Third Way: The Future Of The Republican Party

While watching the Wall Street Journal Opinion interview titled “The Future of the Republican Party”, many thoughts were evoked. Among them, an overwhelming sense of frustration and confusion regarding the potential for healthy discourse across the aisles. 

The panel consisted of Wall Street Journal columnists Kimberley A. Strassel and Baron Swaim; President of Advancing American Freedom, Tim Chapman; and Echelon Insights Founding Partner, Patrick Ruffini.

The United States government operates within a two party system, of which there is the Democratic party and the Republican party. Amongst these two parties, there are smaller, more specific  schools of thought, less broad  than simply conservative vs. liberal. The future of the Republican party is ambiguous and one that in its entirety leaves much to be considered. As a democratic state, America prides itself on principled freedoms such as thought, expression, and speech.

There is a definite divisiveness that is present within American politics. One could even go as far as to say that it is an expected constant. This divisiveness goes beyond simply opposing sides of the aisle, it exists within individual parties as well.

This is a main point of discussion early on in the conversation with Chapman presenting his belief that Donald Trump has been a "necessary corrective” as well as a “destructive force” in a means of forcing the hand of Republicans to select the specific perspective of the party that they align with most, and thereby engage in a more factional approach to politics.

Factional politics is the idea that within larger political parties, there are subsects that hone in on specific concerns and beliefs that may not be as strongly held (or held at all) by fellow party members. This idea of specified attention being paid to particular topics is great in theory, and if done correctly and mindfully, in execution as well. 

The danger of factional politics, however, is that it gives way to the emergence of extremist sub-parties such as the “Make America Great Again” movement.

The ability for such hostile, almost ungovernable groups to form, poses not only a danger to the individual, but to democratic thought as a whole. It leads to situations such as the January 6th Insurrection and the normalization of political violence such as the unjustified physical force seen in use recently especially by poorly trained and poorly regulated ICE Agents.

One particular aspect of the discussion that feels largely misguided is that of the idea that President Trump has brought a nuanced sense of follow-through to the conservative party, as is stated near implicitly by the panel members.

At the height of his presidential campaign in 2024, Donald Trump promised to lower gas prices. This was  asinine for a number of reasons. One of which being that the President of the United States has no direct control over gas price trends. The cost of fuel is dictated largely by supply and demand of resources and where they are imported from or exported to. The second and foremost reason is that since his taking office in 2024, the United States has seen a four year high in gas prices. Why exactly? Because of President Donald J. Trump’s choice to insert himself into the Middle Eastern conflict. Driven by ego and arrogance, he appears to believe that he is a savior of the world and a liberator of freedom, even going so far as to liken himself to Jesus Christ in an AI generated image of himself healing an ailing individual while dressed as Jesus .

Towards the end of the conversation wherein it was discussed that there likely will not be “another Trump”, the panel seemed to have turned the corner towards a more balanced conversation. That is, until Ruffini referred to Vice President J.D. Vance as, “the natural heir to Trump”, which was then reiterated by Chapman. This monarchical language is not only frustrating to hear, but also antiquated, and reminiscent of a time when America existed under the “righteous” thumb of Great Britain. A time which has long since passed thanks to a little thing called the American Revolution.  

This panel had the potential to truly bridge a gap and widen the discussion to include as many voices as possible in the future of political decision making in America. Unfortunately for them however, the panelists instead shot themselves in the foot every time they began heading in a less divisive direction. Whether it be outright stating Trump's immense common sense (many, such as this commentator, take great pause with that statement), or insinuating that Trump’s “efforts” in the Middle East will bring about peace and protect America’s children from future nuclear conflict (though no regard was given to the children in the Middle East dying every day due to American bombs and military violence), this conversation felt largely unproductive and frankly disappointing in its failed potential to aid in a future resolve between Democrats and Republicans in a post-Trump political era.