The party of unorthodox populism; is Donald Trump breaking the paradigm or is he a symptom of its destruction?

 

At the heart of the matter is this: will the Donald Trump movement re-shape the Republican Party? Or, like an unprincipled sponge, will it resume its normal recognizable form once he has “left the building” in six months, or 4 years, even 8?

 

The Washington Post tackles the fluid nature of the Party’s ideological spine, and its vulnerability to Trump’s assumption of the entity’s mantle in the year 2016. Does the Republican Party become the political vehicle of “unorthodox populism” (as the writers describe it) or will it revert to the anachronistic Conservatism that has powered its little motor that could for the past 50 years after he’s vacated the political scene?

 

And, as the piece seems to infer, perhaps the eventual verdict might not lie entirely in Trump’s assumption of the Republican Party’s 21st Century mission but in the exodus of movement Conservatives from the Party and toward a nebulous, yet-to-be-named or -defined 3rd party, in which case, it’s not that far-fetched to consider that Conservatism, as a brand, will inevitably morph into a fresh form as it settles into its newly erected home.

 

 

The extraordinary resistance of many figures on the right this past week to Trump has not been prompted merely by objections to his temperament and fears about his electability in November. At the core has been a calculation by self-identified “movement conservatives” that they would rather preserve their entrenched ideological project than promote a nominee whom they believe would violate their creed and ethos.
“It’s a crisis,” said Al Cardenas, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union who is withholding support for Trump. “If we do away with the fundamental strength of the conservative movement, which is our ideas and values and principles, then you don’t have anything left but politics. A movement can survive the loss of an election cycle, but it can’t survive the loss of its purpose, and that’s what we’re battling here.”
The extraordinary resistance of many figures on the right this past week to Trump has not been prompted merely by objections to his temperament and fears about his electability in November. At the core has been a calculation by self-identified “movement conservatives” that they would rather preserve their entrenched ideological project than promote a nominee whom they believe would violate their creed and ethos.
“It’s a crisis,” said Al Cardenas, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union who is withholding support for Trump. “If we do away with the fundamental strength of the conservative movement, which is our ideas and values and principles, then you don’t have anything left but politics. A movement can survive the loss of an election cycle, but it can’t survive the loss of its purpose, and that’s what we’re battling here.”

 

 

I predict that he who shall name will thus set the course of action in the future of political labeling.

 

The Left/Right paradigm itself, that familiar standard bearer of historic political division in America, could very well be the anachronism we escape at.

 

Your mission, should you accept it, is how best to rename the party of unorthodox populism.