Republican Party Chaos & Third Party Prospects


The Trump revolution revved up last night with the Donald’s Super Tuesday victories. As a consequence, the so-called Republican “establishment” is in a tizzy. They are revealed to be “even more incompetent” than was first believed. As of today, they are “waging war on their own base.” In other words, we are witnessing the Great Republican Crack-up.

Never mind that there continues to be—in the Republican base—many who consider the Trump insurrection to be scandalous. They voted for one or the other of the non-Trump candidates last night. And there were a lot of them. And now, some of them threaten to vote for anyone but Trump. This escapes the attention of the media.

There have been calls for a third party for quite some time. Experiments that have been tried have been conspicuous failures. (The Libertarian party, for example, has melded with the Republican party to the point that libertarian politicians who aspire to the presidency pledge allegiance to the Republican party—most recently, Ron Paul.) The “Tea Party” wasn’t really a party. It was a remarkably organized, but still unofficial, movement within the Republican party, which fizzled out when Obama came to power in the executive branch of government and Republicans “took control” of both houses of Congress. “Tea partiers” pinned their hopes on the Republicans “they” had elected—by the thinnest of margins in the Senate—and have been so angered by their “passivity” (if not outright betrayal) that it’s now time for a revolution. Donald Trump recognized an opportunity to exploit this angst and finagle his way into the Republican party and, he hopes and believes, into the Oval Office.

Seeds of the Trump revolution were sown in the Republican party among some elements within its base. As just noted, Trump’s numbers on Super Tuesday came from a minority of Republican voters. In addition, an astonishing number of voters turned out in states like Virginia. Some say they turned out for Trump. But it has to be said that if they hadn’t turned out in such numbers, then Trump would not have done as well, and neither would the other candidates.

So what’s with all this talk about disenfranchising “the base” by the “establishment’s” effort to upset the Trump momentum? Why are those who support Trump considered the base while those who do not support Trump are not considered part of the base? This Trump-friendly narrative, perpetuated by the media (from Fox, to CNN, to MSNBC), is flat-out false.

But the narrative is powerful. And it compounds confusion about the crisis now facing the Republican party.

So where are we headed? The short-term worry is that Hilary Clinton wins regardless of what the party does about Trump. If they back Trump, while pinching their noses, they still fear a Clinton victory. If they find some way to edge Trump off-stage, the worry is that the Trump devotees will revolt, and that Trump may even sabotage the party by running as an Independent. Again, Hilary wins.

This short-term worry may be short-sighted. We may be witnessing the “crack-up” of a venerable party that is resolved with the painful and torturous emergence of a third party. But whose party would a third party be? Would the Republican “establishment” be forced out? Or would Trump emerge as the leader of a new party? Neither scenario would happen quickly. And neither is especially appealing, from any point of view (unless you’re a devoted Democrat voter).

Suppose “establishment Republicans” seek to force Trump and his revolutionaries out of the party. Trump may win in this election cycle. (Or he may lose to Clinton.) But they would get their party back, and that would be good news to the party faithful in the base who have never taken to Trump. All things considered, this could be a temporary setback for the party. It would be a shock. It would be an unwelcome consequence of Trump’s shenanigans. But it could have healthy consequences long-term.

Suppose Trump and his cadre attempt a full-on “hostile takeover” of the party that forces the “establishment” out of the party, or completely neutralizes their influence within the party. This doesn’t look like a promising move. Could Trump mount that level of an insurrection so single-handedly? Would he be able to keep the likes of Chris Christie and Jeff Sessions at his side if Trump were to go this far? Maybe. But so what? It’s doubtful that all the Republican politicians who have “endorsed” Trump in this cycle would be enthusiastic about a Trump party (the “Trumpist Party” or an American “Labor Party”?). That would really be sticking their neck out. And it goes against the survival instincts of most politicians. (Christie may have nothing to lose at this point.)

One big worry on either scenario is that the Democrat party would benefit by a parting of the ways. Set that aside for the time being. How and when could the so-called establishment effect an ouster of the Trump interlopers? They could try (as they seem intent on doing) to get the nomination for a non-Trump choice. Failing that, they could attempt some unprecedented maneuver during the Republican convention to seize the nomination from Trump.

