Posts tagged as “Republican Party”

Republicans will win in 2024 if they eschew Trumpian populism and embrace Bush-Cheney conservatism.

Although former President Trump is obviously responsible for the Republican Party’s disastrous and historically unprecedented subpar performance in the 2022 mid-term elections, his diehard defenders and apologists are warning the GOP not to abandon the “populist agenda” that supposedly made Trump, in their view, a successful politician.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham, for instance, credits Trump with energizing and “reinventing the GOP,” while setting it upon the path toward becoming a “multiracial working class party.”

In Ingraham’s view, Trump rejected the “pro-war” and “pro-CCP” (Communist Chinese Party) establishment GOP epitomized by former President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and 2008 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Ingraham warns Republicans against reverting back to the establishment’s supposed love for amnesty, open borders, endless wars, and unfair trade with China.

She essentially acknowledges that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee and warns him against being cooped by the dreaded GOP “establishment.”

Of course, this is a badly distorted and self-serving analysis that ignores many inconvenient truths.

For starters, Trump’s supposed political success is far less impressive than Ingraham suggests. The man won one fluke election (in 2016) against a very weak Democratic opponent (Hillary Clinton), and he did it by narrowly winning three states—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—with a large contingent of white working class voters.

Since then, thanks to Trump, the Republicans have been decimated in two of these states (Michigan and Pennsylvania), while barely hanging on in the third (Wisconsin).

Biden won all three states, of course, in 2020; and all three states have Democratic governors who just won election or reelection.

Pennsylvania and Michigan have two Democratic senators; Wisconsin has one. The sole Republican Senator, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, barely won reelection against an extraordinarily weak Democratic opponent.

Dems, meanwhile, flipped both houses of the Michigan state legislature for the first time in nearly four decades, while apparently winning control of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives.

The bottom line: the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin is in far worse shape, thanks to Trump, than it was seven years ago before he came on the political scene.

Michigan’s reelected Governor, Gretchen Whitmer, would be a very formidable Democratic presidential candidate in 2024. Ditto Pennsylvania’s newly elected governor, Josh Shapiro.

As a result, it is difficult to see how any Republican can win these states in 2024. And without winning at least one of these three states, it is difficult to see how any Republican can win the White House in 2024. The Electoral College math simply does not compute.

George W. Bush. In fact, to win in 2024, the Republicans’ best bet might be to essentially update or tweak what George W. Bush did in the Electoral College when he was elected and reelected president in 2000 and 2004, respectively.

That is, sweep the South and the West, while winning Iowa and New Hampshire, but losing Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. That would give the Republican presidential candidate 271 Electoral College votes: one more than necessary to win the presidency (see the Electoral College map below).

That, of course, is precisely how Bush won the 2000 presidential election (see the Electoral College map above).

Yet, ironically, Ingraham derides Bush as the exemplar of all that is wrong with the Republican Party: because he was committed, supposedly, to “endless wars,” open borders, and trade with China.

Bush’s Policies. But while the Iraq War may have been a mistake, it was essentially over and won by the time Bush left office in 2008, thanks to “the surge” of U.S. troops and adoption of a winning military strategy.

The war in Afghanistan was still in a low boil, but if he had a third term, Bush almost certainly would have replicated “the surge” in Afghanistan to successfully end the war, or at least make it manageable without an abject American defeat and withdrawal.

It is true that Bush tried to solve the immigration crisis, but it is not true that he was committed to amnesty and open borders.

Unlike Trump, Bush did not support building a wall along the southern border, but remember: Trump himself never really built the wall either. He talked a good game, but failed to deliver. Just ask Ann Coulter.

Bush did try to engage China; but so, too, had every American president, Republican and Democrat, since Richard Nixon. This was a good-faith, decades-long effort that had to change as China’s adversarial posture vis-à-vis the United States became increasingly clear and transparent.

Thus a President Romney or a President McCain would have confronted China, but in a far more effective way than Trump: by better leveraging the strength of our allies in the Pacific—and without the collateral economic damage that resulted from ill-advised tariffs or taxes on American manufacturers and consumers.

Trump’s Policies. Moreover, Trump’s political success, such as it was, resulted from traditional conservative Republican policies, not newfound populist ideas.

Corporate tax reform, for instance, ushered in the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 50 years and the lowest black unemployment rate in recorded history. And energy deregulation resulted in American energy independence for the first time in our nation’s history.

Trump also stopped the flow of illegal immigrants pouring across the U.S.-Mexican border, albeit without the wall or in spite of the wall.

Trump accomplished this belatedly in his administration by finally adopting regulatory reforms, such as a “remain in Mexico” policy for would-be asylum seekers and DACA restrictions, that effectively secured the border.

On the international stage, Trump definitely was not an isolationist or a non-interventionist. He ordered ISIS destroyed and Iranian General Qasem Soleimani killed, and he achieved both of these objectives quickly through the use of American military power.

