{"id":131,"date":"2018-05-31T00:18:33","date_gmt":"2018-05-31T00:18:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/?p=131"},"modified":"2018-06-05T14:12:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-05T14:12:31","slug":"is-the-gop-becoming-irrelephant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/2018\/05\/31\/is-the-gop-becoming-irrelephant\/","title":{"rendered":"Is the GOP Becoming Irrelephant?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
\n\t\t[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
\n\t\t\t[et_pb_column type=”4_4″]
\n\t\t\t\t[et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]
\n\t\t\t\t\tIn 2009, then thirteen-year-old Jonathan Krohn wrote and published a book called <\/span>Defining Conservatism, <\/span><\/i>in which he sought to \u201coutline core conservative principles\u201d and provide a \u201cclear and informative manifesto, \u2026 a roadmap for the future, \u2026 [and] a rallying call to action not just for conservatives, but for anyone interested in the political state of our nation.\u201d This was right before the Great Tea Party Wave of 2010, an unmistakably powerful grassroots movement that would both confound and alarm Establishment Republicans, who were comfortable with the status quo and ordinary rhythms of politics. While today\u2019s headlines might easily have people believing the Republican Party has never faced a state of chaos, disarray, and uncertainty like the one it confronts today, the truth is, there was also much uncertainty and confusion back then as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2008 the Republicans\u2019 greatest fears had been realized: they had nominated a well-established, highly experienced Senator and decorated war veteran to be President, and they had brutally lost the election to a young, Hawaii-born, unabashedly progressive, former community organizer and Senator from Illinois who had served less than one Senate term and who once criticized small-town Midwesterners for \u201c[clinging] to their guns and religion.\u201d Yikes. What was going on?<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, conservatives gave many excuses. John McCain wasn\u2019t even \u201cauthentically conservative,\u201d some exclaimed! Others were convinced that the media\u2019s focus on Obama\u2019s race had given him an \u201cunfair\u201d advantage over his opponent because people felt compelled to vote for the first African-American President to \u201cassuage their guilt,\u201d regardless of their own political views. Still others argued that Bush-era fatigue over warfare and over the dismal state of the economy had led people to foolishly ignore the specific platforms of the candidates and just vote based on whatever party would rescue them from their current disappointment; if only they had been looking closely at the actual issues, McCain <\/span>ob<\/span><\/i>viously would have won. <\/span>Ob<\/span><\/i>viously.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, one can agree or disagree with these theories; that\u2019s not really the point. The point is that, like all parties following a general election defeat, the Republicans had to go through some soul-searching whether they wanted to or not. They had to figure out what they really stood for. What <\/span>were<\/span><\/i> their core values? There was this prevailing sense that the party of Reagan had lost its way somewhere along the line (sound familiar?), and that if something didn\u2019t change soon, the label \u201cRepublican\u201d would soon be rendered meaningless.<\/span><\/p>\n

Enter Jonathan Krohn. With youthful passion and exuberance, Krohn made the case that \u201crespect for the Constitution,\u201d \u201crespect for human life,\u201d \u201cbelief in minimalist government,\u201d and \u201cinsistence upon personal responsibility\u201d were the four essential components of the Republican worldview. Of course, these principles were generalized and somewhat simplistic (obviously politics is a lot more complicated than this, and it will always be), but perhaps it was their simplicity that attracted people to his ideas; he wasn\u2019t saying anything new, he was simply reclaiming beliefs that had gone out of focus. Through brilliant networking, he landed a three-minute speaking slot at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and this speech went viral on the Internet and gained him a significant following. GOP figures like Newt Gingrich and Bill Bennett hailed him as the voice of his generation. Mike Gallagher, the conservative radio talk show host, said, \u201cAny time I am depressed about the state of the country or the future of the modern conservative movement, I consider two words: Jonathan Krohn.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Now it should be noted that Mr. Krohn has since abandoned the passionately principled conservative views of his teenage years, calling them \u201cnaive.