If Donald Trump starts a “Patriot Party”, then how would its platform and policies be different from those of the Republican Party?

So let’s think about this seriously for a minute.

What could Trump get out of a new party?

Trump loves attention, chaos and suckers giving him money he doesn’t have to return or do anything for.

If he forms a party, a lot of his current followers will at minimum pay a lot of attention to him and show up at his rallies to get their infusion of emotional gratification by being with people who hate the same things and people that they hate. All the news networks will continue to report about him. Fox News, OANN and Breitbart won’t take the spotlight off of him. He’ll get the attention he needs like normal people need oxygen and water.

If he forms a party, he’ll take perhaps 10–15% of the electorate with him. His final job approval rating was 29%, but a lot of those people are tribal Republicans who loved Trump, not random people off the street. 10–15%, however, is enough to screw up political calculus in enormous numbers of states, which is of course sufficient to get lots of news and analyst attention (like this question and these answers, but writ large and glowing). Massive disruptions in electoral balance are chaos. He’ll have Republican families split down the middle and feuding. He’ll have Republicans fighting Republicans, with some joining him and some attacking him. He’ll revel in it. All that chaos, all his doing.

If he forms a party, he’ll be able to continue to spread his messages of chaos, disunity, hatred and white grievance. He’ll say that the Republican deep state kept him from meeting the needs of his flock, and while he’ll be pretty generic, the most extreme elements of the right such as the Proud Boys and the militias will think he’s talking directly to them. They’ll be even more emboldened, and buy into the notion that he’s their leader. There will be more right-wing extremism and insurrectionist acts inflamed by his rhetoric. More chaos.

And he’ll create a secular prosperity gospel movement, with him as the megachurch owner. He’ll invoke god, but it will mostly be the god of bling, the literal golden calf. He’ll undoubtedly continue to have all the evangelical leaders show up along with the pillow guy at his events and in his media drops, to give the illusion that he cares about Christians. And he’ll have all of those people send him money. He’ll get churches donating to him. He’ll get white Christian business owners donating to him. He’ll get a bunch of lottery-ticket scratching poor white people sending him their money. And he won’t have to give them a thing in return except feeding the howling void of biased ignorance inside them with things that make them feel good about themselves by pointing at all of the people they hate and supporting their loathing of them.

It will be a reality-tv political party, World Wrestling Entertainment-quality mental pablum, with all the histrionics and flamboyance, but none of the athletics. A lot of Americans will latch onto that and suck mightily at the teat of bile and disinformation. The Republicans have spent over 60 years creating and feeding those ignorant wedges, and Trump exploited them to take their party away from them in 2015. Now that he’s free of the inconvenience of actually having to do the job of President — however fitfully, poorly and incompetently — he’s free to exploit those wedges for the remainder of his life.

And he’ll have lots of help. Trump has no problem attracting venal, amoral people, leeches in human form, to his efforts. They arrogantly think that they’ll be able to get in, make their millions off the drippings from the table, and escape with their mostly non-existent souls and reputations intact.

As I said, arrogant, but not wrong in many cases about making millions. There are innumerable people who will line up to carve off as much of the proceedings of the long con into their coffers as possible. There’s been a steady conveyor line of them coming and going over the past 6 years, in and out of the Trump camp, in and out of Trump’s favor. Many of them will end up bankrupt because they’ll foolishly think that they can make deals and contracts with Trump and have them honored, greed blinding them to Trump’s entire history. He’ll con them too.

So how will this be different than the Republican Party?

Well, the RNC completely caved to Trump. Prior to the primaries last summer, they voted to be Trump’s lapdogs and support whatever he wanted, while continuing to block anything from the Democratic Party because partisan nonsense.

WHEREAS, The RNC enthusiastically supports President Trump and continues to reject the policy positions of the Obama-Biden Administration, as well as those espoused by the Democratic National Committee today; therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;

RESOVLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention;

The Republican Party Platform, 2020 – Ballotpedia

Yeah, covfefe-level typo and all. Truly an inspiring document, laying out their positive vision for America. (Sarcasm mode off). It’s remarkable how sycophantic it is, which is probably why the RNC no longer allows people to see it on their site, and people like me have to cite it from Ballotpedia and other independent sources now.

So what are their options?

The first choice is to out-Trump Trump.

That would be to have Tom Cotton or Matt Gaetz or Tucker Carlson be the new Donald Trump, attacking him, attempting to be even more Trump-like than Trump. More brazen, more ignorant, more crude, more jingoistic, more nationalistic, more fact-free, more hating. That’s an entirely possible and probable path for the GOP. They aren’t winning Red states with reasonable and thoughtful policies, after all.

The second choice is to pivot to being a 21st Century center-right party.

