What are we to make of the unprecedented Donald Trump campaign (within recent memory)? I think a number of pundits are asking that question and suggesting their answers. To some extent, what I think reflects my distillation of a number of observations from others. First, let us note that for some time the polls show a dissatisfaction of the path Washington is going. I think it goes beyond the failed Obama Presidency but the Bush Presidency as well. We've seen meager job and economic growth over the past two presidencies. Many in the middle and the lower class have seen household income and net worth stagnate, if not drop, while healthcare costs continue to skyrocket despite the ACA. Full-time, secure jobs are harder to come by and the labor force participation rate has dropped to levels we haven't seen since the '70's. The perception is if anyone has advanced during the Obama "recovery", it's the already wealthy, that the government is responsive chiefly to them. Government seems increasingly dysfunctional. There is a sense of fatigue in the electorate with the sense that political powers that be want a Bush/Clinton II rematch from 1992. There has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House or Senate from 1980 through 2012 (I'm counting VP or Cabinet as part of the White House). To a certain sense, professional politicians are coming across as the same old same old. To these voters, the Outsiders (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina) represent change in a change election year. In particular, Trump is well-known as a celebrity, and to a number of people, his billionaire wealth seems to suggest he is free of corrupting influence. His confidence and blunt plain-spoken truth is appealing, given the empty promises and high-sounding rhetoric coming out of DC. If anything, the fact that Trump has been able to stave off politically correct attacks and reports of GOP establishment forces are out to get him seems to reinforce his appeal. His anti-immigrant policies and labor/trade protectionism appeal to economically insecure blue collar workers. They identify with his battle against the elites.
Let me say that I wholly disagree with the pro-Trump perspective discussed in the last paragraph. I don't see Trump as the victim of the media or being treated unfairly. I know that he manipulates the circumstances to his advantage and tries to define his opponents. For Trump, being attacked by the condescending media, the GOP establishment, the elites, etc., is not a problem but a solution (i.e., "it's not a bug: it's a feature"). He knows that his base does not identify with his critics and cheers on his putting their common adversaries in their place. Like Palin, he has a talent for red meat politics, has charisma and knows how to exploit the media to his advantage. His audience has no interest or patience for policy nuance; he tells them that running a government is a natural extension of his being able to run a successful business (never mind those 4 business bankruptcies) He taps into economic security themes, notes his success in creating jobs in the private sector, and claims that he will be able to use trade and government policies to resource jobs back to America. He assures his followers with their help, he will restore America to greatness.
To a certain extent, I think the birth of the Trump campaign arose from the 2008 campaign. Of course, Trump had seen how Obama, a charismatic lightly-experienced, unaccomplished senator, inspire a left-populist movement. He saw how McCain paradoxically (while arguing experience over Obama) picked a poorly-vetted charismatic obscure first-term Alaskan governor whose credibility was shattered by media interviews--but whose rallies, with red meat attacks, were outdrawing those for her running mate. Trump also saw a self-financing Romney, despite notorious flip-flops (e.g., abortion) on video from past Massachusetts campaigns, had won 11 west-central and northeastern states, the runner-up when he withdrew after Super Tuesday, and, of course, he captured the nomination in 2012. So the lessons learned were: (1) the GOP sucks at vetting candidates; (2) consistency on issues is not disqualifying; (3) populist pitches work.
Now, to a weird extent, the two major parties have swapped major positions: the Federalists, followed by the Whigs, and then the GOP tended to favor a strong federal government, protectionist policies (including high tariffs), national banks, and internal improvements (infrastructure), The Republican-Democrats, later Democrats, favored the opposite: more state rights, low tariffs and free trade, no national banks; infrastructure spending was seen as favoring the industrial Northeast, while much tariff revenue was collected in the South.
I don't want to oversimplify but the Democrats through the nineteenth century built a coalition including unions and farmers; populists rose to challenge the big businesses or trusts of the day, including the Northeast bankers. Sound money policies and deflation were seen as favoring the moneyed interests, the creditors holding farmer loans. There had been depressions and recessions with impacts on employment. The Federal Reserve was created with certain government guarantees and checks against moneyed interests under President Wilson; in the decades that followed, the Fed was charged (in addition to the currency stability), the full employment mandate. The GOP continued to favor high tariffs, at least through the Hoover Administration. Even George W. Bush tried to protect the domestic steel industry against alleged dumping. But it's the GOP which has tended to embrace liberalized economic principles of free markets and trade (e.g., giving Obama fast track authority), localist policies (e.g., block grants to the states), sound money (auditing the Fed and/or reducing its mandates).
Today's Democrats have largely abandoned the Jeffersonian principles, linked itself to the workers in contrast to business interests, and if you want to point at a specific inflection point, you can look at William Jennings Bryan's pro-inflation "Cross of Gold" speech in 1896, which sharply contrasted with more the incumbent, classically liberal/conservative Grover Cleveland. Democrats tend to oppose free trade and liberalized immigration (e.g., temporary guest workers), audits of the Fed, even ending the crony Export-Import Bank. (These positions have more to do with labor protectionism and sustaining aggregate demand). Jeffersonian localism has been replaced by a centralized, ever-expanding welfare state.
Now it's difficult to establish what should be a Republican orthodoxy; for example, there often have been different factions within the GOP (especially during the Civil War to 1932, except for the Wilson Presidency), such as the progressives and pro-business conservatives in the early 20th century;. [Factionalism is inevitable within a dominant party system like the Republican-Democrats by the 1820's and the post-Civil War GOP.] Hoover himself considered himself a progressive a decade after Teddy Roosevelt fought Taft for the 1912 nomination and ran a separate campaign, splitting the vote against Wilson. To a certain extent, GOP progressives differentiated themselves from other progressives or conservatives through a more business-efficient approach to governance, less morally hazardous public policy (e.g., work requirements for welfare distributions), focus on Main Street vs. Wall Street, small farms, etc.
Generally the GOP has aligned itself with business interests and the professional/middle class, farmers, small businesses, military veterans and a more assertive military, and more pietistic (vs. liturgical) Christians (who tended to promote moral principles into public policy, e.g., Prohibition).
So what does this mean for the Trump candidacy? Trump's conversion to the GOP is suspect for a variety of reasons. In 1999 he switched from GOP to Independence, then in 2001 to the Democrats, in 2009 back to the GOP, then in late 2011 he dropped party registration, only to come back to the GOP in 2012 a few weeks later. On top of that, he endorsed Obama in 2008, has contributed to Clinton's Senate campaigns, even supporting former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's mayoral campaign in Chicago. His position on universal healthcare contradicts a consistent GOP position for decades, He supports federal subsidies for Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that money is fungible and most of us oppose subsidies (regardless of one's position on abortion) as corrupt. His nativist position of immigration is out of step with the party's tradition since Lincoln himself rejected the Know Nothings of his time.
His Statist threats against Carrier, Ford and others are against the GOP's historic support of business. His anti-trade rhetoric is out of step of trade liberalization support for decades. His off-the-chart negatives may have implications up and down the party ballot.
The GOP could risk schism with Trump at the top of the ticket. Clearly the party needs to do a better job vetting its candidates.
I believe that the GOP can broaden its appeal through a more consistent pro-liberty perspective. I see major conceptual issues that GOP conservatives have to come to grips with, including but not restricted to:
- an inconsistency of Big Defense and activist policy with the principles of fiscal and social conservatism.
- the conflict of immigration restrictions with limited government
- the nature and extent of domestic security vs. individual liberty
