot guess what is going to appeal to this new base, or how much it will look like American conservatism as we've thought of it in the post-War era.
I really hope the GOP can steer itself away from bad ideas. There's no reason conservatism has to be toxic. As another center-leftist, I see the importance of restraining certain liberal ideas, but that is so far away from what the GOP is now, unfortunately. Thank you for this and I hope it resonates.
Great essay and strongly agree that the US benefits from a diverse, free-market oriented Republican party that - at present - is the single best hope for individual rights. Creative, constructive, and centrist policies need to be proposed and talked about to make this happen. Moderates from both sides, really, need to do this and buck the gridlock.
It's quite scary and concerning how the Democratic party has become (mostly) dominated by identity politics. I think this began, in strong form, in the 2012 campaign, which I believe then helped lead to Trump.
You hit two nails on the head. My mother's Norwegian grandfather Bjornstad immigrated to the US after going bust in the 1890's Alaska gold rush. Too many unpaid debts back in Kristiania, I expect, but we don't talk about that. Certainly not too much money or too much education. The second nail; I saw a Trump billboard in Texas summarizing his platform as "jobs, law&order, no socialism". That's an appealing message to a lot of Americans, hyphenated or not. If only it the GOP had a plan for the first without trillion-dollar deficits! If only they weren't actively undermining the second!
Ms Chavez's analysis of the Trump phenomenon is essentially identical to that of the Left. What do I see in her analysis that I won't find in the pages of NYT? Nothing. Why did more Black, Hispanic, Asian and Jewish people vote for Trump after experiencing four years of his Presidency? Ms Chavez has no answer to that question. In fact she fails to ask this question and repeats some banalities about how Republicans can appeal to minority voters.
"Laws must apply to anyone, irrespective of race or national origin"? Yes!! Who has disagreed? Is this even a political position? It is clear from the analysis that Ms Chavez has no clue on what made Trump appealing to voters. The only answer she can give to this is that voters were racist and xenophobic; the exact same answer that the Left gives. The Lincoln project is a fundraising arm for the Democratic party.
According to her analysis, Republicans like Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz are the future of the party. In other words, there was nothing really wrong with the Republican party's agenda before Trump. By voting for Trump, working class voters sent a message. People who don't understand what that message is are the last people to whom the Republican party should turn for advice, unless they want a repeat of the Trump phenomenon.
It is the "principled conservatives" that are the problem, because in practice their principles amounted to little more than speaking (and acting) like lobbyists for the American Chamber of Commerce. Country club Republicanism is dead; most Republican voters are working class. The Republican Party should talk to them and find out what their priorities are. There is a name for that kind of thing; it is called politics! Get to know your voters! The least you can do is stop smearing your own voters as racist. It is both morally indecent and (largely) untrue.
Like David O, I think the key phrase in this essay is: "unless we are witnessing mass psychosis, most Republicans will move on." Since the 2016 presidential campaign, I've thought the most trenchant analyses of the Trump phenomenon were being produced by a set of people I would've disagreed with more often than not before 2016: Never Trumpers. In part, that's because they have an inside track to working in the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement, so they aren't just repeating the predictable critiques of the left. But it's also because many of them grapple with their role in either laying the foundation for some aspect of our current circumstances or failing to see the warning signs that made many of us Never Republicans.
As I read Linda Chavez here, she is somewhat optimistic about the prospect for Republicans moving on from a nationalist, populist, racist, lawless, authoritarian Trump cult of personality and reconstructing a normal conservative party. Like those in the more somber, pessimistic corner of Never Trumpism, I fear that's unlikely. We don't need "psychosis" as an explanation for why we shouldn't place our bets on that outcome. Just understanding what comes of activating all the fear and pleasure centers Trump and his crew have activated should keep us up at night (note: as I write this, I'm up at night). For the record, like Yascha Mounk, I also identify as left-of center but am more willing to identify with the center than ever before. At this point, I view the evacuation of the center of US politics with alarm, fear the effects of the deliberate destruction of vital institutions, and would be thrilled to see the construction of a healthy conservative movement with which I could disagree without fear of anyone being drawn and quartered.