The GOP has an amazing history, which they started unravelling in 1956 with In God We Trust. They were the party that freed the slaves, voted 76% to give women the vote, supported a strong Fourth Estate, were strongly for separation of church and state, were good fiscal managers of government, started the EPA, fought polio to the ground and established the national parks.

They could return to their roots, but in a 21st Century context. They could rebuild themselves as a credible alternative to the Democratic Party. They could accept climate change and offer center-right policies that were seriously thought through and communicated. They could reject the anti-vaxxers, leaving them to Trump. They could maintain an ecumenical council to gain the thoughts of religious groups, but stop pandering 24/7 to evangelicals. They could reject educational policies which intentionally made things horrible for the bottom 40% of the socioeconomic classes. They could embrace universal health care, something every western democracy has successfully done, something which has better outcomes at much lower costs. They could embrace police reform and demilitarization, but with differentiation.

They could embrace the better angels of their nature, returning to Lincoln for inspiration and guidance. They could look to the Angela Merkels of the world, right-wing leaders who are fully present in this century, not pining for a mythically glorious 1950s. They could reject the identity politics of being the party of white, Christian male grievance and embrace the vast diversity of America.

If they did that, they could carve off some of the Democratic Party’s more conservative members such as Klobuchar, Manchin and Edwards. They could make inroads into the cities. They could turn some purple states Red again, reversing the tide of history that’s seen them losing ground for decades.

The clearest sign that they would actually do this is if they vote to both impeach Trump in the Senate, and further invoke the option of disqualifying him for ever running for office again. This wouldn’t prevent Trump from pretending he was running, but it would divorce him utterly from the Republicans and limit the damage he could do politically to them in the future. I’m sure that at least three Republicans are advocating for this path out of the hundreds in Washington. It should be hundreds of the hundreds.

I think the Republicans becoming a 21st Century center right party is as likely as Trump fading quietly and humbly into the background, but they could do it.

Their last choice is to re-embrace Trump.

Instead of leaving him to kill their party, they reach out and negotiate to keep him in the fold. They promise him riches and adulation. They surround him with their organization and they stick their probing noses even further up the deep, deep divide between his buttocks.

This is basically the first choice, but with Trump as the even more Trumpy leader, leaving Gaetz, Cotton and Carlson frustrated from coupus interruptus. And then the spectacle continues, with even more craven and abject sycophancy from Republican leaders.

They preserve their electoral chances. All they give up is everything.

And Mitt Romney, while he talks a good game, would undoubtedly stay in the party, continue to be a gadfly with no power or influence and continue to get elected in Utah. A few more Republican congress members and Senators would elect to not run again over the next six years, and be replaced by even more craven Trump acolytes.


The only good choice for the Republicans is option 2. But the history of the past 70 years tells us that when presented with choices, they’ve inevitably taken the worst one for the long-term, but the one that gives them another shot for the next election cycle.

It’s been seven decades of craven weakness and unwise choices, not moral strength and foresight. There’s no reason to believe that they will change now.

Can Only Republicans Legitimately Win Elections?

Trump and many of the G.O.P.’s leaders seem to think so, with ominous consequences for the future.

Of the many stories to tell about American politics since the end of the Cold War, one of growing significance is how the Republican Party came to believe in its singular legitimacy as a political actor. Whether it’s a hangover from the heady days of the Reagan revolution (when conservatives could claim ideological hegemony) or something downstream of America’s reactionary traditions, it’s a belief that now dominates conservative politics and has placed much of the Republican Party in opposition to republican government itself.

It’s a story of escalation, from the relentless obstruction of the Gingrich era to the effort to impeach Bill Clinton to the attempt to nullify the presidency of Barack Obama and on to the struggle, however doomed, to keep Joe Biden from ever sitting in the White House as president. It also goes beyond national politics. In 2016, after a Democrat, Roy Cooper, defeated the Republican incumbent Pat McCrory for the governorship of North Carolina, the state’s Republican legislature promptly stripped the office of power and authority. Wisconsin Republicans did the same in 2018 after Tony Evers unseated Scott Walker in his bid for a third term. And Michigan Republicans took similar steps against another Democrat, Gretchen Whitmer, after her successful race for the governor’s mansion.

Considered in the context of a 30-year assault on the legitimacy of Democratic leaders and Democratic constituencies (of which Republican-led voter suppression is an important part), the present attempt to disrupt and derail the certification of electoral votes is but the next step, in which Republicans say, outright, that a Democrat has no right to hold power and try to make that reality. The next Democrat to win the White House — whether it’s Biden getting re-elected or someone else winning for the first time — will almost certainly face the same flood of accusations, challenges and lawsuits, on the same false grounds of “fraud.”

