Trumpism, Conservatism, and the Republican Party (In Conclusion)

This series of posts ended up being quite a bit longer than I'd intended; when I made the original post a week ago I didn't think I'd be writing a lot more. But it turns out that the thesis of this series was worth exploring in some depth (or at least what passes for depth on a blog). For this post I'm going to eschew a summary (go read the other posts!) and instead just offer some parting thoughts.

The Democratic party and the nation as a whole is fortunate that the first candidate to speak directly to this sense of white ethnic anxiety is such a buffoon. Trump's combination of incompetence and ignorance almost certainly mean his candidacy is doomed; as of this writing Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls seems to be approaching double-digit margins. But we should not imagine that Trump's upcoming defeat means the defeat of Trumpism; I expect that the political movement he represents will endure. The Republican party is--like the Democratic party--a collection of factions and interest groups, but I expect that the Trumpist faction will remain the dominant faction in the coming years.

The coalition that propelled Donald Trump to victory in the Republican primaries and which provides the core of his diminishing support today will not go away. His base of white voters motivated by ethnic anxiety stemming from the changing face of the country is going nowhere. Furthermore, having now had a candidate that speaks openly to their concerns, these voters are not likely to be satisfied with a return to the dog-whistling that characterized previous Republican candidates' attempts to court them. They will almost certainly demand a candidate that will continue to address them openly, and in 2020 there will almost certainly be a Republican candidate who attempts to ride the Trumpist coalition to victory in the primaries. If I might butcher an old principle of economics: in politics, demand creates its own supply. And it's likely such a candidate--perhaps Ted Cruz (who I believe has not a single political principle beyond his own advancement)--will have a strong chance of being the party's nominee, by exploiting the politics of white anxiety and resentment while also managing to run a disciplined and even formidable campaign. This country is deeply divided; despite being manifestly incompetent and unsuited for the role of President, Donald Trump will almost certainly receive at least forty to forty-five percent of the popular vote.

The challenge we face as liberals is to grapple with this reality, and find a way to grapple with these voters. Some commenters (such as Chris Arnade, who is worth following) maintain that Trumpism is still best understood as having its origins in the economic conditions facing the middle class. And while it's possible that some of Trump's supporters are motivated by stagnating wages and an increasingly unstable economic position, they are generally not those for whom the economy truly has failed. Rather, Trump's voters seem to be white people who sit a few rungs up the economic ladder. And to judge them by their own words (instead of by inferences about their economic circumstances), these voters are primarily motivated by ethnic concerns: issues like immigration and political correctness. In my mind, these are not people who liberals can appeal to, not without abandoning the principles of inclusiveness and diversity that motivate the party.

It seems that I've been a bit of a trailblazer with these posts, several commentators have spent the past few days discussing the nature of Trump's support. Matt Yglesias makes the same point that I do. James Kwak thinks Yglesias is going too far, but I find his reasoning to be unpersuasive. On Twitter, Brian Beutler more or less agrees with Yglesias and I. And Kevin Drum has a typically level-headed take. While I'm sure the discussion will continue online, for the purposes of this blog I'm done and moving on to other areas i'm more interested in.