Liberty Expose: The Post-Trump Republican Party: Rebirth Or Burnout?
SAUL LOEB/AFP
Whatever the outcome of the impending presidential election, the Republican Party will eventually have to reckon with the future of its identity, forcing the Party to reconsider both its voter profile and guiding principles. The intervention of Trump’s presidency has precipitated seismic shifts in public discourse and eclipsed the decorum of ordinary party politics. Thus, it has left a vacuum of uncertainty as to what the animating agenda of the Republican Party will be in the coming years.
Will the Party align more with the neoliberal agenda that prevailed before, and prioritize corporate deregulation, or will it continue to appeal to the Trump base, which favors an ambiguous mixture of economic nationalism and populist decentralization? Will it appeal to centrists, the core Trump base, or gain a new voting bloc? Will its general outlook seek a return to the old fusion of liberty and order that has prevailed since the 1960s, retain Trump’s reactionary statecraft, or embrace a new configuration entirely?
For the would-be innovator and the upcoming generations in particular, this transitional chaos should come as a welcome prospect, at least in theory. Moments characterized by unstable fault-lines indicate that the time could be ripe for healthy adjustments and new reconstructive efforts: for shifting coalitions, the consolidation of new voting blocs, and the re-articulation of our political categories. Change is a perennial American tradition: the question is not whether politics should or should not change, but rather to what degree American democracy will be able to reconfigure itself to meet the needs of the day.
Unfortunately, there are a number of signs that suggest the Republican Party is either unprepared for, or uninterested in, the task of forwarding new programmatic vision. For starters, it has opted to provide no 2020 platform. Aside from re-stating its opposition to the policies of the Obama-Biden Administration, it has only indicated continued support for “the President’s America-first agenda” until it reconvenes for the 2024 Republican National Convention.
Given the scale of suffering and existential dread that has been brought on by the global pandemic, massive worker displacement, and the conflagration of racial tension this year, this abdication of leadership is particularly worrisome, and leaves us with two unflattering hypotheses. On the one hand, it might be that the Republican Party is simply biding its time until the end of the Trump presidency. Republicans could just be waiting for the right opportunity to return to their tenuous pre-Trump agenda of corporate deregulation and social conservatism.
On the other hand, it may be that the Republican agenda really has become whatever Trump says it is. This would lend credence to the argument that the Republican Party has given up its principles and become increasingly sultanistic: that is, governed by the ideology and whims of its leader. Neither of these situations are programmatically adequate and both fall short of the promise of American conservatism, which is the pursuit of national greatness through the mutual preservation of freedom and the equilibrium of power.
If these hypotheses are true, then grim days may be on the horizon for the Republican Party, for in conceding much of its moral and intellectual integrity in the landscape of American democracy, it has implicated itself in social dynamics that are inherently capricious, unprincipled, and difficult to control. Now that it has legitimated Trump’s brand of conservative populism, how will it channel the authoritarian outlook of many of Trump’s core supporters while also holding on to its more moderate constituents?
The Party is now compelled to provide the kind of headstrong leadership that promises easy fixes to life’s problems through pure force of personality. This may lead to an increasing reliance on renegade, anti-establishment personalities, and vulnerability to take-over by anti-democratic interests that seek to undermine the legitimacy of our constitutional system. Equally, it is compelled by its allegiance to “liberty” to undermine the very power required to begin fixing the problems that have rendered our people so dissatisfied and disillusioned in the first place.
This outlook parallels a recent take by Lance Tarrance, who identifies a rising conflict in the Republican Party between populist conservatives (who have traditional social values, but want government support during tough times) and college-educated Republicans (who have progressive social values, but want smaller government). He maintains that the Republican Party will become a “traditional middle-class party” which retains a populist element in the heartland and the south, while remaining critical of the changing economic order.
If this analysis holds, then one strategy the Republican Party might consider would be to hone in on the middle-class aspirations of its constituencies by shifting its focus to the empowerment of families. Then the GOP could find a way to mediate the conflicts between its two primary constituencies by activating the main value that they share. For family is at once the center of traditional social values and the unconscious concern of aspiring middle-class Americans seeking a better life for their children.
At a first pass, the direct evidence for the viability of this strategy admittedly does not seem to keep pace with its conceptual appeal. When asked about their top concerns, Republican voters tend to prioritize national security, the economy, and increasingly since Trump’s election, immigration. That being said, family is not typically measured as an “issue” or ‘political value,” possibly because of its inseparability from other issues and its relative lack of politicization. On the other hand, when framed as a source for meaning in life, family ranks number one for voters across the political spectrum, which speaks to its enduring significance in American social life and, potentially, its status as a bedrock value that could be activated by other interrelated concerns. While we should await further evidence that this is the case, it is not unreasonable to suppose that concerns about top-tier political issues like the economy are wrapped up in considerations of the family, and that a family-centric approach could integrate these concerns in a unified vision.
However, even if we grant these caveats and suppose that a Republican embrace of family would mark a political step forward for the post-Trump Republican Party, it is unlikely that this would solve the deeper riddles that the presidency of Donald Trump has brought to consciousness. These riddles have to do with both the changing dynamics of the market economy (bending as it is towards further automation and decreasing social mobility) and the worrying evidence that ethnic antagonism continues to play an integral role in the fabric of the Republican identity. Issues of this scale cannot be resolved through the fusion of order and liberty that has characterized conservatism since the 1960s, or by appealing to the smaller platoons of life. Nor will it be possible to properly address them within the framework of a hypothetical “free market” that needs only to be freed from the strictures of interference.
The resolution of these quandaries will ultimately require us to embrace bold solutions of a national scale: to undertake a rejuvenation of our Federalist tradition, affirm the possibilities of collective action, and get behind new partnerships between government and free enterprise. This could make us more competitive globally and open up economic opportunities that would allow more Americans to help themselves. Moreover, it could help to restore confidence in the capabilities of our government, which should mark the center of our national pride, not its embarrassment. Only then will it be possible to confront our historical demons through a reclamation of the moral promise of our nation.
Given its performance these last few years, it seems very unlikely that the Republican Party will recognize this historical opportunity in the years following the Trump presidency. It may be that a period of sustained burnout will be required before a true revival of its purpose becomes possible again.