\u201d Although he is hesitant to pigeonhole himself into any specific ideology, he holds liberal positions on key issues and is now a young journalist covering international affairs and writing for such left-leaning publications as <\/span>The Atlantic <\/span><\/i>and <\/span>The Guardian<\/span><\/i>. For this, he faced practically instantaneous rejection from those who\u2019d once hailed him as a hero, a \u201cconservative wunderkind,\u201d and the GOP\u2019s savior. He was unfairly mocked and treated with undue contempt, all because of a simple change in political worldview. But there\u2019s a larger point to all of this. It can be argued that Krohn\u2019s dramatic exit from the GOP reflects a larger disillusionment amongst many Millennials; his optimistic calls for simplicity were noble in principle, but were never actually put into practice by conservative Republicans, and so, consumed by frustration and cynicism, he defected. After all, it was President Reagan himself who said, \u201cI didn\u2019t leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left <\/span>me<\/span><\/i>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Could similar disillusion be affecting the present-day GOP? If the Republicans\u2019 greatest fears were realized in 2008, they are living a grand nightmare once again, although in a completely different way. Then, it was a simple case of losing a national election following a two-term Presidency in which they were comfortably in power. Now, it is the case of winning a national election with a candidate the Party tried to derail and destroy from the very beginning, to no avail. Both phenomena definitely require soul-searching, just different forms of it. One leads to asking, \u201cIs the Republican party still relevant?\u201d The other leads to asking, \u201cAm I still a Republican?\u201d In the case of Trump\u2019s victory, it wasn\u2019t \u201csupposed\u201d to happen, by any conventional understanding of things. The very mention of the idea made just about everyone chortle, from the most casual observer to the most knowledgeable among us.<\/span><\/p>\n

Charles Krauthammer, a Fox News analyst with illustrious conservative credentials, stated plainly, \u201cI don\u2019t see how he can win.\u201d Rachel Maddow of MSNBC chuckled, \u201cUnless this election happens on Mars, Donald Trump will lose.\u201d Late-night talk show hosts such as Jimmy Fallon wrote off his candidacy as nothing more than a joke, a diversion from the <\/span>real<\/span><\/i> Presidential race. Everyone assumed that the nomination would go to someone with more of an Establishment flair, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, and even if voters were to decide they were tired of Establishment candidates, there were still other strong conservative alternatives such as Rand Paul (who was once called \u201cThe Most Interesting Man In Politics\u201d by <\/span>Time Magazine<\/span><\/i> for his willingness to think outside the box and push his party toward a more nuanced, youth-focused, libertarian future). Other options included Scott Walker, the famed Wisconsin union-buster, or even Ted Cruz, a conservative firebrand adored by his base. This was to be a race filled with successful Governors, Senators, and even a popular conservative doctor with a large following.<\/span><\/p>\n

The idea that Donald J. Trump, a brash New York billionaire businessman and reality TV star who hadn\u2019t even been a Republican most of his life, would come out of nowhere, dominate the race, make all other sixteen well-qualified candidates look ridiculous, steal the nomination from the Establishment, and win the Presidency in a race against Hillary Clinton, was comical and absurd. And yet, it <\/span>did<\/span><\/i> happen. Against all odds, Donald Trump is the 45<\/span>th<\/span> President. How can someone so reviled by key figures in his party across the right-wing spectrum become the party\u2019s nominee? How can a candidate with no political background and no explicitly laid out ideology win over the hearts and minds of millions of people? How did he break just about every rule in modern politics, and ignore every insistence that Republican candidates must change their \u201cstyle,\u201d and appear less \u201cracist, sexist, and bigoted\u201d or lose in a landslide, not only <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> kill his party, but <\/span>also<\/span><\/i> bring in new, previously uninvolved voters to the fold? All of this is strange, but it did not exist in a vacuum. There have been cracks in the system for a long time leading up to this.<\/span><\/p>\n