It’s worth emphasizing the bad faith and dishonesty on display here. At least 140 House Republicans say that they will vote against counting certain electoral votes on Wednesday. Among them are newly seated lawmakers in Georgia and Pennsylvania, two states whose votes are in contention. But the logic of their objection applies to them as well as Biden. If his state victories are potentially illegitimate, then so are theirs. Or take the chargefrom Ted Cruz and 10 other Senate Republicans, that multiple key swing states changed (or even violated) their election laws in contravention of the Constitution. If it’s true for those cases, then it’s also true of Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, unilaterally expanded voting, however meagerly. And yet there’s no drive to cancel those results.

The issue for Republicans is not election integrity, it’s the fact that Democratic votes count at all.

That said, not every Republican has joined the president’s crusade against self-government. Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas shares the presidential ambitions of Cruz and Josh Hawley and others who want to disrupt the electoral vote count. But where they see opportunity, he sees blowback. Here he is in a statement released by his office:

If Congress purported to overturn the results of the Electoral College, it would not only exceed that power, but also establish unwise precedents. First, Congress would take away the power to choose the president from the people, which would essentially end presidential elections and place that power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress. Second, Congress would imperil the Electoral College, which gives small states like Arkansas a voice in presidential elections. Democrats could achieve their longstanding goal of eliminating the Electoral College in effect by refusing to count electoral votes in the future for a Republican president-elect.

So do seven of his Republican colleagues in the House, who similarly argue that this stunt will undermine the Republican Party’s ability to win presidential elections:

From a purely partisan perspective, Republican presidential candidates have won the national popular vote only once in the last 32 years. They have therefore depended on the Electoral College for nearly all presidential victories in the last generation. If we perpetuate the notion that Congress may disregard certified electoral votes — based solely on its own assessment that one or more states mishandled the presidential election — we will be delegitimizing the very system that led Donald Trump to victory in 2016, and that could provide the only path to victory in 2024.

But even as they stand against the effort to challenge the results, these Republicans affirm the baseless idea that there was fraud and abuse in the election. Cotton says he “shares the concerns of many Arkansans about irregularities in the presidential election,” while the House lawmakers say that they “are outraged at the significant abuses in our election system resulting from the reckless adoption of mail-in ballots and the lack of safeguards maintained to guarantee that only legitimate votes are cast and counted.” Even as they criticize an attempted power grab, they echo the idea that one side has legitimate voters and the other does not.

It’s hard to say how anyone can shatter this belief in the Republican Party’s singular right to govern. The most we can do, in this moment, is rebuke the attempt to overturn the election in as strong a manner as possible. If President Trump broke the law with his phone call to Brad Raffensperger, the secretary of state of Georgia — in which he pressured Raffensperger to “find” votes on his behalf — then Trump should be pursued like any other citizen who attempted to subvert an election. He should be impeached as well, even if there’s only two weeks left in his term, and the lawmakers who support him should be censured and condemned.

There’s no guarantee that all this will hurt the Republican Party at the ballot box. But I think we’re past that. The question now is whether the events of the past two months will stand as precedent, a guide for those who might emulate Trump.

The door to overturning a presidential election is open. The rules — or at least a tortured, politically motivated reading of the rules — make it possible. Moreover, it is a simple reality of political systems that what can happen eventually will happen. It may not be in four years, it may not be in eight, but if the Republican Party continues along this path, it will run this play again. And there’s nothing to say it can’t work.

‘The emergence of a third party is among us’ – Interview with Lincoln Project Co-Founder Rick Wilson

Joe Biden won the US presidential election with 306 electoral votes. But incumbent President Donald Trump has yet to concede, and the Republican Party seems to be at a crossroads after four years of Trumpism. What direction will the GOP take going forward?
The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson offers a very bleak outlook into the GOP’s future. He says ‘the Republican party has sold out itself to Trump’ and what follows Trump will be more dangerous, because it will be more sophisticated.