Here’s another option: Turn Trump loose and let him sink or swim in the general election, with or without their vote, and wager that if Trump—by hook or by crook—wins the election, it will be a failed presidency that barely survives a full term. There is good reason to think that Trump cannot fulfill the specific promises that will get him the nomination. He may not even intend to. If you think his supporters are angry now, imagine their ire if Trump lets them down or turns on them. They might well pull a Trump on Trump and abandon him as soon as they have no further use for him. Could he get re-elected? (I have uncharacteristically staked a bet with a friend who likes Trump that Trump will not have a wall built on the Mexican border by the end of his second year, fully paid for by Mexico. I think the odds are heavily in my favor.)

This scenario may be preferable to a Clinton presidency that could go for eight years. But could it happen if the true Republicans (yes, that’s what I called them) stand on the sidelines and let Trump get elected on his own steam? Does Trump need the establishment—which may need Trump, so they can get their party back?

This option puts the eventual emergence of a third party in doubt. But it also leaves presently unanswerable questions about long-term grassroots support for the Republican party. The ascendancy of the Democrat party may be ensured by the crisis, at just the time when the party was poised to seize control from Democrats. And nobody in the Republican base wants that.

Advertisements

Questions for Democrats Watching Republican Debate #3


Here are three questions for Democrats to ask themselves as they watch the third Republican debate tonight:Republican Logo

  • “Among the top five contenders, who has the best chance of beating the Democrat nominee in the general election?”
  • “Among the top five contenders, who has the best chance of losing to the Democrat nominee in the general election?”
  • “Which Republican would I be most open to voting for if he of she wins the nomination?”
  • “Would I be likely to vote for one of these Republican candidates instead of the Democrat nominee?”

I hope to see your responses here.

Related links:

Shopping for a President: Republican Debate #3


Screen Shot 2015-10-28 at 12.51.21 PMThe top ten contenders for the Republican nomination gather tonight for their third presidential debate. It will be aired on CNBC at 8:00 pm ET.

These debates offer the electorate one of the best vantage points for peering into the character and policy plans of the candidates. Many expect the field of serious contenders to be winnowed after tonight.

I hope you’ll be watching.

But what should we be watching for? What questions will inform our observations as the event unfolds? Here are some things that will have my attention:

  • There will be the usual one-upmanship on display. Look for the contest between Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Does the “religion issue” come up? How does that play out? How will their inevitable sparring affect their post-debate poll numbers?
  • Who apart from Trump and Carson do well? I expect Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina will, and maybe Ted Cruz. They’ve all demonstrated tenacity.
  • I’m looking for Fiorina to do well. Hillary Clinton has made the fact that she’s a woman a central feature of her campaign. How would that play if the Republican nominee is also a woman? Fiorina needs to perform well again if she’s to gain more traction in the media.
  • Anticipate how the media will cover the debate in the days ahead. Fiorina has exceeded expectations in each debate so far. And she’s a woman. This should have attracted lasting media interest. So the shortage of media uptake has been puzzling. Maybe it has to do with the Trump vs. Carson obsession. I have a theory. Democrats care about who wins the Republican nomination. They’ve thought about the field of candidates and scored each one for his or her potential to defeat their own candidate. I think Ben Carson looks like an easy target. I think Ben Carson is an easy target. What about Trump? He has terrific potential to self-destruct and alienate people, if he can even win the nomination. If I’m right, the Dems have a vested interest in a Trump or Carson victory. That’s what I would be hoping for if I was Hillary Clinton. So if you’re a Republican, think of media attention as a weather vane. And consider the possibility that a left-leaning media will seek to control the buzz following the debate. Will they want a strong candidate to gain traction? Or will they continue promoting a national obsession with Trump and his closest contenders, whoever they may be at any given time?
  • As you listen to each debater, whose ideas have the most cogency? Who speaks persuasively about the most urgent domestic and foreign policy problems facing the nation? How specific is their plan? Do they know what they’re talking about? Have they done their homework? Are they focused on high priorities that matter to most of the electorate, including Republicans and Democrats?
  • Ask yourself, “Do I want to hear from this person for four to eight years if he or she becomes the next president?”
  • Ask yourself, “Would this person galvanize a nation with strength at home and abroad, with a winning persona, with an inspiring vision for the future?”
  • Ronald Reagan’s legacy has long been a reference point for Republican aspirations. As you watch the debate, does anyone sound most Reaganesque, in message and in tone.

You don’t have to be a Republican to play this game. You don’t have to be a Republican to have a stake in the outcome. If you’re a registered Democrat, you may want to consider the merits of a Republican candidate for the presidency.

What will you be watching for? Share your responses here.

Related links:

%d bloggers like this: