Bring the Coffin, Trump Has Just About Killed the GOP

He has devoured the party's core issues


Tump Mouth
Todd Krainin

Many conservatives and even libertarians had been telling themselves that Donald Trump's unprincipled and self-serving populism wouldn't doom the GOP's alleged commitment to limited government, free markets, and competition. But within six short weeks after assuming office, Trump has proven them decisively wrong. He has taken the party's core issues and beaten them like a piñata so that they have no recognizable form any more.

Those who doubt that should look at my column at The Week, where I point out just five areas on which Trump has forced the GOP to either reverse itself or become so quiet as to effectively abandon them. These include not just immigration and trade but also government spending, entitlement reform and foreign policy. "Sure, there is some overlap between Trump's and the GOP's pet issues, such as tax cuts, regulatory reform, and ObamaCare repeal," I note. "But these are no longer embedded in any high-minded fidelity to limited government—just a vulgar populism."

But what I don't get into in the column is that Trump has accomplished all this even before he formally gets started on his pledge to transform the GOP—that happens to have spent the last two decades passing Right to Work laws in states to destroy labor unions—into a Worker's Party, a la the neo-reactionary parties in Europe. Once he gets going on that, in addition to embracing restrictionisim and protectionism, the GOP will also start hailing minimum wage laws, beating up on companies that pay their workers less than the Czar wants, more social insurance programs for American workers, unemployment benefits, etc.

So anyone who wants to write requiems to the GOP, might as well begin now.

Go here to view the piece.

NEXT: Supreme Court Punts Transgender Bathroom Case Back Down

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow. Can she get dumberer?

    1. The dumb ones are those who think she’s wrong about the GOP. James Traficant might find a home in today’s GOP.

      1. And Carter, Clinton, and half of the Democrat’s congressional delegation from the 1990’s would not be welcomed in today’s socialist Democratic Party. You’re point? Other than defending fascist Shikha?

        1. You’re an idiot. Obama was the foremost proponent of free trade in the US just two months ago. Are Dems fractured? Of course. But the administration put a FTA that cut 18,000 tariffs on US goods.

          1. Obama was the foremost proponent of free trade in the US just two months ago

            Okay, but the rest of us live in THIS timeline, which is substantially darker.

          2. Obama was the foremost proponent of free trade in the US just two months ago.

            If you think the TPP was “Free Trade” you’re a moron. But everyone already knew that.

            while everyone refers to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement as a “free trade” agreement, the reality is that there’s very little in there that’s actually about free trade. If it were truly a free trade agreement, then there would be plenty of reasons to support it. But the details show it’s not, and yet, time and time again, we see people supporting the TPP because “well, free trade is good.” The Washington Post, for example, pushed out a ridiculous editorial arguing that the TPP is cause for celebration because it will “slash tariffs and harmonize regulatory regimes.”

            But it’s that “harmonizing regulatory regimes” thing where the real nastiness lies, and where you quickly discover that most of the key factors in the TPP are not at all about free trade, but the opposite. It’s about as protectionist as can be. That’s mainly because of the really nasty corprorate sovereignty clauses in the agreement (which are officially called “investor state dispute settlement” or ISDS in an attempt to make it sound so boring you’ll stop paying attention). Those clauses basically allow large incumbents to force the laws of countries to change to their will….

            1. Bullshit. ISDS has been around for decades and in every FTA. That is the Liz Warren – Bernie Sanders argument against TPP.

              1. in every “Trade Agreement” you mean.

                You keep wanting to pretend that people who endorse crony-tastic and regulation laden trade bills are Free Trade proponents.

                Because you’re a fucking retard.

                sure there are some similarities with Bernie + Warren. In this case they occasionally happen to be right for the wrong reasons. Cato endorsed TPP, but also said it sure as shit wasn’t “Free Trade”. FEE sums up the same points here.

                (none of this is for your benefit, because you’re a retard; its for people reading along)

          3. That was a terribly asinine remark. I expect nothing less.

    2. Thanks to Shikia, I RENEWED my subscription! I’m so glad that Reason is sticking to sanity rather than blindly following the Heil Hoppe brigade and the nazi-tarians.

      1. Heil Hoppe brigade

        tha fuck?

        1. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a white supremacist who frequently writes for neo-Nazi journals in Europe, and one of the saints of the Rockwellian wing of the libertarian movement, primarily on the basis of his claiming that anarchism means never having to say you’re sorry for promoting institutionalized racism.