I’m not sure it’s a mass psychosis I believe it’s a blind tribal adherence regardless of facts. I have no faith in any body that doesn’t believe in the truth and factual data. I’m scared that this is only the beginning of some thing that ends up being a blight on the country I love
Linda Chavez is always interesting. This article was focused on who belongs in the Republican and understandably did not get to the issue of what the party principles will be going forward. Yet I wonder if these issues are really separable. She identifies the core Republican principles as "a strong national defense and a vibrant, free-market economy, and . ...individual liberty and rights, not group classification or preferences." That is the core of the 20th century party, and the issues that still appeal to the majority of college educated Republicans. But even before Trump the center of gravity of the party had shifted to voters who tended to focus on social issues like abortion and tended to have a high school education (although obviously some college education Republicans are also socially conservative, the percent is smaller.) Trump moved the party wit giant thump towards a populist high school educated base. Needless to say, he had no coherent policy agenda, but those who follow might. What will a populist Republican policy look like? Presumably social conservatism grows even greater in importance. Economic policy I'm not so sure about. Pessimistically, the populism will provide cover for crony capitalism. Optimistically maybe Republicans will become more open to addressing inequality. But truly I cannot guess what is going to appeal to this new base, or how much it will look like American conservatism as we've thought of it in the post-War era.
I really hope the GOP can steer itself away from bad ideas. There's no reason conservatism has to be toxic. As another center-leftist, I see the importance of restraining certain liberal ideas, but that is so far away from what the GOP is now, unfortunately. Thank you for this and I hope it resonates.
Great essay and strongly agree that the US benefits from a diverse, free-market oriented Republican party that - at present - is the single best hope for individual rights. Creative, constructive, and centrist policies need to be proposed and talked about to make this happen. Moderates from both sides, really, need to do this and buck the gridlock.
It's quite scary and concerning how the Democratic party has become (mostly) dominated by identity politics. I think this began, in strong form, in the 2012 campaign, which I believe then helped lead to Trump.
You hit two nails on the head. My mother's Norwegian grandfather Bjornstad immigrated to the US after going bust in the 1890's Alaska gold rush. Too many unpaid debts back in Kristiania, I expect, but we don't talk about that. Certainly not too much money or too much education. The second nail; I saw a Trump billboard in Texas summarizing his platform as "jobs, law&order, no socialism". That's an appealing message to a lot of Americans, hyphenated or not. If only it the GOP had a plan for the first without trillion-dollar deficits! If only they weren't actively undermining the second!
Ms Chavez's analysis of the Trump phenomenon is essentially identical to that of the Left. What do I see in her analysis that I won't find in the pages of NYT? Nothing. Why did more Black, Hispanic, Asian and Jewish people vote for Trump after experiencing four years of his Presidency? Ms Chavez has no answer to that question. In fact she fails to ask this question and repeats some banalities about how Republicans can appeal to minority voters.
"Laws must apply to anyone, irrespective of race or national origin"? Yes!! Who has disagreed? Is this even a political position? It is clear from the analysis that Ms Chavez has no clue on what made Trump appealing to voters. The only answer she can give to this is that voters were racist and xenophobic; the exact same answer that the Left gives. The Lincoln project is a fundraising arm for the Democratic party.
According to her analysis, Republicans like Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz are the future of the party. In other words, there was nothing really wrong with the Republican party's agenda before Trump. By voting for Trump, working class voters sent a message. People who don't understand what that message is are the last people to whom the Republican party should turn for advice, unless they want a repeat of the Trump phenomenon.
It is the "principled conservatives" that are the problem, because in practice their principles amounted to little more than speaking (and acting) like lobbyists for the American Chamber of Commerce. Country club Republicanism is dead; most Republican voters are working class. The Republican Party should talk to them and find out what their priorities are. There is a name for that kind of thing; it is called politics! Get to know your voters! The least you can do is stop smearing your own voters as racist. It is both morally indecent and (largely) untrue.