Is Trumpism the new GOP mainstream?

[Belsnickel]

So, Rich Lowry (editor at The National Review) wrote an opinion piece on Politico. In this piece, he talks about how the events with Sen. Flake point to a shift in the GOP to Trumpism being the mainstream, now. Rich is notoriously anti-Trump, but he is conservative. This is the man with whom Paul Ryan reminisced about shared dreams of slashing Medicaid. Rich's position is clear on this, but I'm curious what some of the GOP stalwarts and the more conservative minded on the board think about this rise of Trumpism to be what the GOP stands for. We can talk about the image of the man if you'd like, but more importantly I'm interested in the abandonment of conservative GOP principles held onto for so long. We'd seen a slide away from some of the more conservative elements for a while, and it is now culminating in what we see today. I am genuinely curious about the conservative view of this shift.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

When are people going to realize that it's not Trump or "Trumpism" as the OP puts it. No, it's Democrats and Republicans that are the problem and the same, tired rhetoric they trot out with the same tired people calling the majority of Americans stupid, racist, mysogenists, homophobes, communists, nazi, lazy and every other name or insult.

I know Christians voted for Trump to keep the Supreme Court center right and they voted for Pence, not Trump. I don't know about the rest of those who voted for him or why. I voted for Castle though and I did not want Trump to win, I don't like Trump at all.

All I know is that people voted for Trump because Hillary, that's it. The people who voted for him are willing to hold their nose for 4 to 8 years, keep the Supreme Court center right and then get a real leader in there after Trump. Hillary scared so many people, she's very shady and people just didn't trust her at all.

My opinion.

[Benton]

Interesting thread.

A year ago, I'd have said 'no way.' Now, maybe.

Each major party has — for most of the 20th & 21st centuries —has been a weird constant amalgamation of people. The largest in the GOP was pro-business and pro-Christianity; the largest in the Democrats was blue collar workers and minorities. Neither party's members really seemed a good fit, but that's how it shook out.

Both parties have effectively taken a hammer to those relationships over the last 30ish years.

Workers started shifting to the GOP as they got tired of real and imagined woes for seeing their paychecks and opportunities shrink. Minorities — with quotas and Rooney Rules and additional opportunities — weren't a political bedfellow. On the other side, Christians started realizing that maybe the GOP is good for making theocracies, but their version doesn't always run hand in hand with the Bible.

Which has us to where we are. Angry, jobless workers moving from long-time Democrat candidates and disappointed spiritual people tired of putting their faith in a handful of guys people who only see dollar signs.

So both parties are changing. And the ones moving to the GOP — the angry guy displaced from the upper middle class he grew up in — are more accepting of Trumpism. His brand of politics isn't conservative, in any regard. Which is OK to a significant chunk of the GOP as they aren't conservative either, they mainly just want something that isn't a Democrat.

I think this election will push more people to one side or the other. The GOP doesn't have the same makeup it did 40 years ago, and neither does the other side. What shakes out is going to be interesting, but probably won't be as definable as the Southern Coalition for at least another decade or so.

[BmorePat87]

(10-26-2017, 11:04 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: When are people going to realize that it's not Trump or "Trumpism" as the OP puts it. No, it's Democrats and Republicans that are the problem and the same, tired rhetoric they trot out with the same tired people calling the majority of Americans stupid, racist, mysogenists, homophobes, communists, nazi, lazy and every other name or insult.

I know Christians voted for Trump to keep the Supreme Court center right and they voted for Pence, not Trump. I don't know about the rest of those who voted for him or why. I voted for Castle though and I did not want Trump to win, I don't like Trump at all.

All I know is that people voted for Trump because Hillary, that's it. The people who voted for him are willing to hold their nose for 4 to 8 years, keep the Supreme Court center right and then get a real leader in there after Trump. Hillary scared so many people, she's very shady and people just didn't trust her at all.

My opinion.

We had a good thread about this 2 weeks ago or so, but the consensus was Trump is just the right guy at the right time to echo this sentiment. It's certainly not an entirely "conservative" movement. 

But being the figurehead still means this quasi conservative populism gets named after him: Trumpism. The point of Matt's thread and his question remain relevant: what's the conservative response to a not so conservative movement? 

Based on your response, I ask is it just anti establishment or anti-liberal, or is it both? Seems more like a coalition based on your response. Some people do not trust anything establishment, so any populist voice gets their vote (Bernie?). Some people do not want anything Democratic/Liberal, so anyone running as a Republican, no matter their views, gets their vote. Some are both.

[Belsnickel]

(10-26-2017, 11:04 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: When are people going to realize that it's not Trump or "Trumpism" as the OP puts it. No, it's Democrats and Republicans that are the problem and the same, tired rhetoric they trot out with the same tired people calling the majority of Americans stupid, racist, mysogenists, homophobes, communists, nazi, lazy and every other name or insult.

I know Christians voted for Trump to keep the Supreme Court center right and they voted for Pence, not Trump. I don't know about the rest of those who voted for him or why. I voted for Castle though and I did not want Trump to win, I don't like Trump at all.

All I know is that people voted for Trump because Hillary, that's it. The people who voted for him are willing to hold their nose for 4 to 8 years, keep the Supreme Court center right and then get a real leader in there after Trump. Hillary scared so many people, she's very shady and people just didn't trust her at all.

My opinion.

I think the issue with your response is that you are conflating voting for Trump with supporting Trumpism. Those are two different things (and the word choice of Trumpism isn't my own, it is used by Lowry in the piece I linked to). Just voting for him doesn't mean you adhere to the Trumpism that is shifting the party.

FWIW, I find it interesting that you say it is a response to the tired rhetoric of calling people all of these things when Trump engages in this sort of behavior all of the time. He's just not targeting the people that we're being targeted previously, and so there is a cognitive dissonance that exists because it isn't happening to them, and in fact many of his supporters applaud the behavior.

But your response is not one to the questions I posed, as Pat has already pointed out.

[Yojimbo]

Why not? Reaganism is the new DNC. The “center” of politics is where the right used to be 30 years ago.

The first party that decides to make removing bribes, err campaign donations, from politics as the pillar of their platform will build a voting base that gives them control for decades (like what happened after The New Deal). For the time being since neither major party wants to stop the gravy train, we’ll just have swing voting every 8 years.

[GMDino]

To me it comes down to what does Trump do for his party and supporters in the end.

The article says they are all aware of his flaws but are tired of hearing about them.  If that is true (I don't believe it is because too many refuse to admit his flaws and see them as strengths) then in the end if will come down to if he keeps his campaign promises.  

But will they believe it when he does not?  When their insurance rates skyrocket due to his actions?  When they don't get a tax cut? When there is no wall and they don't "lock her up"?

I'm not sure they will if their support comes from a place of "I'm tired of being called names for my beliefs" and they vote for a guy who calls names on people who don't agree with him.

[Benton]

(10-26-2017, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: To me it comes down to what does Trump do for his party and supporters in the end.

The article says they are all aware of his flaws but are tired of hearing about them.  If that is true (I don't believe it is because too many refuse to admit his flaws and see them as strengths) then in the end if will come down to if he keeps his campaign promises.  

But will they believe it when he does not?  When their insurance rates skyrocket due to his actions?  When they don't get a tax cut? When there is no wall and they don't "lock her up"?

I'm not sure they will if their support comes from a place of "I'm tired of being called names for my beliefs" and they vote for a guy who calls names on people who don't agree with him.

Most likely not. People — not people on just one side, but all people — mostly believe what they want to. There's people who want to believe we're the most taxed nation on the planet, or that we alone have racism, or whatever. You can point out that we're not in either regard, and it won't matter much to some.

[GMDino]

(10-26-2017, 11:57 AM)Benton Wrote: Most likely not. People — not people on just one side, but all people — mostly believe what they want to. There's people who want to believe we're the most taxed nation on the planet, or that we alone have racism, or whatever. You can point out that we're not in either regard, and it won't matter much to some.