00:00
trump supporters rallying for him again
00:03
they won’t accept that their president
00:04
lost the elections
00:06
and they’re determined to keep him as
00:08
their leader
00:09
around 73 million americans voted for
00:12
trump
00:13
making them a formidable force of force
00:15
that also
00:16
threatens to run out of control
00:19
he loves america he loves america he
00:22
does not quit on america
00:24
and that’s why america will not quit on
00:26
him
00:27
i’d like trump to start a new party if
00:30
he wanted to
00:31
the republican party is changing real
00:32
fast so we’re
00:34
we’re gonna be represented by the
00:35
soldiers the veterans uh the
00:37
hard-working people of this country
00:39
not by the corrupt politicians that sit
00:42
up here and get fat on our money
00:44
and steal everything from us
00:48
there are many who want to take the
00:49
republican party down a more
00:51
moderate path to strengthen their case
00:54
they talk about this man abraham lincoln
00:58
he was the president who won the civil
01:00
war and ended slavery
01:02
and he was a republican he is the man
01:05
anti-trump republicans turn to when they
01:08
want to invoke
01:09
reason and moral values into present day
01:12
arguments
01:14
the lincoln project is a political
01:16
action committee
01:17
set up by former republicans to prevent
01:20
donald trump
01:21
being re-elected i want to hear their
01:24
thoughts on the future of the gop
01:26
from rick wilson one of the co-founders
01:29
how could donald trump happen
01:33
well donald trump was not just about the
01:35
republican party it was about american
01:36
culture
01:37
and this is a country that has become
01:39
largely addicted to
01:41
and mediated by reality television and
01:44
so
01:44
the man they saw on the apprentice for
01:46
14 years
01:48
on television looked competent smart
01:52
steady brilliant negotiator great deal
01:54
maker great businessman
01:56
of course we all know in the real world
01:59
that was never
01:59
even close to donald trump’s actual
02:01
character or who he really is
02:03
as a person and a leader but that was
02:06
something that
02:07
between fox and reality television
02:09
republican voters were insulated in this
02:12
uh sphere of irreality of fantasy
02:16
and so donald trump uh reached the
02:19
republican
02:20
presidential stage at a moment where
02:24
where republican voters had become
02:25
increasingly isolated from reality of
02:27
any kind
02:28
and had become increasingly addicted to
02:30
the kind of defiant
02:32
uh oppositional nature of
02:35
fox news and of their own facebook
02:38
groups and their own online
02:39
communities and as those moments um
02:43
you know evolved in the 2016 election
02:46
it became harder and harder for actual
02:48
republicans who had
02:50
you know the ideological predicates of
02:51
the past limited government
02:54
personal responsibility you know strong
02:56
international relations and good
02:58
relationships with our allies
03:00
all of those things were washed away
03:02
because donald trump
03:04
gave them entertainment and
03:07
i mean you you are a former republican
03:10
was there any sense
03:12
how dangerous it could be letting him
03:15
in well i was screaming about how
03:18
dangerous he was since 2015
03:21
and by the by the middle of his
03:24
administration by around 2018
03:26
there had been a massive schism in the
03:28
party there were only two types of
03:30
people left
03:31
those who understood how dangerous he
03:33
was and would speak
03:34
and the vast majority who understood how
03:36
dangerous he was and wouldn’t speak
03:38
you know there’s there’s a secret here
03:40
that most republicans the vast majority
03:42
of the elected officials
03:44
do not like donald trump they are not
03:45
trumpists they are afraid of them
03:48
but they don’t like him they don’t
03:49
regard him or admire him
03:51
now i will say that that doesn’t fix the
03:53
problem
03:54
because with donald trump there is never
03:58
a limit to which he will press these
03:59
folks as we saw this week in america
04:02
where
04:02
17 republican attorneys general in the
04:05
states
04:05
um went out and and pushed hard
04:09
to to have the supreme court invalidate
04:13
the 2020
04:14
election now these people they’ve
04:16
abandoned
04:17
all of their you know former political
04:19
and ideological predicates
04:21
for trump uh and so what you’ve seen is
04:24
a radical transformation of the gop
04:26
into the trump party what what should
04:29
the gop
04:30
do with all these trump supporters i
04:32
mean 73 million voted for him maybe not
04:34
all trump supporters but
04:36
you know i mean what should what should
04:39
the
04:39
the gop do luckily it’s not my problem
04:42
anymore
04:44
you know good riddance um but look
04:47
they have to have a painful
04:49
reconciliation with what they have done
04:51
there has to be a look back at the way
04:54
they have corrupted the party on trump’s
04:56
behalf
04:57
and until they do that i don’t think
04:58
there’s a real solution
05:00
going forward because he has been such a
05:03
transformative figure
05:04
the republican base vote the republican
05:07
the ordinary republican voters there’s
05:09
only one thing they hate more
05:11
than a democrat and that’s a republican
05:13
who hates donald trump
05:15
and so they’re going to be driving the
05:18
party further and further into the
05:19
trumpet space which is authoritarian
05:21
which is nationalist which is highly
05:24
regimented around the obedience to the
05:26
dear leader
05:27
you know it has frightening historical
05:29
precedence and what i worry about as a
05:31
former republican and knowing the sort
05:32
of character of the people still in the
05:34
party
05:35
i’m worried about the more competent
05:37
smart
05:38
presentable version of trump that’s
05:40
going to come down the pike in a few
05:42
years
05:43
that to me is um
05:46
an enormously concerning uh impact of
05:48
trumpism
05:50
what could come out of that asking as a
05:52
german
05:53
well yeah what could go wrong as i like
05:56
to say
05:57
um yeah those sort of things as i said
06:00
there are a lot of historical precedents
06:02
that are not good
06:03
um and not just the german precedent
06:05
there are many many other nations
06:07
um that that have gone down this
06:09
authoritarian statism
06:11
uh and it always leads to an abuse of
06:15
power it always
06:16
at the minimum two abuses of power uh at
06:18
the maximum to the worst case scenarios
06:21
and and i’m afraid that trump has
06:24
conditioned a generation of republicans
06:26
to believe
06:27
that if they don’t get their way that
06:29
they don’t need to work within the
06:30
constitution of the united states that
06:32
they can go an extra constitutional
06:34
extrajudicial extra political route
06:36
which may involve violence
06:38
which may involve the generation of of
06:40
enormous risks
06:41
for the future of one of the world’s
06:43
longest running and
06:44
most robust democracies rick um
06:48
i talked to republicans i have the
06:50
feeling that they are not understanding
06:53
what is going on
06:54
no a lot of them when you’re talking
06:56
about reconciliation but
06:58
from what i i mean experienced the last
07:00
couple of days
07:01
working on this piece i think that they
07:03
don’t quite
07:04
get it no they they don’t understand it
07:07
and they don’t understand that that
07:10
without donald trump
07:12
as the figurehead of their party they’re
07:14
going to lose a meaningful number of
07:16
their own voters
07:18
those voters have become members of a
07:20
trumpist movement a faction
07:22
if you will and that’s not going to go
07:25
away
07:26
his son will pick up the mantle when
07:27
donald trump dies or his daughter
07:30
or people that imitate him very closely
07:33
uh will pick up that mantle and there’s
07:35
nothing that can be done
07:37
about that because the republican party
07:40
has sold itself to trump
07:41
there is no institutional republican
07:43
party left to push back against trumpism
07:46
what does that mean politically for the
07:49
united states and for the rest of the
07:51
world so to speak
07:52
well it means that we have a that the
07:54
emergence of a third party
07:56
in the us is is upon us and that party
07:59
is not
08:00
an american party that party is
08:02
dedicated to authoritarianism
08:04
that party is dedicated to the worship
08:05
of a single family
08:07
um that party is is oppositional
08:11
to anything that gets in their political
08:13
way and that opposition manifests itself
08:16
in ways that are not traditionally seen
08:18
in the american political space
08:20
look the american political space has
08:22
long had a center left
08:24
and a center right and and the the edges
08:28
of both parties
08:29
were not terribly influential and there
08:32
was always a tug of war
08:34
between those center left center right
08:35
voices now
08:37
we have a voice on the extreme right of
08:39
trumpism
08:40
which is um which is driven by again
08:43
that oppositional defiance
08:45
of traditional norms and values and laws
08:49
it’s driven by a hatred of immigrants a
08:52
hatred of
08:54
various races it’s driven by a hatred of
08:58
the elite the educated the experts um
09:01
and that’s a recipe for a country
09:04
that has a major political party that
09:06
does not look like anything we’ve had in
09:08
our history
09:09
there’s never been a true large scale
09:12
i mean we had you know george lincoln
09:15
rockwell
09:16
you know and then we had some of the and
09:18
you had lindbergh in the bund
09:20
back in the 30s that was growing into a
09:22
political force
09:24
but they never manifested at the level
09:26
that the trumpest party is manifesting
09:27
itself
09:28
and that’s something that is that is
09:30
concerning a lot of americans who
09:31
believe
09:32
regardless of their ideology whether
09:34
they’re conservative or progressive or
09:36
whether they’re
09:37
moderate or they’re liberal it’s
09:39
concerning a broad spectrum of americans
09:41
to say
09:42
you know this is a pathway that leads to
09:45
a very bad outcome in this country
09:47
and the concern is rising and it’s right
09:49
to be it’s right to be rising
09:51
and that’s why our group the lincoln
09:52
project has stayed in this fight
09:55
we we know that defeating donald trump
09:57
was only the first step
09:58
trumpism is a more dangerous and more
10:00
pernicious movement
10:02
than anyone could have accounted for
10:04
even a couple years ago
10:05
but it has this very powerful allies in
10:07
the media it has a very powerful ally in
10:10
facebook which allows
10:11
all these these alt-right and
10:14
proto-fascist and
10:16
and and openly fascist groups like the
10:18
proud boys
10:19
to to organize and to use it as a
10:22
bullhorn and to proselytize and
10:24
and to propagandize the american people
10:27
and so we’re seeing
10:28
uh an enormous risk that what follows
10:30
trump is is more dangerous
10:32
because it’s more sophisticated than
10:34
donald trump ever was
10:36
last question rick um what should uh
10:40
the western world learn from this
10:42
example
10:44
you know how dangerous is it when you go
10:45
to bed with the devil as we say you know
10:47
sure and get out of it so what what is
10:49
your message kind of you know
10:51
well look there is there is a clear
10:52
message for for folks in europe
10:54
uh especially because there is a rising
10:58
uh tide of rescission from the
11:00
democratic norms
11:01
that define sort of the atlantic charter
11:04
field and the the eu’s
11:06
uh original mission that recision is
11:08
happening
11:09
all over europe i mean you have erdogan
11:11
in turkey who
11:12
is essentially a dictator um you have
11:15
people
11:16
um who are very alt-right who are who
11:18
are trying to
11:19
you know put on a suit and tie and it’s
11:21
not just the clownish sort of le pen
11:23
types it’s you know people who appear
11:26
presentable who say some of the right
11:27
things
11:28
but who are part of this global
11:30
alt-right movement this global
11:31
this global rising tide will zombasha in
11:35
in albania of all things there’s a guy
11:38
who you know looks presentable he
11:40
doesn’t come out you know wearing a an
11:42
armband
11:43
but the things he says and wants to do
11:45
are enormously dangerous
11:47
if you’re going to look at modern
11:49
european democracies or modern or modern
11:51
western democracies
11:52
writ large and these risk factors have
11:55
appeared in
11:56
asia in south and central america in the
11:58
united states obviously
12:00
and across europe and that’s one of the
12:02
reasons that again our group is fighting
12:04
so hard
12:05
to to in america now
12:08
increasingly abroad to face these kind
12:11
of challenges
12:12
from this from this far right uh
12:15
racially inflected movement
12:16
that has grown i mean look if you look
12:18
at the governments of albania and poland
12:20
and hungary
12:21
you are not looking at things that that
12:23
that the post-war
12:25
consensus would have recognized um as
12:28
embracing the values that that we all
12:31
believed
12:31
shaped the western civilization in the
12:33
in the years after world war
12:34
ii and in the years after the collapse
12:36
of the soviet union
12:38
and so it’s enormously troubling it’s a
12:40
fight that we’re in now and we’re going
12:41
to be in for
12:42
for apparently quite a long time are
12:44
there any leaders in the republican
12:46
party who could kind of take over again
12:48
do you see any figures there may be
12:50
leaders in the republican
12:52
party but it’ll be a smaller party i
12:54
mean look there are guys like mitt
12:56
romney
12:56
and adam kinzinger uh and and some of
12:59
the folks in georgia
13:01
who have said no the president not you
13:03
know was not cheated
13:05
um but that courage is
13:08
is very rare few and far between
13:11
i mean when you’ve only got uh 27
13:14
members of congress in the republican
13:16
side who have acknowledged that joe
13:17
biden won the election
13:19
you’ve got a much smaller party than you
13:20
once had so
13:22
as the conservative side splits the
13:24
trumpist party will be
13:26
two-thirds to five-eighths uh of
13:30
of what was the gop and there’ll be a
13:31
smaller romney sort of republican party
13:35
and that’s not an effective um that’s
13:38
not an effective political party at the
13:39
national scale
13:40
at that point that’s a disturbing
13:42
outlook
13:44
yeah i don’t sleep a lot so and did you
13:48
see like
13:49
how do you schedule how do you kind of
13:51
see the next kind of two years or so
13:53
evolve
13:53
what’s going to happen well i think
13:55
you’re going to see an awful lot of
13:57
republicans
13:58
trying to destroy joe biden’s
14:00
administration very quickly
14:01
they’re going to use legislative tactics
14:03
in the senate particularly
14:05
to deny joe biden the ability to do
14:08
coveted relief
14:10
or health care relief for our hospitals
14:13
and doctors and nurses who have suffered
14:15
so badly during the course of covet
14:17
you’re going to see them block his
14:18
appointments as much as they can
14:21
so their idea is to train wreck
14:25
joe biden’s administration the first two
14:27
years
14:28
so they can recapture the senate at the
14:30
same time you’re going to see a whole
14:31
crop
14:32
of new trump-ist style candidates
14:34
emerging tom cotton josh hawley marco
14:36
rubio mike lee
14:38
ted cruz they’re going to all be running
14:40
for president in 2022
14:42
and you’re going to have donald trump
14:43
and his he’s on paper running for
14:46
president
14:46
but you’re also going to see his son
14:48
preparing to run for president 2022
14:51
so there will be a strong set of
14:52
incentives to keep driving that
14:54
authoritarian statism and and that that
14:57
sort of new
14:58
fascism message of trumpism in the next
15:00
two years to four years
15:02
because that is where the republican
15:04
base has been transformed and that’s
15:06
where those people will go and run to
15:07
try to get their votes
15:10
rick thank you very much i hope we can
15:12
talk again in some
15:13
i would love to that’d be great this is
15:15
an ongoing conversation in the world
15:17
absolutely i’d love to i’d love to see
15:19
because this is kind of well this is
15:21
what we experience as you said in many
15:22
other countries as well
15:24
so stay safe thank you very much you too
15:27
great to talk to you on this i’ll talk
15:28
to you soon

