by
Victor Davis Hanson, 5/11/17, National
Review
If
Trumpism succeeds, it could replace mainstream Republicanism. The
Republican-party establishment is caught in an existential paradox.
Without
Donald Trump’s populist and nationalist 2016 campaign, the GOP probably would
not have won the presidency. Nor would Republicans now enjoy such lopsided
control of state legislatures and governorships, as well as majorities in the
House and Senate, and likely control of the Supreme Court for a generation.
So
are conservatives angry at the apostate Trump or indebted to him for helping
them politically when they were not able to help themselves?
For a
similar sense of the paradox, imagine if a novice outsider such as billionaire
entrepreneur Mark Cuban had captured the Democratic nomination and then won the
presidency — but did not run on either Bernie Sanders’s progressive
redistributionism, Barack Obama’s identity politics, or Hillary Clinton’s high
taxes and increased regulation. Would liberals be happy, conflicted, or
seething?
For
now, most Republicans are overlooking Trump’s bothersome character excesses —
without conceding that his impulsiveness and bluntness may well have
contributed to his success after Republican sobriety and traditionalism failed.
Republicans
concentrate on what they like in the Trump agenda — military spending
increases, energy expansion, deterrence abroad, tax and regulatory reform, and
the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act — and they ignore the
inherent contradictions between Trumpism and their own political creed. But
there are many fault lines that will loom large in the next few years.
Doctrinaire
conservatives believe that unfettered free trade is essential, even if it is sometimes
not fair or reciprocal. Establishment
Republicans (privately) argue that cheap imports into the U.S. at least kept
inflation low. If our trade partners dump state-subsidized products into the
U.S., it is to their long-term disadvantage, not ours.
In
this mainstream Republican view, the role of a superpower is to endure trade
deficits to help its less powerful allies and keep the global order prosperous
and stable. But Trump’s idea of “fair” trade trumps “free” trade.
Trump
is not willing to accept a permanent Midwest Rust Belt as the price of
globalization. If there are to be sacrificial lambs in world trade, for Trump
it is better that they reside in China, South Korea, and Germany, nations that
for a change can try finding any upside to running huge trade deficits. Unlike
doctrinaire Republicans, Trump believes that illegal immigration is a big — and
bad — deal.
The
Republican establishment’s employer argument is that illegal immigration
ensures that the sort of work “Americans won’t do” is actually done. Or, some
establishment Republicans believe that undocumented migrants who cross the
southern border will one day become conservative, “family values” voters.
Not
so Trumpism. It seeks to help the working class by stopping the importation of cheap
labor. It believes that secure borders will restore the sanctity of law, and
that the end of illegal immigration will lead to greater integration and
assimilation of Latino minority groups.
In
the long run, Mexico will be a better neighbor by not counting on impoverished
expatriates to prop up an often corrupt government in Mexico City and by
addressing the plight of its impoverished rather than exporting its poor.
Trumpism views the world abroad largely in terms of realist deterrence.
Outside
the West, the world is a mess, and it will probably not change — and cannot be
forced to change — because of American blood and treasure spent on trying to
replicate America abroad. Instead, Trumpism seems to want to deter rivals to
ensure a calm global order.
Trumpism
has no illusions that there will ever be a world of liberal democracies. It
seeks instead only to make sure enemies understand that any future aggression
will not be worth the anticipated benefits. As for dictators such as those in
the Philippines or Egypt, Trumpism argues that it makes little sense to snub
autocratic friends while cutting deals with autocratic enemies like those in
Iran or Cuba.
On
matters of identity politics, Republicans have often sought to play down but
not actively oppose racial, ethnic, and gender pressure groups. The strategy
has been to not antagonize the ethnic and race industries in hopes of receiving
a greater share of the minority vote.
Trump
is politically incorrect. He sees a person’s pocketbook, not his outward appearance,
as the key to his allegiance. Through deregulation, tax reform, immigration
reform, and fair trade, Trump hopes to help the economy grow by 3 percent each
year.
Such
economic growth has not happened in over a decade. But if Trumpism works, then prosperity
will supposedly unite Americans more than identity politics can divide them.
In
other words, Trump apparently believes that if he achieves 3 percent GDP growth
and avoids a major war abroad, his brand of economic nationalism, realist
deterrence, and America-first chauvinism will replace mainstream Republicanism.
If he
stalls the economy or gets into a quagmire abroad, then Trump will end up like
most other American populist mavericks — as an interesting footnote.
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/can-trump-successfully-remodel-the-gop/
No comments:
Post a Comment