  2. Those who doubt that should look at my column at The Week


    1. Not a chance.

  3. GOP and limited government?

    1. Yeah, I’m eagerly awaiting the long list of recent Republicans who delivered on any of that.

      1. How eager we talking, friendo? Like, I can’t wait to renew my driver’s license eager, or like Nice, it’s time for my colonoscopy eager…

        1. “Awake nasal intubation” eager.

          1. “Hot butterscotch enema” eager.

  4. By the way, plenty of us noticed that the GOP’s alleged commitment to limited government, free market and competition was plenty doomed by the last several decades of GOP actions.

  5. Not sure if serious…

    The gop is a political party that wants to be in charge. They are currently in charge. Saying he has killed the gop at this point is silly

    If it turns out like what happened to dems under barry then maybe i can agree

    1. It seems she’s referring to the party as a bearer of a reasonably consistent set of governing principles.

      I think Trump merely exploited a party that had long ago adopted nihilism and expediency over any principles.

      1. Goddammit, i hate agreeing with Tony about something. Fuck!

        1. I knows yer pain.

      2. So yah mean like democrats?

        1. I mean shut the fuck up you ridiculous imbecile.

      3. I agree with Comrade X. Fuck having to agree with Tony.

        1. This is bullshit. This whole day is BULLSHIT. [shakes Fist]

          1. You shouldn’t shake a child

            /snark at FoE

            1. Eugene isn’t a child, he’s just really short and immature.

      4. It seems she’s referring to the party as a bearer of a reasonably consistent set of governing principles.

        It never was that.

        I think Trump merely exploited a party that had long ago adopted nihilism and expediency over any principles.

        So he could have gone through either major party then.

        1. False equivalence is the intellectual harbor of morons.

          1. LOL. Ok, Sir Not-A-Moron. You’re claiming that the Dems have a consistent set of governing principles and adhere to them rather than adopting nihilism and expediency?

            The two parties aren’t equivalent, but to say that one of them values some body of principles over winning elections is just pure delusion.

          2. Not as much as falsely claiming there to be a false equivalence.

    2. As far as I can tell, the GOP’s core issue is “we’re not Democrats.”

      1. True, but they still offer more meat for us than the Democrats will in the foreseeable future. Dalmia makes it sound like they’re tuning into this.

      2. Yep, that’s been the Republicans’ historical model.

    3. The gop is a political party that wants to be in charge. They are currently in charge.

      Reports of the GOP’s death are greatly exaggerated

      Republicans added to their historic 2014 gains in the nation’s state legislatures with the addition of five state House chambers and two state Senate chambers in last week’s election, while Democratic control was reduced to levels not seen since the Civil War.

      Republicans are now in control of a record 67 (68 percent) of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers in the nation, more than twice the number (31) in which Democrats have a majority….

      “That’s more than at any other time in the history of the Republican Party,” according to NCSL. “They also hold more total seats, well over 4,100 of the 7,383, than they have since 1920.”

      Next year, the GOP will control both legislative chambers in 32 states – an all-time high, according to NCSL – while Democrats will have total control of just 13 state legislatures.

      In 24 of the 32 states with Republican-controlled legislatures, voters have also elected Republican governors. In contrast, Democrats have a “political trifecta” in just six states.

      Shikha seems to think that “changing rhetorical postures” = some sea-change in political reality. She’s an idiot.

      1. 2019 Shitka (when the republicans have 65 Senators, 300 Reps, 40 Governorships and 4/5ths of state legislative bodies) – “The republicans have gone too far now and have no where to go but down.”

  6. Oh, she would be all wet and creamy if this is truly the case….

  7. Bring the Coffin, Dalmia Has Just About Killed Reason’s Credibility.

    1. The GOP has plenty of mouthpieces on the Internet don’t you think? Why do you insist that reason be one of them?

      1. Thank you for the idiot non-sequitur Tony, but the children’s table is over there.

        1. Half of these commentators are in the same boat with her. I think it’s fair to say that Reason mainly draws from the same ‘libertarians’ who love Elizabeth Warren.

        2. What, he doesn’t get a crayon?

          1. Crayons are for closers.

        3. You don’t like her because she doesn’t make exceptions to human liberty that your quasi white-supremacist worldview would make, in line with the Republican party’s current platform, no?