When studying the state of the Republican Party one must pay heed to the difference between public opinion and elite opinion. Public opinion is in some sense simple, but it\u2019s also complicated. The primary way of determining public opinion on any given issue is through polling, which, although helpful, is prone to intentional (or inadvertent) bias and sampling error. Such studies have shown that roughly half of one\u2019s political beliefs come from her family, but here\u2019s the key: this doesn\u2019t necessarily translate into one\u2019s <\/span>party identification. <\/span><\/i>Also, the vast majority of Americans simply don\u2019t have the kind of single-minded \u201cpartisan fervor\u201d one might assume. Thus, it is possible to be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat or anything in between. Voters might lean in one way or another, but they lack ideological consistency. At the end of the day, how Congress voted on some obscure ideological issue is not going to matter to ordinary Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n

While ordinary voters are far too caught up in their everyday pursuits to develop strongly defined ideologies, this is not the case for political elites. These are the people who <\/span>do <\/span><\/i>take the time to develop well-thought out positions on political issues, and are the ones who either run for office or seek to exert power through activism and commentary. Obviously, the voting population is not just composed of elites and informed citizens; it\u2019s composed of everyone! <\/span>With<\/span> the election of Trump, we see a clear power struggle between Republican elites Trump\u2019s base of rank and file voters. Trump\u2019s rise to power was the result of his carefully pulling out people to support him from multiple segments of society. Despite not comfortably belonging to any of these groups, he built a coalition of white evangelicals, ex-Tea Party people, and white blue-collar folk (many of whom are otherwise independent or Democrat), along with traditional GOP voters who were simply fed up with the \u201csystem\u201d (or who voted out of hostility toward Hillary Clinton).<\/span><\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t really matter to his base that Trump is not a \u201cdoctrinaire conservative.\u201d Many of them wouldn\u2019t vote Republican without Trump and may never do so again. Yes, there are racists and other fringe figures who support him for unhealthy reasons, but the vast majority of the Trump phenomenon is the result of misplaced earnestness. They see this so-called outsider and are compelled to trust him because everything else has failed. The Establishment figures, who have enjoyed power for years, didn\u2019t understand this. In both parties, 2016 was an anti-Establishment season (just look at the once-improbable rise of Bernie Sanders!) Moreover, the Trump phenomenon was also enabled by the media, who ate up the sensationalism of his campaign and covered him more than any of the other candidates simply because it brought them \u201cYuge\u201d ratings. Also, Trump\u2019s use of the Internet and social media is nothing short of brilliant (from a marketing and public branding perspective). Sober-minded, stubborn elder statesmen who want things to return to the old way of doing things should note that even if political discourse goes back to being more civil, these new trends in campaign communication will not die. For the Republican party to move into the future, it must continue to embrace new methods.<\/span><\/p>\n

But perhaps the time has come to \u201cdefine conservatism\u201d again to bring some clarity. That might seem silly since everyone <\/span>ob<\/span><\/i>viously knows what conservatism is; it stands for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a Reaganite foreign policy of peace through strength, but it seems as if that definition doesn\u2019t mean much anymore. Conservative means different things to different people. It can mean neoconservatism, libertarian-conservatism, or social conservatism, among other things. This illustrates that one\u2019s party identity and one\u2019s political beliefs are two very different things, and these competing visions must be taken into account. It is very difficult to make the argument that Lindsay Graham believes the same thing as Justin Amash on almost any issue; yet they are technically part of the same party, a party that is \u201csupposed\u201d to pledge allegiance to a President they didn\u2019t even want. During the Great Tea Party Wave, it was noted by many analysts that many key Tea Party figures actually voted as if they belonged to an independent Third Party (the same can be said about today\u2019s Freedom Caucus in the Republican Congress).<\/span><\/p>\n

How can a party move forward into the future if it can\u2019t even agree on what it\u2019s supposed to stand for? Trump is supposedly a conservative, and he appeals to \u201cthe conservative base,\u201d but is there anything actually conservative about his brand of aggressive nationalism, closed borders, anti-free trade and dramatic tax cuts? Well, not if \u201cconservatism\u201d means a policy of limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Trump\u2019s policies and publicly stated ideas are definitely on the right-wing spectrum, as convoluted as they might seem. He is more accurately described as a right-wing populist, whereas Republicans like Jeff Flake are more in line with Reagan\u2019s classic vision. In his widely-circulated, fiery resignation speech, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona spoke out against the \u201cindecency of our discourse and the coarseness of our leadership,\u201d and he began his message boldly by saying, \u201c<\/span>I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics\u2026 Regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our, I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.\u201d In other words, he argues that those who acquiesce to Trump\u2019s folly in the name of \u201cparty unity\u201d are complicit in the danger currently befalling the country. If casual attacks on basic principles, freedoms, and truth (i.e. FAKE NEWS!) are tolerated, it will become \u201cthe new normal,\u201d and that\u2019s not the kind of party Flake wants to be a part of. But does he have a choice?<\/span><\/p>\n

That is the larger question at hand. Has the GOP irreversibly made the switch from what it once stood for to what it seems to be standing for now? If so, where are all the \u201cNever Trumpers\u201d supposed to go? If not, where is Trump\u2019s core base to go? Either way, someone is going to be displeased. This is why certain Senators are staking out an awkward middle ground where they try to appease both sides. Is the kind of populism we see today inherently a negative, dangerous thing that should be cast off at any cost? Or are there positives to it that should not be ignored? It is not even clear at this time whether Trump will win re-election, and if he wins (or loses), what that means for the future of the Republican Party moving past 2020.<\/span><\/p>\n

Governor John Kasich of Ohio, who may end up mounting a primary challenge against Trump next election cycle, is not convinced that \u201cTrumpism\u201d will survive in the Republican Party. He believes that it is ultimately fleeting,<\/span> remarking, \u201cI think that this move toward nationalism or looking inward \u2014 a lot of loud voices but I don\u2019t happen to think it\u2019s the bulk and we\u2019ll have to see over time. But that debate, to some degree, is going to be settled by the demographics in the near future\u2026. maybe not today, [maybe] not tomorrow, but soon it\u2019s going to be decided by that new wave of new thinking by these young people who can bring a lot of energy to the Republican Party and the conservative movement.\u201d Whether or not Kasich is right remains to be seen. Regardless, the generation to watch is not actually the millennial generation, which is fairly reliably liberal, but the generation following it (Generation Z). One might expect Generation Z to also be fairly left-leaning, and while this may be true on social issues, it is not necessarily the case with regards to every issue. Many studies are showing that Generation Z is actually far more conservative or least independent-minded than the preceding generation, which makes it the wild card.<\/span><\/p>\n

Certain factions of society aren\u2019t likely to change anytime soon. A seventy-year old Texan, self-described patriot, and faithful Republican voter isn\u2019t likely to randomly start \u201cFeeling the Bern,\u201d any more than a convinced liberal professor who values Keynesian economics and extols the virtues of FDR\u2019s New Deal is likely to suddenly convert to a staunch free-market view of the world. Although there are exceptions to this rule, certain people are set in their ways, and it would most likely be a waste of energy, in its quest to stay relevant, for the GOP to pursue those people. But the youth are the wild card. They are still coming of age and figuring things out with tons of raw energy and tons of passion. In a speech to the CPAC convention, Ronald Reagan famously asked, \u201cOur people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?\u201d For the GOP to remain relevant in the 21st century, it must find a way to apply its core conservative principles in new and creative ways, making them make sense to a new audience.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources:<\/span><\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2009\/mar\/15\/jonathan-krohn-republican-party<\/span><\/a>; \u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.politico.com\/magazine\/story\/2017\/08\/14\/donald-trump-future-of-gop-roundtable-215485<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/bea.latimes.com\/politics\/la-na-pol-sykes-talk-radio-2017-story.html<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/time.com\/3924476\/republicans-millennials\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/time.com\/4909722\/trump-millennials-igen-republicans-voters\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/ashleystahl\/2017\/08\/11\/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z\/#383f0e4b7878<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 
\n\t\t\t\t[\/et_pb_text]
\n\t\t\t[\/et_pb_column]
\n\t\t[\/et_pb_row]
