There was Rubio, who was in the unique position of being able to unite virtually all factions in the party, while simultaneously broadening its appeal to demographics the GOP desperately needs to bolster its support from. To top it all off, he is from a crucial swing state, and brought truly innovative policy agenda proposals forward. These would include his reformation of the tax code to effectively be a progressive consumption tax (which economists have been clamoring over for ages), the conversation of the EITC to a wage subsidy; and pushing for a modernized role of education, a flexible one that allows constant and affordable skills retraining that are necessary for an ever-changing and constantly innovating economy. Yet his momentum died down after Iowa and never seemed to pick up again.
There was Gov. Kasich, one of the most experienced and qualified candidates out there, having been a state senator, and later a representative of the house on the budget committee the house budget committee during the Clinton Presidency (which would come in real handy as we know Hillary is going to try to use the economic success of the '90s as a talking point), and is currently Governor of Ohio (another important swing state) with incredible favorability ratings. He got obliterated.
There was Scott Walker, who managed to win a solidly blue state twice (and beat a recall attempt) on a very conservative platform, especially when it came to taking on public unions, promoting right to work laws, cutting taxes, and lowering the budget shortfalls substantially. He was liked by both the establishment and the Tea Party. It took him about a month after his campaign launch to not even be able to poll a single percentage point.
There were also candidates who were much more ideological than those listed (although by no means are those men unprincipled). Rand Paul was more or less the embodiment of the "limited goverment" ideal the GOP claims to be for. Granted, the GOP only seems interested in economic freedom, but nonetheless we had Ted Cruz for that position.
The wings of the party were definitely well represented this time around, with plenty of qualified candidates representing their respective fractions (and sometimes multiple ones). They were more conservative than W., but many still could have broadened the parties appeal and won the election.
Yet we ended up with a know-nothing, narcissistic xenophobe, who is all around an anti-small government, anti-freedom candidate, who's policies are resoundly anti-free market and would be disastrous if implemented. The party was so utterly incompetent by the time they made any effort to stop him (and it was pitiful) he had effectively had the nomination in his grasp. Now the party is being overrun by white nationalists, neo-nazis, and delusional nutjobs who think there is an ongoing "white genocide."
The party already has a major demographics issue, given the rise of minority populations. This situation is made worse because the GOP has been losing ever higher percentages of minorities with each passing election. The GOP's favorables have been abysmal, and young people are staying as far away from the party as possible. The media has successfully branded conservatism as the ideology of irrational fear, hatred of "subversives," and a deep dislike of the poor. With Donald Trump as the standard bearer, these already near insurmountable problems will be growing exponentially. By nominating a liberal strawman caricature of a conservative, the damage has already been done.
For those looking for some scenario in which the election ends up reversing some of the damage done, I see no reason for hope. There are three ways this can play out, none of which bode well for the GOP.
If Trump wins, he will alienate our allies and make us globally hated. He will ruin the lives of millions, whether through gestapo-esque deportation schemes to tariffs that cause American consumers to see the value of their dollars plummet while the Chinese sweatshop worker gets his job cut and he's forced to return to subsidence farming. We'd rack up mountains of debt and destroy our economy. W. damaged the Republican Party greatly, but it pales in comparison to what Trump would do.
Our second scenario is that Trump loses by a small margin. His supporters will blame #NeverTrump, and just pushes through Trump or someone like him in 2020.
The third is that Trump outcome loses in a landslide, and this is certainly the most favorable outcome, but would also likely be quite chaotic. There would still be a sizable Trump-esque faction, as well as a rabid tea party one. And since a landslide loss would be indicative that Trump was a terrible, brand-tarnishing candidate, the party would be essentially left in chaos and would have virtually no chance of winning the presidency in 2020.
So this is effectively it for the GOP. They do have some things going for them, such as their leads in state legislatures, governorships, and Congress, their name recognition, funding, and infrastructure, but the long term trends are going to be too strong to deal with now that Trump has irrevocably damaged the GOP brand. The GOP has maybe two more goes at the White House before the blue wall surpasses 270 electoral votes. And since we're talking Trump here, it's effectively one more shot, because there's no way he'd be a two term president.
The right needs a fresh start. A complete rebranding to separate itself from the toxicity of the GOP brand (and its insane leadership), Trump, fear-based economic populism, and all the alt-right neo- nazis.
The most obvious choice for this is the Libertarian Party. It's got the most registered voters of any party outside of our two established ones. It has access to the ballot in all 50 states and is the only third party to do so. Their current presumptive nominee is a former Republican. The label libertarian is much less toxic than conservative has become. It's much more popular amongst young people, and a sizable number of Republicans and independents describe themselves as libertarians or hold libertarian views. And libertarians have actually been fighting for the GOP's supposed principles: free markets and small government. The LP is certainly flawed - one can simply look at some of their nominees for 2016, but we have not seen how things would play out if they became the mainstream center-right party. Certainly, if they could not purge or at least reduce the influence of their crazies, I would be in favor of just establishing a new party entirely. For now, though, they deserve a chance.
Now, the Libertarian Party would certainly have to make some concessions. The party leadership and base would have to be more willing to accept pragmatic and moderate candidates. They would have to concede some flexibility in terms of foreign policy, as there is simply no way to bring in conservatives without allowing for other foreign policy stances besides complete isolationism. They would have to be more willing to accept pro-life candidates, and those who are concerned with border security.
Those who wished to run on the LP platform would need to make some concessions as well. They should be willing to adhere to the LP's core message of social and economic freedom. That means giving up on the war on drugs, the will to criminalize gay marriage, and other positions that are held by many conservative politicians. A simple way for conservatives to reconcile these views with their principles is to take a 10th amendment stance on these types of issues, as this would be acceptable to libertarians and conservatives alike.
It's time to give the Libertarian Party a chance.
There was Gov. Kasich, one of the most experienced and qualified candidates out there, having been a state senator, and later a representative of the house on the budget committee the house budget committee during the Clinton Presidency (which would come in real handy as we know Hillary is going to try to use the economic success of the '90s as a talking point), and is currently Governor of Ohio (another important swing state) with incredible favorability ratings. He got obliterated.
There was Scott Walker, who managed to win a solidly blue state twice (and beat a recall attempt) on a very conservative platform, especially when it came to taking on public unions, promoting right to work laws, cutting taxes, and lowering the budget shortfalls substantially. He was liked by both the establishment and the Tea Party. It took him about a month after his campaign launch to not even be able to poll a single percentage point.
There were also candidates who were much more ideological than those listed (although by no means are those men unprincipled). Rand Paul was more or less the embodiment of the "limited goverment" ideal the GOP claims to be for. Granted, the GOP only seems interested in economic freedom, but nonetheless we had Ted Cruz for that position.
The wings of the party were definitely well represented this time around, with plenty of qualified candidates representing their respective fractions (and sometimes multiple ones). They were more conservative than W., but many still could have broadened the parties appeal and won the election.
Yet we ended up with a know-nothing, narcissistic xenophobe, who is all around an anti-small government, anti-freedom candidate, who's policies are resoundly anti-free market and would be disastrous if implemented. The party was so utterly incompetent by the time they made any effort to stop him (and it was pitiful) he had effectively had the nomination in his grasp. Now the party is being overrun by white nationalists, neo-nazis, and delusional nutjobs who think there is an ongoing "white genocide."
The party already has a major demographics issue, given the rise of minority populations. This situation is made worse because the GOP has been losing ever higher percentages of minorities with each passing election. The GOP's favorables have been abysmal, and young people are staying as far away from the party as possible. The media has successfully branded conservatism as the ideology of irrational fear, hatred of "subversives," and a deep dislike of the poor. With Donald Trump as the standard bearer, these already near insurmountable problems will be growing exponentially. By nominating a liberal strawman caricature of a conservative, the damage has already been done.
For those looking for some scenario in which the election ends up reversing some of the damage done, I see no reason for hope. There are three ways this can play out, none of which bode well for the GOP.
If Trump wins, he will alienate our allies and make us globally hated. He will ruin the lives of millions, whether through gestapo-esque deportation schemes to tariffs that cause American consumers to see the value of their dollars plummet while the Chinese sweatshop worker gets his job cut and he's forced to return to subsidence farming. We'd rack up mountains of debt and destroy our economy. W. damaged the Republican Party greatly, but it pales in comparison to what Trump would do.
Our second scenario is that Trump loses by a small margin. His supporters will blame #NeverTrump, and just pushes through Trump or someone like him in 2020.
The third is that Trump outcome loses in a landslide, and this is certainly the most favorable outcome, but would also likely be quite chaotic. There would still be a sizable Trump-esque faction, as well as a rabid tea party one. And since a landslide loss would be indicative that Trump was a terrible, brand-tarnishing candidate, the party would be essentially left in chaos and would have virtually no chance of winning the presidency in 2020.
So this is effectively it for the GOP. They do have some things going for them, such as their leads in state legislatures, governorships, and Congress, their name recognition, funding, and infrastructure, but the long term trends are going to be too strong to deal with now that Trump has irrevocably damaged the GOP brand. The GOP has maybe two more goes at the White House before the blue wall surpasses 270 electoral votes. And since we're talking Trump here, it's effectively one more shot, because there's no way he'd be a two term president.
The right needs a fresh start. A complete rebranding to separate itself from the toxicity of the GOP brand (and its insane leadership), Trump, fear-based economic populism, and all the alt-right neo- nazis.
The most obvious choice for this is the Libertarian Party. It's got the most registered voters of any party outside of our two established ones. It has access to the ballot in all 50 states and is the only third party to do so. Their current presumptive nominee is a former Republican. The label libertarian is much less toxic than conservative has become. It's much more popular amongst young people, and a sizable number of Republicans and independents describe themselves as libertarians or hold libertarian views. And libertarians have actually been fighting for the GOP's supposed principles: free markets and small government. The LP is certainly flawed - one can simply look at some of their nominees for 2016, but we have not seen how things would play out if they became the mainstream center-right party. Certainly, if they could not purge or at least reduce the influence of their crazies, I would be in favor of just establishing a new party entirely. For now, though, they deserve a chance.
Now, the Libertarian Party would certainly have to make some concessions. The party leadership and base would have to be more willing to accept pragmatic and moderate candidates. They would have to concede some flexibility in terms of foreign policy, as there is simply no way to bring in conservatives without allowing for other foreign policy stances besides complete isolationism. They would have to be more willing to accept pro-life candidates, and those who are concerned with border security.
Those who wished to run on the LP platform would need to make some concessions as well. They should be willing to adhere to the LP's core message of social and economic freedom. That means giving up on the war on drugs, the will to criminalize gay marriage, and other positions that are held by many conservative politicians. A simple way for conservatives to reconcile these views with their principles is to take a 10th amendment stance on these types of issues, as this would be acceptable to libertarians and conservatives alike.
It's time to give the Libertarian Party a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment