Checkpoint: The Future Of The Republican Party
Last month, The Wall Street Journal aired a panel interview with columnists Barton Swaim and Kimberley Strassel, the President of Advancing American Freedom, Tim Chapman, and Echelon Insights Founding Partner, Patrick Ruffini. The 50-minute discussion covered the panelists' predictions for the future of the Republican Party in a post-Trump America. Swain led the conversation, posing questions on the lessons the American Right has learned from the Trump presidency, what aspects of Trumpism will and won’t survive after his time in office, how to approach the conflict in Iran, and what the Republican party needs to do to beat Democrats in 2028.
On the lessons learned from Donald Trump’s time in office, Chapman remarked that he viewed Trump as a "necessary corrective,” who taught Republicans to fight again after years of impotence. Ruffini responded similarly, stating that Republican voters in the pre-Trump era felt like their leaders weren’t fighting hard enough, and Strassel added that people liked Trump because he appeared not to care about the consequences of his actions, that his abrasive and crass affect was refreshing. These sentiments paint a really rose-colored vision of Trump’s time in power. Trump didn’t unite fractured Republicans around one fighting cause; he steamrolled all opposition in his party. He passionately and frequently retaliates against any Republican voices that question his absolute authority. The Republican Party, which used to feature factions of ideological constitutionalists and libertarians among the religious ideological conservatives and free market capitalists, has been reduced to a bootlicking echo chamber. For evidence of this, we need look no further than Vice President JD Vance, who is now a staunch Trump loyalist but famously referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler” in 2016. Trump rewards his friends and attacks his enemies. He didn’t teach Republicans to fight. He taught them to bend the knee.
When asked what aspects of Trumpism will survive as Trump’s legacy and which aspects won’t be repeated, Swaim optimistically opined that all those things conservatives lament about Trump won’t follow the party after Trump leaves office. He posited that the next GOP president won’t go after enemies with wanton rage, won’t be obsessed with past losses, won’t contest election results, won’t pick grossly unqualified cabinet secretaries, and won’t use public office as a means to enrich themself. Tim Chapman shared this optimism and hoped that the future Republican party would remain a united front without tension and strife among different factions. The admission here is that the most salient parts of Trump’s legacy are that he steamrolled his opposition and facilitated rampant corruption. This is the precedent that he’s set. Trump’s time in office, especially his second term thus far, has been marked by violence, clientelism, retaliation, and failures on nearly every campaign promise made. Trump has been handed failure after failure on issues of immigration, birthright citizenship, and the fiasco of a war in Iran. His deregulation measures have a 90% failure rate once challenged in Court. The only aspects of his presidency not marked by obvious failure are the disdain and recklessness that he's brought to the White House. Vengeance and corruption will be Trump’s legacy, and, as he has yet to face any material consequences, there’s no deterrent to prevent his successors from acting similarly.
Later in the discussion, Swaim asked what the panelists thought the Republican Party ought to do in order to maintain working-class voters as part of the base. While blue-collar union workers have historically trended blue, they have, over the last few election cycles, migrated to the right. In a really telling remark, Swain said that Democrats had, for a long time, kept lower-income voters in their camp by offering abundant government benefits, “free stuff.” As poorer voters now make up the Republican base, will the party be forced to adapt the “handouts” strategy to keep the working class on board, or can they just skate by emphasizing social issues? In other words, how long will Republicans be able to take advantage of poorer and less-educated voters by using hot-button cultural issues as a smoke screen while propping up policies that disadvantage their base? Kimberley Strassel cited the union workers in her home state of Alaska who have been Republicans for decades. She remarked that working-class voters chose Trump, not for government programs or for actual policy initiatives, but rather because he was a stand-in for free-market capitalism and ideological freedom, so the “free stuff” approach won’t help Republicans keep the working class on board. She said that union laborers enjoy the benefits of their unions but “hate the politics of their unions.” Labor unions losing their hold on union members is not indicative of working-class conservatives pursuing capitalistic ideological purity. Rather, conservative blue-collar voters vote in their best interests. When the Republican party advertises lower taxes, removal of red tape, and better economic futures, it presents an appealing choice for voters. The future of the Republican Party depends on its ability to convince voters that it represents their best interests, not on providing more welfare programs or pursuing ideological freedom.
In the latter half of the discussion, Swain asked about the growing anti-Semitic wing of the GOP. Tim Chapman then tied the discussion to the war in Iran, lamenting the poor and disjointed messaging coming from Republican leadership. He stated that the party should be courting the favor of young Republicans who are largely isolationist (and of age to be conscripted). Chapman states that, to keep young voters in their camp, Republicans have to get the messaging on Iran right, to convince people that the real reason for the war was to create a path to peace in the Middle East by denuclearizing Iran. If done correctly, this could be the most positive legacy of the Trump Administration. Chapman neglects to mention that, before the first Trump presidency, the Iranian nuclear program was already heavily limited in exchange for sanction relief by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPOA). Trump withdrew the United States from the JPOA in 2018, ending that path toward denuclearization. Chapman advocates for a restructuring of the narrative around the Iran war to bogus claims of long-term peace and safety, when really the motivations were controlling oil prices, ridding Israel of its greatest opposition in the region, and maintaining American hegemony.
While the panelists who took part in the discussion on the future of the Republican Party consider Trump a “necessary corrective” or “reset button” for the party, the reality is that the party has traded ideological diversity for personal fealty. The negative traits of Trump’s presidency will not just die when he leaves office. Rather, a precedent of retaliation and corruption has been set, and this precedent will likely become the new blueprint. The GOP’s hold on union and working-class voters is built upon cultural grievances while ignoring material interests, and panelists pitch affordability quick-fixes or capitalist ideological purity to a base that expects tangible results. Panelist Tim Chapman thinks the party should rebrand the war in Iran as a path to peace rather than the pursuit of continued American hegemony to keep young isolationist voters on board. The Republican Party offers cultural smoke screens instead of tangible economic stability, and, under Trump, the GOP has learned to beat its own members and its perceived enemies into submission to the detriments of political discourse and to the economic prospects of its base. Early polling ahead of the midterm elections suggests, however, that the Republican base is becoming disillusioned with the politicians who pontificate on conservative values while failing to deliver on campaign promises. Without Trump serving as the chaotic glue, the party’s future may not be too bright.