\n\t[\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2009, then thirteen-year-old Jonathan Krohn wrote and published a book called Defining Conservatism, in which he sought to \u201coutline core conservative principles\u201d and provide a \u201cclear and informative manifesto, \u2026 a roadmap for the future, \u2026 [and] a rallying call to action not just for conservatives, but for anyone interested in the political state […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"In 2009, then thirteen-year-old Jonathan Krohn wrote and published a book called <\/span>Defining Conservatism, <\/span><\/i>in which he sought to \u201coutline core conservative principles\u201d and provide a \u201cclear and informative manifesto, \u2026 a roadmap for the future, \u2026 [and] a rallying call to action not just for conservatives, but for anyone interested in the political state of our nation.\u201d This was right before the Great Tea Party Wave of 2010, an unmistakably powerful grassroots movement that would both confound and alarm Establishment Republicans, who were comfortable with the status quo and ordinary rhythms of politics. While today\u2019s headlines might easily have people believing the Republican Party has never faced a state of chaos, disarray, and uncertainty like the one it confronts today, the truth is, there was also much uncertainty and confusion back then as well.<\/span>\r\n\r\nIn 2008 the Republicans\u2019 greatest fears had been realized: they had nominated a well-established, highly experienced Senator and decorated war veteran to be President, and they had brutally lost the election to a young, Hawaii-born, unabashedly progressive, former community organizer and Senator from Illinois who had served less than one Senate term and who once criticized small-town Midwesterners for \u201c[clinging] to their guns and religion.\u201d Yikes. What was going on?<\/span>\r\n\r\nOf course, conservatives gave many excuses. John McCain wasn\u2019t even \u201cauthentically conservative,\u201d some exclaimed! Others were convinced that the media\u2019s focus on Obama\u2019s race had given him an \u201cunfair\u201d advantage over his opponent because people felt compelled to vote for the first African-American President to \u201cassuage their guilt,\u201d regardless of their own political views. Still others argued that Bush-era fatigue over warfare and over the dismal state of the economy had led people to foolishly ignore the specific platforms of the candidates and just vote based on whatever party would rescue them from their current disappointment; if only they had been looking closely at the actual issues, McCain <\/span>ob<\/span><\/i>viously would have won. <\/span>Ob<\/span><\/i>viously.<\/span>\r\n\r\nNow, one can agree or disagree with these theories; that\u2019s not really the point. The point is that, like all parties following a general election defeat, the Republicans had to go through some soul-searching whether they wanted to or not. They had to figure out what they really stood for. What <\/span>were<\/span><\/i> their core values? There was this prevailing sense that the party of Reagan had lost its way somewhere along the line (sound familiar?), and that if something didn\u2019t change soon, the label \u201cRepublican\u201d would soon be rendered meaningless.<\/span>\r\n\r\nEnter Jonathan Krohn. With youthful passion and exuberance, Krohn made the case that \u201crespect for the Constitution,\u201d \u201crespect for human life,\u201d \u201cbelief in minimalist government,\u201d and \u201cinsistence upon personal responsibility\u201d were the four essential components of the Republican worldview. Of course, these principles were generalized and somewhat simplistic (obviously politics is a lot more complicated than this, and it will always be), but perhaps it was their simplicity that attracted people to his ideas; he wasn\u2019t saying anything new, he was simply reclaiming beliefs that had gone out of focus. Through brilliant networking, he landed a three-minute speaking slot at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, and this speech went viral on the Internet and gained him a significant following. GOP figures like Newt Gingrich and Bill Bennett hailed him as the voice of his generation. Mike Gallagher, the conservative radio talk show host, said, \u201cAny time I am depressed about the state of the country or the future of the modern conservative movement, I consider two words: Jonathan Krohn.\u201d<\/span>\r\n\r\nNow it should be noted that Mr. Krohn has since abandoned the passionately principled conservative views of his teenage years, calling them \u201cnaive.\u201d Although he is hesitant to pigeonhole himself into any specific ideology, he holds liberal positions on key issues and is now a young journalist covering international affairs and writing for such left-leaning publications as <\/span>The Atlantic <\/span><\/i>and <\/span>The Guardian<\/span><\/i>. For this, he faced practically instantaneous rejection from those who\u2019d once hailed him as a hero, a \u201cconservative wunderkind,\u201d and the GOP\u2019s savior. He was unfairly mocked and treated with undue contempt, all because of a simple change in political worldview. But there\u2019s a larger point to all of this. It can be argued that Krohn\u2019s dramatic exit from the GOP reflects a larger disillusionment amongst many Millennials; his optimistic calls for simplicity were noble in principle, but were never actually put into practice by conservative Republicans, and so, consumed by frustration and cynicism, he defected. After all, it was President Reagan himself who said, \u201cI didn\u2019t leave the Democratic party; the Democratic party left <\/span>me<\/span><\/i>.\u201d<\/span>\r\n\r\nCould similar disillusion be affecting the present-day GOP? If the Republicans\u2019 greatest fears were realized in 2008, they are living a grand nightmare once again, although in a completely different way. Then, it was a simple case of losing a national election following a two-term Presidency in which they were comfortably in power. Now, it is the case of winning a national election with a candidate the Party tried to derail and destroy from the very beginning, to no avail. Both phenomena definitely require soul-searching, just different forms of it. One leads to asking, \u201cIs the Republican party still relevant?\u201d The other leads to asking, \u201cAm I still a Republican?\u201d In the case of Trump\u2019s victory, it wasn\u2019t \u201csupposed\u201d to happen, by any conventional understanding of things. The very mention of the idea made just about everyone chortle, from the most casual observer to the most knowledgeable among us.<\/span>\r\n\r\nCharles Krauthammer, a Fox News analyst with illustrious conservative credentials, stated plainly, \u201cI don\u2019t see how he can win.\u201d Rachel Maddow of MSNBC chuckled, \u201cUnless this election happens on Mars, Donald Trump will lose.\u201d Late-night talk show hosts such as Jimmy Fallon wrote off his candidacy as nothing more than a joke, a diversion from the <\/span>real<\/span><\/i> Presidential race. Everyone assumed that the nomination would go to someone with more of an Establishment flair, such as Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, and even if voters were to decide they were tired of Establishment candidates, there were still other strong conservative alternatives such as Rand Paul (who was once called \u201cThe Most Interesting Man In Politics\u201d by <\/span>Time Magazine<\/span><\/i> for his willingness to think outside the box and push his party toward a more nuanced, youth-focused, libertarian future). Other options included Scott Walker, the famed Wisconsin union-buster, or even Ted Cruz, a conservative firebrand adored by his base. This was to be a race filled with successful Governors, Senators, and even a popular conservative doctor with a large following.<\/span>\r\n\r\nThe idea that Donald J. Trump, a brash New York billionaire businessman and reality TV star who hadn\u2019t even been a Republican most of his life, would come out of nowhere, dominate the race, make all other sixteen well-qualified candidates look ridiculous, steal the nomination from the Establishment, and win the Presidency in a race against Hillary Clinton, was comical and absurd. And yet, it <\/span>did<\/span><\/i> happen. Against all odds, Donald Trump is the 45<\/span>th<\/span> President. How can someone so reviled by key figures in his party across the right-wing spectrum become the party\u2019s nominee? How can a candidate with no political background and no explicitly laid out ideology win over the hearts and minds of millions of people? How did he break just about every rule in modern politics, and ignore every insistence that Republican candidates must change their \u201cstyle,\u201d and appear less \u201cracist, sexist, and bigoted\u201d or lose in a landslide, not only <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> kill his party, but <\/span>also<\/span><\/i> bring in new, previously uninvolved voters to the fold? All of this is strange, but it did not exist in a vacuum. There have been cracks in the system for a long time leading up to this.<\/span>\r\n\r\nWhen studying the state of the Republican Party one must pay heed to the difference between public opinion and elite opinion. Public opinion is in some sense simple, but it\u2019s also complicated. The primary way of determining public opinion on any given issue is through polling, which, although helpful, is prone to intentional (or inadvertent) bias and sampling error. Such studies have shown that roughly half of one\u2019s political beliefs come from her family, but here\u2019s the key: this doesn\u2019t necessarily translate into one\u2019s <\/span>party identification. <\/span><\/i>Also, the vast majority of Americans simply don\u2019t have the kind of single-minded \u201cpartisan fervor\u201d one might assume. Thus, it is possible to be a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat or anything in between. Voters might lean in one way or another, but they lack ideological consistency. At the end of the day, how Congress voted on some obscure ideological issue is not going to matter to ordinary Americans.