          1. Liz likes top down decrees for running economy. That isnt libertarian in any sense

            1. Agreed, but read some of these comments and tell me that I’m wrong

          2. Again, thank you for the idiot non-sequitur Tony, but you’re an ignoramus who has no idea what you’re actually talking about and would rather scream ‘racist!’ at me like a child.

            We get it, you are stupid. No need to justify it further.

          3. That’s a bit rich coming from Reason’s resident racist.

          4. she doesn’t make exceptions to human liberty

            except when someone bashes the fash, of course

    2. I honestly don’t mind Shikha’s writing too much.

      I do think she went too far in trying to justify the Berkeley rioters.

      But on the whole, I’m glad she is writing for Reason. I would hope that a place that is dedicated to libertarianism would have writers who approach it from many different perspectives and not just a right-centric view.

      1. I dont have a problem with different perspectives but she is a terrible writer like the recent compare immigration policy to slavery in the south

        1. Exactly. There’s a difference between ‘providing different perspectives’ and being a hack. Dalmia is a hack.

          1. You’re pretty harsh on hacks. Dummia is worse b/c she is also self-righteous and hysterical.

            1. she is also self-righteous and hysterical

              Basically a female Paul Krugman.

          2. “Exactly. There’s a difference between ‘providing different perspectives’ and being a hack disagreeing with me. Dalmia is a hack disagrees with me.”

            Waaaahhh! Reason won’t confirm my biases!!!!

            1. Dalmia has repeatably shown that she doesn’t do proper research, her citations are often poor or actually argue the opposite of what she suggests, is entirely ignorant of topics she discusses and blatantly lies to create sensationalist and dishonest narratives.

              I’m sorry that I have these things called ‘standards’ and you don’t.

          3. I need a ruling. Is it DDS or SDS?
            DDS sounds like DDT and that’s what Shikha is to Reason’s remaining Republicans.
            Then again, SDS sounds like SIDS, and Reason’s remaining Republicans are acting like colicky infants on the verge of death these days, so…

      2. I do think she went too far in trying to justify the Berkeley rioters.

        Hence why she is not a libertarian, and do not confuse her work with a dedication to libertarianism.

        But on the whole, I’m glad she is writing for Reason.

        Then you support blatant, pathological lying. I’ve seen idiotic articles by Dalmia where she sources something that actually supports the exact opposite of what she claims. Even if you, for some idiotic reason agreed with her 100%, she’s actively delegitimizing to your beliefs because she’s so bad at her job.

        1. You’re getting hysterical now. Go to your safe place. There are recipes!

          1. You’re quite the boring, sad little cunt DanO. Get a new script, this one’s predictable.

            1. Ooh, the C-word! Johnny’s getting angry!

              1. You are confusing anger with pity.

        2. I’ve seen idiotic articles by Dalmia where she sources something that actually supports the exact opposite of what she claims.

          If true, then she IS the female Paul Krugman.

      3. Er, that shit she pulled over Berkeley is more than enough to toss her.

      4. “I honestly don’t mind Shikha’s writing too much.”

        My shock face. See it.

      5. chemjeff|3.6.17 @ 12:22PM|#

        I honestly don’t mind Shikha’s writing too much.

        Yeah, but you’re a nevertrumper who showed up just a few months ago. Why wouldn’t you mind her writing?

      6. She calls herself a progressive libertarian, so of course her doctrine will never be pure enough to make everyone happy.

        But I agree, I think there’s value in reading the more progressive-leaning arguments on this site sometimes, even if they challenge my beliefs. Reason usually provides at least one more conservative-leaning argument to balance things out. Take, for example, the most recent scandal over Shikha’s deportation/slavery analogy. Reason ran a really good podcast where the anti-immigration case was made solely using facts and numbers, something I think most people here appreciate.

        1. Progressive libertarian?

          There can be no such thing.

          Progressives are hard core statists. That is totally antithetical to libertarianism.

          1. Exactly. No such thing. Just like people who call themselves ‘communist-libertarian’. Which is completely retarded and shows how out to lunch the left is when it comes to what constitutes liberty.

          2. Presumably progressive libertarianism is the flip side of the type of libertarianism in which you can squeeze out a few drops of justification for why it’s OK to spend trillions of dollars to keep the brown people out.