I understand that part of it.

But this might be the biggest (blatant) liar every elected.  Time will tell on that.  

How dense can people be?  Don't answer that....

[Dill]

(10-26-2017, 11:04 AM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: When are people going to realize that it's not Trump or "Trumpism" as the OP puts it. No, it's Democrats and Republicans that are the problem and the same, tired rhetoric they trot out with the same tired people calling the majority of Americans stupid, racist, mysogenists, homophobes, communists, nazi, lazy and every other name or insult.

I know Christians voted for Trump to keep the Supreme Court center right and they voted for Pence, not Trump. I don't know about the rest of those who voted for him or why. I voted for Castle though and I did not want Trump to win, I don't like Trump at all.

All I know is that people voted for Trump because Hillary, that's it. The people who voted for him are willing to hold their nose for 4 to 8 years, keep the Supreme Court center right and then get a real leader in there after Trump. Hillary scared so many people, she's very shady and people just didn't trust her at all.

My opinion.

When I listen to Hannity, I hear all about "the same tired people calling the majority of Americans stupid, racist, mysogenists, homophobes, communists, nazi, lazy and every other name or insult."

But I confess  that once I turn off the radio and jaunt around town, or watch other news channels, I don't really hear a lot of people calling the majority of Americans "stupid, racist, misogynists, homophobes, communists" etc.  I just hear some news sources saying they do. The same one's saying Hillary is not to be trusted. But trust Donald.

I do hear people calling Trump racist and misogynist based upon his public statements and behavior. Perhaps his supporters identify with him so deeply they feel charges reflect back on them.

[Dill]

(10-26-2017, 11:57 AM)Benton Wrote: Most likely not. People — not people on just one side, but all people — mostly believe what they want to. There's people who want to believe we're the most taxed nation on the planet, or that we alone have racism, or whatever. You can point out that we're not in either regard, and it won't matter much to some.

The question now is, are more of those voters impervious to facts gravitating to one party rather than the other.

And if so why.

Elected officials have always paid a price for lying as far back as I can remember. This is the first time I have seen a national figure seemingly rewarded for it. Trump seems to understand that it doesn't matter from one week to the next whether he is caught in lies by the press, since most of his supporters hate the press and believe they just want to bring down someone fighting for the American way of life.

[SunsetBengal]

Personally, I don't see this "movement" as going toward "Trumpism", as much as I see it as anti-progressiveism. Aside from population centers, most of America was just tired of being transitioned toward European values. For the bulk of the US existence, most of the immigrants were Europeans looking to escape Europe.

I'm not trying to make any "bold statement" here, just pointing out the obvious. Americans should not be forced to assimilate to small factions, this is the "melting pot", as they told us in school. Rather, the factions should easily find their way to assimilate into the American mainstream.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-26-2017, 11:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I don't see this "movement" as going toward "Trumpism", as much as I see it as anti-progressiveism.  

Pretty much how I see it.  Like 80% of the population pulls the lever dutifully for WHOEVER is on the ticket.  Trump pulled enough of those to the polls, and grabbed just enough anti-Hillary votes to push over the top.  But he actually only got a little over 2M more votes than Romney, while Hillary got almost 400k more than Obama in 2012.  Personally, it just doesn't make much sense to me that the "white supremacist" bloc stayed home in 2012 but then came out in droves for Trump.

Easy to make sweeping generalizations based on crowds and rallies, but we're talking a small percentage of voters.  On either side of the aisle, it's not hard to find 40k brain dead idiots to fill a stadium. I'll never understand why people go to campaign rallies, anyway.

Plenty of people complained about Trump even getting the nomination (which remains more surprising to me than Trump winning the general), but less than half of Repub voters vote in primaries and Trump got less than half of that.  