<\/span>\r\n\r\nWhile ordinary voters are far too caught up in their everyday pursuits to develop strongly defined ideologies, this is not the case for political elites. These are the people who <\/span>do <\/span><\/i>take the time to develop well-thought out positions on political issues, and are the ones who either run for office or seek to exert power through activism and commentary. Obviously, the voting population is not just composed of elites and informed citizens; it\u2019s composed of everyone! <\/span>With<\/span> the election of Trump, we see a clear power struggle between Republican elites Trump\u2019s base of rank and file voters. Trump\u2019s rise to power was the result of his carefully pulling out people to support him from multiple segments of society. Despite not comfortably belonging to any of these groups, he built a coalition of white evangelicals, ex-Tea Party people, and white blue-collar folk (many of whom are otherwise independent or Democrat), along with traditional GOP voters who were simply fed up with the \u201csystem\u201d (or who voted out of hostility toward Hillary Clinton).<\/span>\r\n\r\nIt doesn\u2019t really matter to his base that Trump is not a \u201cdoctrinaire conservative.\u201d Many of them wouldn\u2019t vote Republican without Trump and may never do so again. Yes, there are racists and other fringe figures who support him for unhealthy reasons, but the vast majority of the Trump phenomenon is the result of misplaced earnestness. They see this so-called outsider and are compelled to trust him because everything else has failed. The Establishment figures, who have enjoyed power for years, didn\u2019t understand this. In both parties, 2016 was an anti-Establishment season (just look at the once-improbable rise of Bernie Sanders!) Moreover, the Trump phenomenon was also enabled by the media, who ate up the sensationalism of his campaign and covered him more than any of the other candidates simply because it brought them \u201cYuge\u201d ratings. Also, Trump\u2019s use of the Internet and social media is nothing short of brilliant (from a marketing and public branding perspective). Sober-minded, stubborn elder statesmen who want things to return to the old way of doing things should note that even if political discourse goes back to being more civil, these new trends in campaign communication will not die. For the Republican party to move into the future, it must continue to embrace new methods.<\/span>\r\n\r\nBut perhaps the time has come to \u201cdefine conservatism\u201d again to bring some clarity. That might seem silly since everyone <\/span>ob<\/span><\/i>viously knows what conservatism is; it stands for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a Reaganite foreign policy of peace through strength, but it seems as if that definition doesn\u2019t mean much anymore. Conservative means different things to different people. It can mean neoconservatism, libertarian-conservatism, or social conservatism, among other things. This illustrates that one\u2019s party identity and one\u2019s political beliefs are two very different things, and these competing visions must be taken into account. It is very difficult to make the argument that Lindsay Graham believes the same thing as Justin Amash on almost any issue; yet they are technically part of the same party, a party that is \u201csupposed\u201d to pledge allegiance to a President they didn\u2019t even want. During the Great Tea Party Wave, it was noted by many analysts that many key Tea Party figures actually voted as if they belonged to an independent Third Party (the same can be said about today\u2019s Freedom Caucus in the Republican Congress).<\/span>\r\n\r\nHow can a party move forward into the future if it can\u2019t even agree on what it\u2019s supposed to stand for? Trump is supposedly a conservative, and he appeals to \u201cthe conservative base,\u201d but is there anything actually conservative about his brand of aggressive nationalism, closed borders, anti-free trade and dramatic tax cuts? Well, not if \u201cconservatism\u201d means a policy of limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Trump\u2019s policies and publicly stated ideas are definitely on the right-wing spectrum, as convoluted as they might seem. He is more accurately described as a right-wing populist, whereas Republicans like Jeff Flake are more in line with Reagan\u2019s classic vision. In his widely-circulated, fiery resignation speech, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona spoke out against the \u201cindecency of our discourse and the coarseness of our leadership,\u201d and he began his message boldly by saying, \u201c<\/span>I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics\u2026 Regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our, I mean all of our complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.