      7. I would hope that a place that is dedicated to libertarianism would have writers who approach it from many different perspectives and not just a right-centric view.

        None of Reason’s writers are with the Republican rank and file on immigration or trade.

    3. Why are you here then, John? Besides trolling I mean. Wouldn’t a genuine free-markets libertarian leave if he were unhappy with the product? That’s a rhetorical question. Because you are just a troll now. Begone.

      1. What are you, some kind of anti-Canadianite?

      2. Hmmm, I wonder why DanO’s rhetoric is so remarkably similar to a certain obsessive, mentally ill troll’s.

  8. Everybody get up it’s time to slam now
    We got a real jam goin’ down
    Welcome to the Trump Slam
    Here’s your chance do your dance at the Trump Slam

    Come on and slam and welcome to GOP-land
    Come on and slam if you want to, fam.

  9. They still have abortion.

    1. Trump is pro-abortion. He has never hidden that fact. The evangelical wing of the GOP just sort of ignored it after James Dobson enthusiastically endorsed him. But just want until abortion pops up on the national debate again, Republicans are either going to be shocked SHOCKED at Trump’s stance, or Trump will just stay silent because he knows who butters his bread.

      1. He could stay silent by saying it’s not a federal issue. I know presidents are expected to opine on everything under the sun but maybe that’s another ritual he can shitcan.

  10. But what I don’t get into in the column“- something remotely resembling a point that makes sense?

  11. Shikha looks up from the cosmotarian toilet bowl and thinks it’s the world that’s spinning.

    1. Hey, someone sounds a little jealous.

  12. Republicans were never seriously about limited government in the first place. Trump just revealed the big lie.

    1. They are for limited government….compared to the dems. But overall not so much

      1. Except for the fact that they spend more money by the trillions and mostly on completely useless things.

          1. Like the already bloated military and grants to local cops, shit like that.

        1. The gop isnt pushing more regs, more taxation, free college, singlepayer, 15 min wage, carbon taxes.

          While they are similar to dems on war making and things like the drug war and even immigration as barry set the deportation record

          Then there are things like gig economy and yes means yes where the dems come off as conservative christians

          1. You’re not very bright, are you?

            Just since 2001 the GOP has pushed Sarbanes-Oxley, Medicare Welfare Part D, TARP, housing gifts of $10,000 for each first time homebuyer, the PATRIOT Act, whole new departments like DHS, and so on.

            1. Which the Democrats were on board for or pushing harder than the GOP (DHS comes to mind as an example of pushing harder. Bush did not propose it as a separate department.).

    2. This. The last sixty years of Republicans have obliterated any claim of a grander ‘limited government’ party, especially post-Goldwater.

    3. Republicans were never seriously about limited government in the first place.

      +1 Party of Lincoln.

  13. And now come the Demognats to buzz around the midden heap. It’s the Red Meat they’re after…

  14. Seriously? What is this 2015? Why the fuck publish this when there’s literally hundreds of carbon copies of the same crap all over the Internet?

    Team Red loves Donald. This just further reinforces that study showing that leftists don’t understand conservatives at all.

    1. It’s also weird that she’s writing an article about her own, just published, article. Why not just have Reason use that? Probably just trying to get clicks.

      1. Why does it bother you so much?

        1. Just confused is all.

  15. Whats funny is the gop was non existent in congress practically from like 1930 to mid 1990s with some scattered gop potus in there

    The gop controlling congress is relatively new. I think it shows how far left dems have gone

    Progs dont seem to know that free college and single payer healthcare, daycare, carbon taxes didnt really exist before and act like it was taken away by neo libs and reagan starting in 1981

    1. The welfare state has gotten bigger and bigger not smaller like they claim

  16. “Go here to view the piece.”


    And I don’t respond to commands.

  17. Tony how do you handle the contradiction of progressives whining about an oligarchy when progressivism leads to exactly that as it is top down rule by expert.

    Just curious

    1. If anything they want to be the oligarchs

  18. I don’t care much for SDs style, but she’s not wrong here.

    I feel it’s been touched on in the comments that the GOP was into principles when they had nothing to lose. Now that they are in power they are consolidating for political expediency. Just like the bush years it just shows that they lied the whole time about being “conservative” in any non-culture war sense of the word.

    But I do wonder since SD is a one-issue writer if she would be all MAGA were trump an open borders guy.

