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.

 

 

  • Wiless

    For Trump to have a permanent effect, he needs to be denied the nomination in spite of his overwhelming support, and revolt and go third-party, or to win not only the nomination, but also the election, AND govern successfully, to keep Trumpism alive within the GOP after this cycle; or, to have the elites of the GOP openly declare for Hillary, and then when he loses, can blame them for not supporting him, then quit and launch a third party. One of such things needs to happen. Otherwise, while the Overton Window may have been thanks to Trump goatse’d open a bit wider, to enable some discussion of immigration, Islam, economic nationalism, etc., he otherwise will have little, if any, lasting effect on the GOP.

    • How do you feel about the modern momentum which propels American politics, namely, the secular? Donald Trump is the most a-religious “serious” Presidential candidate in a long time.
      6

      • Wiless

        Whoa; the Page Notes are live! :)
        Thing is, Trump still has to pretend to be religious; he still can’t openly defy the American presidential candidate requirement of lip service to religiosity, and so claims he’s a Christian, even though we all know damn well he isn’t; doesn’t even get the language right (‘Two Corinthians’, anyone?). Anyway, Trump is a different kind of secular type than what we’ve seen before until now, because he’s one who isn’t actively hostile to religion; he has positioned himself, rhetorically, as someone who won’t let Christians be pushed around, at home or abroad. So I don’t think of him in the same way I think of actual secularists; he may be secular, but he’s not a secularist. There’s a difference. It’s key.

        • Hmm. Good analysis. I consider myself in that realm. I am an atheist but I am not anti-religious nor do I believe religious people should be ignored and disregarded merely for their dogma; if “open-minded” libs truly believe in freedom, this should apply to all.

          Donald Trump recognizes one agonizing fact for atheists in the United States: the interests of Christianity overlap somewhat horribly with the interests of our republic.

          Do we continue to defend this nebulous atheism even when it is at odds with American nationalism?

          • Wiless

            Hmm. Good analysis. I consider myself in that realm. I am an atheist but I am not anti-religious nor do I believe religious people should be ignored and disregarded merely for their dogma; if “open-minded” libs truly believe in freedom, this should apply to all.

            Thanks!

            Glad to hear it! :)

            Donald Trump recognizes one agonizing fact for atheists in the United States: the interests of Christianity overlap somewhat horribly with the interests of our republic.

            Not sure I follow your meaning. How is that?

            Do we continue to defend this nebulous atheism even when it is at odds with American nationalism?

            Also not clear here; which / whose nebulous atheism, and how is it at odds with American nationalism?

          • I should have clarified somewhat: American Christianity. This country’s ideological and constitutional backbone was built by Christians and perpetuates Christian principles; as such, our state, while far-ranging and vast, is workable and functional only within that homogeneous realm.

            Yet, atheism and secular definitions, if extended, contradict much of the American romanticism that we expect the global world to adhere to. America is not an innate secular country but Donald’s revolution is only that.

          • Wiless

            I should have clarified somewhat: American Christianity. This country’s ideological and constitutional backbone was built by Christians and perpetuates Christian principles; as such, our state, while far-ranging and vast, is workable and functional only within that homogeneous realm.

            Indeed; Christianity acts as a brake on the excesses of the extreme individualism that are the natural end point of following America’s classical liberal foundations to their natural conclusion. Absent that, eventually ‘anything goes’ – as we see…

            Yet, atheism and secular definitions, if extended, contradict much of the American romanticism that we expect the global world to adhere to. America is not an innate secular country but Donald’s revolution is only that.

            It’s not clear to me the extent to which America is not already simultaneously Christian and secular. I mean, as an outsider, America is the land that had Sunday shopping, sports, restaurants and bars open, long before such was the case up here in most provinces of Canada, where, for instance, here in Ontario, Sunday shopping didn’t begin till the late 80s / early 90s, or so.

            Nevada has had legal prostitution for a long time, just like the Netherlands…

            And so on. Christianity and secularism are both traditions with long roots in American society, even if the former has had the upper hand in terms of open expression since the get-go, and still now…

            America has always had a funny relationship to the rest of the world, because thanks to American navel-gazing tendencies, half the time the rest of the planet is hardly even acknowledged as existing, except when they’re a potential threat to Israel or America. ;)

          • America has always loved money. There is no dichotomy whatsoever when it comes to monetary matters here.

            In this respect, we’ve always been especially skilled at overlooking greed. So what did we do? We ‘republicanized’ society by allowing pockets of like-minded individuals to congregate in villages while simultaneously patronizing those who it sees as undeserving of such cognitive gifts.

            This also presents an “internal offshoring” opportunity in that Americans are allowed to profit across state-lines (if their principles are so unbothered).

            Navel-gazing is a strategy best served cold; or better yet, not served.

          • Wiless

            Indeed, Mammon-worship / self-worship (same thing) is the only real rival to Christianity in America; always has been…

          • Donald Trump is not an anomaly; only an extension.

          • Wiless

            Indeed.

        • Yes, Page Notes are here and they are BAD. 7

          • Wiless

            Hey, thanks for the ‘lip service’, har har! ;)

  • The whole Republican party sold their souls to the demoncrats a long time ago.

    • The question, Mr. Avraham, is actually who (or what) did the Democrats sell their soul too a long time ago (perhaps late circa 60szzzish)?