[Benton]

(10-26-2017, 11:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I don't see this "movement" as going toward "Trumpism", as much as I see it as anti-progressiveism. Aside from population centers, most of America was just tired of being transitioned toward European values. For the bulk of the US existence, most of the immigrants were Europeans looking to escape Europe.

I'm not trying to make any "bold statement" here, just pointing out the obvious. Americans should not be forced to assimilate to small factions, this is the "melting pot", as they told us in school. Rather, the factions should easily find their way to assimilate into the American mainstream.

I guess the question that begs is: what’s mainstream?

You ask a black IT worker in Chicago, you’ll likely get something very different than a white Navy veteran working as a cop in rural South Carolina. And I think that’s been part of the problem the last several decades. We’ve been told what’s the norm (mom and dad, white picket fence, drive American, drink soda or beer, have a pet, etc.). Social media and cheaper technology allowing for more exposure has led to people seeing there Have been people living here all along that didn’t fit their definition of America .

[SunsetBengal]

(10-27-2017, 04:38 PM)Benton Wrote: I guess the question that begs is: what’s mainstream?

You ask a black IT worker in Chicago, you’ll likely get something very different than a white Navy veteran working as a cop in rural South Carolina. And I think that’s been part of the problem the last several decades. We’ve been told what’s the norm (mom and dad, white picket fence, drive American, drink soda or beer, have a pet, etc.). Social media and cheaper technology allowing for more exposure has led to people seeing there Have been people living here all along that didn’t fit their definition of America .

That is a good question, as in this day and age, mainstream America covers a pretty broad spectrum of cultural melancholy.  You are correct that it isn't the definition of previous generations.  I guess if I tried to put it in a short answer, I'd say current mainstream America is anyone leading a productive life or working toward leading a productive life.  To not include counterculture groups and outlaws to society.

[GMDino]

I think another problem/funny thing is the Trump supporters who still claim they don't support him...just his message (whatever that happens to be that day).  As if his message isn't tied to him.

[Yojimbo]

(10-26-2017, 11:16 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I don't see this "movement" as going toward "Trumpism", as much as I see it as anti-progressiveism. Aside from population centers, most of America was just tired of being transitioned toward European values. For the bulk of the US existence, most of the immigrants were Europeans looking to escape Europe.

I'm not trying to make any "bold statement" here, just pointing out the obvious. Americans should not be forced to assimilate to small factions, this is the "melting pot", as they told us in school. Rather, the factions should easily find their way to assimilate into the American mainstream.

I don’t think it’s away from progressivism. I think it’s a move away from globalism. “Trumpism” is based in populism, same as the “Berniecrats”. Probably why there is more of an overlap in those supporters than between Democrats and Republicans.

[StLucieBengal]

Depends on how you define Trumpism. If Trumpism = Nationalism/Populism it is is Trumpism the way he fights the culture war.

I think you will certainly see more GOP candidates attacking more instead of just sitting there and being above it all worrying about getting good headlines in the NYT.

Policy wise it’s an anti establishment move that will probably swing between conservatism and populist nationalism. Probably enough to grab those blue collar mid western voters. Since Democrats have decided they aren’t worth the effort to go after any longer.

[Goalpost]

You know we had twelve years of Bush’s and eight years of Clinton. And, the race opened up as pre favorites of Jeb vs Hillary. I wonder if something as simplistic as that was a factor in people’s minds.
Cuz, honestly, it kind of was in mine. I voted ‘right’ but I didn’t want Jeb at all from the start.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-28-2017, 01:56 PM)Goalpost Wrote: You know we had twelve years of Bush’s and eight years of Clinton. And, the race opened up as pre favorites of Jeb vs Hillary. I wonder if something as simplistic as that was a factor in people’s minds.
Cuz, honestly, it kind of was in mine. I voted ‘right’ but I didn’t want Jeb at all from the start.

The most popular candidates were non establishment.

Trump, Sanders and Cruz were by far the most preferred candidates.

Had Kaisich did the right thing and gotten out we would have President Cruz right now.