Bush v. Trump. Yet, despite these policy successes, Trump failed to win a majority of the popular vote in both 2020 and 2016. As David Frum points out:

He lost the popular vote in 2016. He lost the House in 2018. He lost the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2020. He lost the Senate in 2021.

Since 2000, there have been six presidential elections, and thus 12 presidential nominations by the two major parties. In his share of votes cast, Trump finished tenth and 11th out of the 12: behind Mitt Romney, behind John Kerry, behind Al Gore.

In fact, the only Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote in the past 32 years (eight presidential elections) was George W. Bush, in 2004.

So let’s not pretend that Trump achieved unparalleled political success when he clearly did not. And let’s not pretend that he outperformed his Republican predecessors at the ballot box when the facts show otherwise.

In truth, Trump achieved some political and policy success by forthrightly addressing, or trying to address, new problems that had arisen in the new millennium.

For the most part, he adopted traditional conservative policies that proved successful. When, on occasion, Trump deviated from these conservative policies to embrace Ingraham’s preferred  populist positions, he was far less successful.

Trade is a good example. As Douglas A. Irwin explains, Trump’s ill-advised tariffs increased the trade deficit; eliminated tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs; reduced household incomes; and were a drag on economic growth.

“Numerous studies, add Jeb Hensarling, the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2013-19), “have shown that almost all the costs of tariffs initiated under the Trump administration were paid by American consumers and businesses.”

Conservatism, Not Populism. The truth is Trump’s political success has little to do with populism and everything to do with conservatism.

Populism, in fact, got Trump in trouble. Jan. 6 populism, for instance, was an unmitigated disaster. It haunted Republican candidates nationwide in the 2022 mid-terms, while destroying whatever chance Trump had to win a second term in 2024.

Ingraham, then, has it precisely backwards. The danger for Gov. DeSantis and the Republican Party is that they try to ape Trump’s populism while giving short shrift to the conservative policies that actually proved successful, substantively and politically, for Trump.

Conclusion. In other words, contra Ingraham, we need a more conservative and less populist Republican Party.

We need a Republican Party that applies tried-and-true conservative principles to modern-day problems. We need a Republican Party that believes in markets, American military power, and parental sovereignty and choice.

Therein lies public policy success. Therein lies political victory—in 2024 and beyond. Populism is a mirage that will only lead Republicans astray down the primrose path to defeat and permanent minority status.

Feature photo credit: the 2000 presidential election Electoral College map, courtesy of 270ToWin.com.

Trump’s not on the ballot, but his handpicked Senate candidates are, and whether they win or lose today may determine whether the GOP nominates Trump again in 2024.

Regardless of how, exactly, they turn out, the 2022 election results won’t effect any substantive change in public policy. However, they will have a dramatic impact on the 2024 Republican presidential nomination fight and, for the reason, are worth watching.

Legislatively, nothing will change because Democrat Joe Biden will still be president and the Republicans will win control of at least the House of Representatives. This will result in legislative gridlock.

Consequently, there will be no major legislation enacted into law for at least the next two to three years. But whether the Republicans win control of  the Senate matters big-time for judicial nominations.

More importantly (because there likely will be no Supreme Court vacancies in the next two years), the fate of Trump’s handpicked Senate candidates will affect Trump’s standing within the GOP, and whether the Republican Party adopts a more non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy. Ditto Trump-backed gubernatorial candidates.

Trump, of course, intervened in the 2022 GOP primary races by endorsing specific candidates, who often won the party’s nomination because they had Trump’s backing.

If these candidates win on election day, it will strengthen Trump’s claim that the Republican Party should nominate him again for president in 2024. (Trump has basically said he will announce next Tuesday that he is running again for president.)

If, however, at least a couple of Trump’s handpicked candidates lose on election day, it rightly will be seen as a repudiation of Trump and a blow to his image as a political winner. The GOP then will be less likely to nominate him for president in 2024.

The Preferred Scenario. For this reason, I am hoping that the Republicans win control of the Senate, even as their most Trumpian Senate and gubernatorial candidates go down to defeat. Because if that happens, it is much less likely that the Republican Party will nominate Trump again for president.

Granted, this is unlikely to happen. If the Republicans win control of the Senate, then Trump’s toady candidates almost certainly will win their respective races. However, my preferred scenario is possible.

If, for instance, non-Trumpy conservative GOP Senate candidates in Colorado and Washington State win, then the GOP could suffer losses in Georgia, Arizona, and Ohio, and still win control of the Senate.

Here, then, specifically, are the races I am watching:

Georgia. The Republican Party Senate nominee, Herschel Walker, is frighteningly unfit for political office and should not have been nominated.

Walker won the nomination only because Trump endorsed him and because he is the greatest college football running back (a Heisman Trophy winner) ever produced by the state of Georgia. If Walker loses (unlikely), then it rightly will be seen as a repudiation of Trump.

Unfortunately, Walker is running in the red-purple state of Georgia against a likable but extreme leftist, Raphael Warnock—which means Walker probably will win.

Ohio. JD Vance emerged as the winner from a crowded field of GOP Senate hopefuls only after Trump endorsed him. He is a weak and uninspiring candidate, but an intellectual leader of the Trump wing of the Republican Party.

Vance also is infamous for loudly and proudly declaring that he doesn’t care if Russia conquers Ukraine. His defeat, therefore, would go a long way toward saving the GOP from its growing non-interventionist or isolationist wing.

Unfortunately, Vance is running in solidly red Ohio, which means he almost certainly will win Tuesday.

Arizona. Blake Masters is a weak and unattractive candidate who also bends the knee to Trump. Masters is in a very tight race with incumbent Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.

Most analysts agree: if the Republicans had nominated two-term Governor Doug Ducey, then this race long ago would have been called safely for the GOP. But Ducey declined to run, because he knew Trump would vociferously oppose him after he refused to participate in Trump’s fraudulent 2020 “stop the steal” election scheme.

Consequently, the Republicans turned to Masters, whose off-putting persona and servility to Trump has made him politically unappealing to many Arizona voters. This race is a tossup.

Pennsylvania. Trump endorsed the weaker of the two GOP Senate candidates, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon. Trump emphatically rejected the stronger, Reaganesque candidate, David McCormick, because, Trump said, McCormick wasn’t really MAGA.

For most of the race, Oz has been trailing ultra-leftist John Fetterman, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor. But Fetterman’s disastrous debate performance showcased his obvious cognitive impairment suffered as a result of a stroke May 13, 2022.

Oz has since taken a slight lead in the race and is now expected to win. And although Trump endorsed him, Oz is hardly a Trump toady.

Instead, Oz enjoys a well-deserved reputation as an independent-minded thinker who will put Pennsylvanians, not Trump, first.

Colorado. Trump angrily denounced Colorado Senate nominee Joe O’Dea after O’Dea mildly said he would prefer that the GOP nominate someone else other than Trump for president in 2024.

O’Dea is a superb candidate, but a long shot in this purple-blue state. However, if he pulls off an upset, it will be an indication that Trump’s hold on the GOP may be less firm than many think.

Washington State. Tiffany Smiley is another superb candidate and even more of a long shot than O’Dea, because Washington State is even more Democratic than Colorado.

Her story, though, is moving, inspiring, and compelling. Smiley is a 41-year-old nurse with three young boys. Her husband, Scotty, is an Army veteran who was blinded and temporarily paralyzed in 2005 by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Smiley fought and advocated for her husband to ensure that he got the medical care he needed and had earned.

As a result, notes the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, Scotty “became the first blind active-duty officer in military history. After many years, he officially medically retired from the military in 2015.”

Trump has been a non-factor in this race, and Smiley is clearly not a Trump Republican. Instead, she is the type of Republican—positive, forward-looking, and solutions-oriented—that the party needs more of on the national scene and in elected office.

Her opponent, incumbent Democratic Senator Patty Murray, is an aging political fossil and arguably the dumbest and least influential member of Congress.

Arizona Governor’s Race. Republican nominee Kari Lake is a superb politician, but also a total Trump toady. That, however, is not what most concerns us.

More worrisome is Lake’s newfound political alliance with former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), her denunciation of “warmongers,” and apparent embrace of a non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy that retreats from the world even as America’s enemies advance and move forward in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.

The danger is that if Lake wins the Arizona governor’s race, she’ll be well-positioned to run for vice president or president in 2028 or 2032. Her political skills are unique and compelling and Lake would be a formidable candidate. Better to stop her now before it’s too late.

The polls say Lake will win Tuesday, but the race is considered close. So an upset is not beyond question.

The bottom line: The 2022 election results matter because of what they portend for the 2024 presidential race, not because of what they will mean legislatively.

Truth be told, we are in for two to three years of legislative gridlock, as a Democratic president and a Republican House of Representatives check each other legislatively.

But if Trump’s handpicked Republican Senate candidates in Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona all lose, then the former defeated president will be a diminished political figure with a much-reduced political standing.

It then will be easier for a strong Republican presidential candidate—Florida Governor Ron DeSantis most likely—to knock off Trump and return the GOP to its winning ways.

A GOP Senate. Defeating Trump’s handpicked Senate candidates also would deal a crippling blow to the non-interventionist or isolationist wing of the Republican Party. And the GOP can still win the Senate if its non-Trumpy conservative Senate candidates in Colorado and Washington State pull off upset wins.

GOP control of the Senate matters because it will help to stop or at least slow down Biden’s disastrous judicial nominees.

For these reasons, let’s hope and pray that my preferred scenario—a Republican-controlled Senate without Herschel Walker, JD Vance, and Blake Masters—materializes on election day.

Feature photo credit: Trump’s handpicked candidates Herschel Walker (Georgia), JD Vance (Ohio), and Blake Masters (Arizona), courtesy of CBS News, Scripps Media, Inc., and AZ Central, respectively.