\u201d In other words, he argues that those who acquiesce to Trump\u2019s folly in the name of \u201cparty unity\u201d are complicit in the danger currently befalling the country. If casual attacks on basic principles, freedoms, and truth (i.e. FAKE NEWS!) are tolerated, it will become \u201cthe new normal,\u201d and that\u2019s not the kind of party Flake wants to be a part of. But does he have a choice?<\/span>\r\n\r\nThat is the larger question at hand. Has the GOP irreversibly made the switch from what it once stood for to what it seems to be standing for now? If so, where are all the \u201cNever Trumpers\u201d supposed to go? If not, where is Trump\u2019s core base to go? Either way, someone is going to be displeased. This is why certain Senators are staking out an awkward middle ground where they try to appease both sides. Is the kind of populism we see today inherently a negative, dangerous thing that should be cast off at any cost? Or are there positives to it that should not be ignored? It is not even clear at this time whether Trump will win re-election, and if he wins (or loses), what that means for the future of the Republican Party moving past 2020.<\/span>\r\n\r\nGovernor John Kasich of Ohio, who may end up mounting a primary challenge against Trump next election cycle, is not convinced that \u201cTrumpism\u201d will survive in the Republican Party. He believes that it is ultimately fleeting,<\/span> remarking, \u201cI think that this move toward nationalism or looking inward \u2014 a lot of loud voices but I don\u2019t happen to think it\u2019s the bulk and we\u2019ll have to see over time. But that debate, to some degree, is going to be settled by the demographics in the near future\u2026. maybe not today, [maybe] not tomorrow, but soon it\u2019s going to be decided by that new wave of new thinking by these young people who can bring a lot of energy to the Republican Party and the conservative movement.\u201d Whether or not Kasich is right remains to be seen. Regardless, the generation to watch is not actually the millennial generation, which is fairly reliably liberal, but the generation following it (Generation Z). One might expect Generation Z to also be fairly left-leaning, and while this may be true on social issues, it is not necessarily the case with regards to every issue. Many studies are showing that Generation Z is actually far more conservative or least independent-minded than the preceding generation, which makes it the wild card.<\/span>\r\n\r\nCertain factions of society aren\u2019t likely to change anytime soon. A seventy-year old Texan, self-described patriot, and faithful Republican voter isn\u2019t likely to randomly start \u201cFeeling the Bern,\u201d any more than a convinced liberal professor who values Keynesian economics and extols the virtues of FDR\u2019s New Deal is likely to suddenly convert to a staunch free-market view of the world. Although there are exceptions to this rule, certain people are set in their ways, and it would most likely be a waste of energy, in its quest to stay relevant, for the GOP to pursue those people. But the youth are the wild card. They are still coming of age and figuring things out with tons of raw energy and tons of passion. In a speech to the CPAC convention, Ronald Reagan famously asked, \u201cOur people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?\u201d For the GOP to remain relevant in the 21st century, it must find a way to apply its core conservative principles in new and creative ways, making them make sense to a new audience.<\/span>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nSources:<\/span>\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/2009\/mar\/15\/jonathan-krohn-republican-party<\/span><\/a>; \u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.politico.com\/magazine\/story\/2017\/08\/14\/donald-trump-future-of-gop-roundtable-215485<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/bea.latimes.com\/politics\/la-na-pol-sykes-talk-radio-2017-story.html<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/time.com\/3924476\/republicans-millennials\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>http:\/\/time.com\/4909722\/trump-millennials-igen-republicans-voters\/<\/span><\/a>; <\/span>https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/ashleystahl\/2017\/08\/11\/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z\/#383f0e4b7878<\/span><\/a>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n ","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[6,10],"class_list":["post-131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-http-students-pingry-org-vitalsigns","tag-u-s-politics","tag-winter-2017"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":170,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131\/revisions\/170"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/students.pingry.org\/vitalsigns\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}