    1. Did’t most of the Republicans give up on “conservative” back around 2000? Other than a handful of tea-party nut cases, I don’t remember anyone flying the conservative banner in almost 20 years.

  19. Tony what is your background in climate science?

    1. Well, no one I’ve ever seen is more well versed in hot air than he, so I guess that counts for something….

  20. But I do wonder since SD is a one-issue writer if she would be all MAGA were trump an open borders guy.

    I think you’re being generous calling her a one-issue writer.

    1. @Texasmotiv above.

  21. He’s also done a number on the Democrats. But that is nothing compared to what Obama managed.

    He got them to be pro-war …. pro undeclared war at that. Oh, and pro surveillance state. He even got them to be in favor of wire-tapping the Associated Press in order to ferret out sources. Really. That’s quite a trick. Oh, and remember the kill list? Remember how the Democrats were all up in arms that he had a secret kill list? Yeah, me neither. And drone attacks on sovereign nations….. remember how the Democrats were against that? Oh, yeah… that was Rand Paul. He’s not a Democrat, is he?

    You know, I’m starting to suspect that this “imperial presidency” thing is a bad idea. The two parties don’t seem to be able to hold on to any semblance of their identity in the face of an imperial president of their own party.

  22. Why on earth would Dalmia be discussing Republicanism with a roomful of libert–


  23. For a brief moment, Reagan stirred echoes of Goldwater but then he picked silk-stocking Rockefeller Republican Chauncey Bush as his running mate and I realized the echoes were just the hollow sound of a door slamming shut. The GOP might be dead if Trump had lost to Hillary, but now it’s alive and kicking up its heels, flashing glimpses of the scandalously progressive big-government underwear its got on under that prim and proper conservative dress. Give it six months or so and another couple of drinks at the open government bar and the dress is coming off.

    1. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

  24. Titor hardest hit.

  25. Control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and absolute control of so many state legislatures, they can almost call a constitutional convention without the help of a single Democrat vote.

    For the GOP to be any better off, they might have to start running for offices in Canada.

  26. He has devoured the party’s core issues

    I’d say he’s right in line with the party from economic protectionism to “law & order” positions. Team Red was founded as the party of mercantilism and the party of mercantilism they remain.

  27. So a committed leftist who hates the GOP and has never supported it thinks that Trump has devoured and destroyed the party.

    Concern troll is concerned I guess.

  28. Did reason ever once put up an unflattering picture of Obama? I can’t recall them doing so. Can anyone else? Any links to such?

    1. The sissy-riding-a-bike picture?

    2. They always used that picture where Obama has a goofy, supercilious expression.

      Not flattering, but not a picture of just his mouth.

  29. Trump Has Just About Killed the GOP

    So much winning! How will the GOP ever stand it?

  30. “So anyone who wants to write requiems to the GOP, might as well begin now.”
    Meh. Every two years political commentators have been foretelling the imminent downfall of the GOP or the Democrats or both. So far, it hasn’t happened yet.

    So sure, eventually it’ll happen (heat death of the universe, if nothing else), but if I made a bet every year on whether the GOP/Democrats would be around in a year, I’d always bet on them being around. Because at worst, I’ll lose one year. But every year until then I’ll win. Expected Value is pretty clear.

  31. Shika is truly a moron. She has no idea what conservative concerns are or how they are playing out. Her list doesn’t include any Conservative core issue. They are: Tax reform and reduction (both individual and corporate), spending reform and reduction – generally reducing the size and scope of government, and its involvement in our lives.

    On all of these issues, Trump is actually far to the right of most Congressional Republicans. Either Trump will pull them along to actually fulfill their campaign promises on these issues – or the party will split with Trump. Cruz, and Paul leading the right-wing of the party.

  32. So Trump is what 45 days in office and he’s killed the Republicans? He’s auditing the government, nominating a Conservative judge and looking to change the tax code and reduce regulations.

    Yes, I know Shika hates his immigrant stance. But as a conservative what more can you want at this point? Yes, entitlement reform would be great but how much can you do right away.

    Honestly, I wanted to Trump to win for a few reasons (besides the above) – 1) Hillary is so corrupt that even James Traficant even says damn. 2) He speaks back against PC. He’s not trying to not piss off anyone like other politicians, 3) The media would do their job again.

    Alas for number 2 he could be more tightly wond..3..well who knew the media would snap and cry. So much winning.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.