Dare We Dream of the End of the G.O.P.?

In a new book, the pollster Stanley Greenberg predicts a blue tidal wave in 2020.

Toward the end of his new book, “R.I.P. G.O.P.,” the renowned Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg makes a thrilling prediction, delivered with the certainty of prophecy. “The year 2020 will produce a second blue wave on at least the scale of the first in 2018 and finally will crash and shatter the Republican Party that was consumed by the ill-begotten battle to stop the New America from governing,” he writes.

It sounds almost messianic: the Republican Party, that foul agglomeration of bigotry and avarice that has turned American politics into a dystopian farce, not just defeated but destroyed. The inexorable force of demography bringing us a new, enlightened political dispensation. Greenberg foresees “the death of the Republican Party as we’ve known it,” and a Democratic Party “liberated from the nation’s suffocating polarization to use government to advance the public good.” I’d like to believe it, and maybe you would too. But should we?

This is not the first time that experts have predicted the inevitable triumph of progressive politics. Seventeen years ago, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” which argued that the country was on the cusp of a liberal political realignment driven by growing diversity, urbanization and gender equality. In sheer numerical terms they were right; between then and now the Republican Party won the presidential popular vote only once, in 2004. But Republicans still have more power than Democrats, and in 2017, Judis disavowed his book’s thesis, arguing that only populist economics could deliver Democratic victories.

As it happens, Greenberg, who became famous as Bill Clinton’s pollster in 1992 and consulted for Hillary Clinton in 2016, told me he used to “shudder” at the “Emerging Democratic Majority” analysis. “I’m used to campaigns in which you impact what’s going to happen,” he said. “The idea that it’s just going to happen because of trends is dangerous. And it was dangerous with Hillary.”

There’s a fascinating tension in “R.I.P. G.O.P.” Greenberg is scathing about the failures of the Hillary Clinton campaign, accusing it of “malpractice.” Yet he believes that at least some of the political assumptions that were mistaken in 2016 will be sound in 2020.

Stanley Greenberg
Credit Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

Greenberg suggests that Clinton erred by focusing too much on multiculturalism at the expense of class, and by trying to discredit Donald Trump as a vulgarian rather than a plutocrat. As Clinton wrote in “What Happened,” her post mortem of her shattering loss, Greenberg “thought my campaign was too upbeat on the economy, too liberal on immigration, and not vocal enough about trade.”

Yet going into 2020, Greenberg believes that what he calls the “rising American electorate” — including millennials, people of color and single women — will ensure Democratic victory, almost regardless of whom the party nominates. “We’re dealing with demographic and cultural trends, but we’re also dealing with people that are organizing and talking to one and another and becoming much more conscious of their values,” he said.

In his polling and focus groups, he’s seeing that the reaction to Trump is changing people. “The Trump presidency so invaded the public’s consciousness that it was hard to talk to previously disengaged and unregistered unmarried women, people of color and millennials without them going right to Trump,” he writes. A few months after the election, he realized he could no longer put Clinton and Trump voters in focus groups together because indignant Clinton voters, particularly women, so dominated the conversations. “This turned out to be an unintended test of the strength of their views and resolve to resist,” he wrote.

That resolve to resist has led many voters to define their own beliefs in opposition to Trump’s. On immigration, for example, “every Trump outrage increased the proportion of Americans who said, ‘We are an immigrant country,’” writes Greenberg. Indeed, according to recent Pew data, 62 percent of Americans say that immigrants strengthen the country, while 28 percent, a near record low, see them as a burden.

Yet rather than modulating their anti-immigrant politics in response, Republicans have little choice but to double down, because so many of their voters are driven by nativism. In this way, Greenberg sees an omen for the Republican Party in California. It’s hard to remember now, but the state was once the heartland of conservatism, nurturing the political careers of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. From 1968 to 1988, it voted Republican in every presidential election, and regularly elected Republican governors.

But in 1994, California Republicans, fearful of changing demography, campaigned for Proposition 187, a ballot initiative meant to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants. It won — though courts blocked its implementation — but it also turned expanding constituencies in California against Republicans. Today the party has been reduced to an irrelevant rump faction in state politics.

The specter of California haunts the modern right; many conservatives see it as a portent of what demographic change will do to Republican power nationally. But California can just as easily be seen as a sign of how a political party can drive itself to ruin by making a cruel, doomed stand against the coming generation. If Greenberg is right, national Republicans, fearful of going the way of those in California, may have ensured precisely that fate.

But is he right? Unlike in California, you can’t win power in the United States just by getting the most votes. The political analyst David Wasserman has argued that Trump could lose the popular vote by as much as five million and still prevail in the Electoral College. Greenberg, however, is convinced that the 2018 midterms prove that mass turnout can overcome the Democrats’ structural disadvantages. “Every piece of data I have, the trends have moved to be more Democratic since 2018,” he said.

His confidence will not be enough to lessen the insomnia that has plagued me since the cursed night when Trump was elected. But his book should be a corrective to the media’s overweening focus on the mulish devotion of Trump voters. Trump hatred is a much more potent force in this country than Trump love. There is one way, and one way only, that Trump may surpass Barack Obama. Though Obama was a community organizer, Trump could turn out to be much better at mobilizing progressives.

Trump, Tax Cuts and Terrorism

Why do Republicans enable right-wing extremism?

Why has the Republican Party become a systematic enabler of terrorism?

Don’t pretend to be shocked. Just look at G.O.P. responses to the massacre in El Paso. They have ranged from the ludicrous (blame video games!) to the almost honest (who would have expected Ted Cruz, of all people, to speak out against white supremacy?). But as far as I can tell, not one prominent Republican has even hinted at the obvious link between Donald Trump’s repeated incitements to violence and the upsurge in hate crimes.

So the party remains in lock step behind a man who has arguably done more to promote racial violence than any American since Nathan Bedford Forrest, who helped found the Ku Klux Klan, a terrorist organization if there ever was one — and who was recently honored by the Republican governor of Tennessee.

Anyway, the party’s complicity started long before Trump came on the scene. More than a decade ago, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning about a surge of right-wing extremism. The report was prescient, to say the least. But when congressional Republicans learned about it, they went on a rampage, demanding the resignation of Janet Napolitano, who headed the agency, and insisted that even using the term “right-wing extremism” was unacceptable.

This backlash was effective: Homeland Security drastically scaled back its efforts to monitor and head off what was already becoming a major threat. In effect, Republicans bullied law enforcement into creating a safe space for potential terrorists, as long as their violent impulses were motivated by the right kind of hatred.

No, not exactly. No doubt some members of Congress, and a significant number of Trump administration officials, very much including the tweeter in chief, really are white supremacists. And a much larger fraction — almost surely bigger than anyone wants to admit — are racists. (Recently released tapes of conversations between Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon reveal that the modern G.O.P.’s patron saint was, in fact, a crude racist who called Africans “monkeys.”)

But racism isn’t what drives the Republican establishment, and my guess is that a majority of the party’s elected officials find it a little bit repugnantjust not repugnant enough to induce them to repudiate its political exploitation. And their exploitation of racism has led them inexorably to where they are today: de facto enablers of a wave of white supremacist terrorism.

The central story of U.S. politics since the 1970s is the takeover of the Republican Party by economic radicals, determined to slash taxes for the wealthy while undermining the social safety net.

With the arguable exception of George H.W. Bush, every Republican president since 1980 has pushed through tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the 1 percent while trying to defund and/or privatize key social programs like

  • Social Security,
  • Medicare,
  • Medicaid and the
  • Affordable Care Act.

 

  • believe that the rich should pay more, not less, in taxes, and
  • want spending on social programs to rise, not fall.

So how do Republicans win elections? By appealing to racial animus. This is such an obvious fact of American political life that you have to be willfully blind not to see it.

For a long time, the G.O.P. establishment was able to keep this game under control. It would campaign using implicit appeals to racial hostility (welfare queens! Willie Horton!) but turn postelection to privatization and tax cuts.

But for some reason this bait-and-switch started getting less effective in the 2000s. Maybe it was the reality of America’s growing racial diversity; maybe it was the fact that American society as a whole was becoming less racist, leaving the hard-core racists feeling isolated and frustrated. And the election of our first black president really kicked hatred into overdrive.

The result is that there are more and more angry white people out there willing to commit mayhem — and able to do so because those same Republicans have blocked any effective control over sales of assault weapons.

A different, better G.O.P. might have been willing to acknowledge the growing threat and supported a crackdown on violent right-wing extremism, comparable to the F.B.I.’s successful campaign against the modern K.K.K. in the 1960s. A lot of innocent victims would be alive today if Republicans had done so.

But they didn’t, because admitting that right-wing extremism was a threat, or even a phrase law enforcement should be allowed to use, might have threatened the party’s exploitation of racial hostility to achieve its economic goals.

In effect, then, the Republican Party decided that a few massacres were an acceptable price to pay in return for tax cuts. I wish that were hyperbole, but the continuing refusal of G.O.P. figures to criticize Trump even after El Paso shows that it’s the literal truth.

So as I said at the beginning, the G.O.P. has become a systematic enabler of terrorism. Why? Follow the money.