In 2026, Republicans Will Have To Decide What Comes After Trump
Is the party heading deeper into the right wing fever swamps?
The Republican Party that I joined in the 1980s (and later left) espoused a straightforward set of principles. It believed in free markets, limited government, peace through strength in dealing with international aggressors, and "traditional" values. Sure, the last one was nebulous and the party often was hypocritical, but these core ideas were the key to its eventual resurgence.
One of its leading lights, former NFL quarterback Jack Kemp, was described by The New York Times as someone who "brought more zeal to America's poverty problems than any national politician since Robert Kennedy…the only official to have won standing ovations in black ghettos by calling for a capital gains tax cut." Kemp, like Ronald Reagan, exuded authenticity. Despite their flaws, these serious big-hearted men truly believed in classic American ideals.
In his farewell address, President Reagan, often called the Great Communicator, was characteristically humble: "I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation." Conservatives in the media were mostly about exploring weighty ideas, as any perusal of William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Firing Line" archive reveals.
Engaging in nostalgia is a hazard of growing older, but one need not be misty-eyed to compare that Grand Old Party to the current freak show. Sure, Democrats were pretty awful during that era (and embraced views surprisingly common in Republican circles today) and largely remain so, but the GOP was the voice of sanity. With the GOP's dark and nasty pivot, advocates for those age-old ideals have nowhere to turn.
We've become numb to narcissistic rage posts from our president, but the highly publicized Turning Point USA convention last week offers a preview into where the Republican Party is going after Donald Trump exits the stage. It's not pretty. As we've seen recently in other squabbles within the conservative movement, the fireworks centered on the rhetoric of some conspiracy minded—but highly popular—right-wing personalities. TPUSA had it all: in-fighting, name-calling and innuendo.
In the old days, the conservative movement tried to police itself, as it shoved authoritarians and conspiracy theorists to the sidelines. Buckley took on the John Birch Society, which in its zealous anti-communism argued the United States government was controlled by communists. Standing up to the Evil Empire was a core part of conservative philosophy, but Buckley realized that allowing the fever swamps to engulf his movement only tarnished that goal.
Some critics argue Buckley wasn't all that successful, but he was successful enough to keep the party from becoming what it has become now—where reasonable voices are drowned out by the likes of Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. If there are no adults in charge—and the party's leader acts like a toddler, as he savages his foes in petty tantrums, renames buildings after himself and adds insulting White House plaques below the portraits of former presidents—then the whole trashy movement will one day be heaved into the dumpster.
Those recent controversies, however, show the movement's problem isn't solely the result of a body rotting from the head down. At the TPUSA event, the main fireworks were between commentators Ben Shapiro and Carlson over the latter's puff interview with far-right "Groyper" Fuentes. Shapiro said the slain leader of TPUSA, Charlie Kirk, "knew that Nick Fuentes is an evil troll, and that building him up is an act of moral imbecility, and that is precisely what Tucker Carlson did." Carlson tried to make it a free speech issue, with Vice President J.D. Vance siding with a big Republican tent that won't de-platform its fringe voices.
Sadly, Shapiro and the relatively traditional Republicans seem to be walking the plank. A recent public-opinion survey from the conservative Manhattan Institute found 37% of Republicans believe the Holocaust was exaggerated or didn't happen as historians describe it and 41% believe the 9-11 attacks were "likely orchestrated or permitted by the U.S. government." Meanwhile, the party has mostly abandoned those Reagan-era views, as the administration chooses tariffs over markets, promotes an unrestrained federal government, blames Ukraine for its invasion and embraces a brooding, pessimistic vision.
Now many Republicans support the concept of a Heritage American, where those with ancestry closer to the founding are more American than later arrivals. It's a natural outgrowth of the GOP's new values. "Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism and other racial and ethnic prejudices," wrote law professor Ilya Somin in The Unpopulist. That's because it replaces the "universalist liberal principles of the American Founding" with its "zero-sum worldview … under which one ethnic or racial group can only gain at the expense of others."
There's no returning to the past, but perhaps in the post-Trump scuffle some GOP leaders will emerge who rediscover the basics of our founding. As Reagan said, "the eyes of mankind are on us."
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
So let me see if I got that straight ...
"commentators Ben Shapiro and Carlson over the latter's puff interview with far-right "Groyper" Fuentes" which was a dispute over Fuentes racist remarks being so-wrong Carlson shouldn't have even interviewed him is why the right-wing is now Nazi-Favoring National racists?
Please learn the meaning of the word 'contradiction'.
Maybe the right-wing isn't all those things by your very evidence presented.
Gosh this is like those fact-checkers that provide all the evidence to defeat their own ruling.
Fuentes is a great boogeyman for the left, but he carries next to no influence on the right. He's the left's George Soros, but he doesn't do shit to actually help or influence the right.
Which is funny because soros literally is a nazi that would rat out jews that were hiding
I’m thinking it’s New York City that went deeper into the “fever swamp”.
"Trump exits the stage"...
Wait, isn't there still time for a constitutional amendment? Can't we train an AI to take office and act Trumpy forever?
Personally, I think we need new political parties. Or none, as the founders intended.
To a great extent the economy can be divided into an intangible economy (finance, law, software, much media, etc.) where the employees are almost all college educated, most work is done in front of a screen, and there is little reliance upon blue collar workers. Then there is the tangible economy (construction, agriculture, resource extraction, etc.) which is heavily reliant on blue collar workers though the managers are generally college educated, often with technical degrees.
The Democrats have become the party of the intangible economy and Republicans are the party of the tangible economy. Given the hostility of many people in the intangible economy towards industries in the tangible economy, blue collar workers, particularly white blue collar workers but with a growing number of minorities, aligned with their bosses in the interests of mutual survival. This alignment chafes some, and there are disagreements as to priorities, and most bosses would probably be happier with a Romney than a Trump, but we'll have to see how it works out in the long run.
Long run, things appear to be shifting the Republicans way, especially as population migration and electoral votes continue to shift from blue to red states. In the short run, Trump fatigue could give the Democrats a shot at electing a real wing nut like Gavin Newsom.
It might be a good strategy for the GOP for Trump to "step down" due to "health" problems after the midterms so that the post-Trump reset could begin before the presidential election.
"Long run, things appear to be shifting the Republicans way,"
I'm not so sure. If the Democratic base is American white collar types, and the Republican base is blue collar, that's going to be a problem. When the blue collar is increasingly robots, migrants from south of the border or off shored workers in China, well none of them can vote.
There has been a dramatic increase in unionization activity, which will strengthen the domestic blue collar voting constituency, but the GOP has a tradition of animosity to unions and may not benefit while the Democrats are more favorable.
waiting for the Reason write up on how much further left the far left Democrat cultist party can go after electing an America hating Socialist ruler for NYC
They haven't done much with street violence yet. Look for another 2020 style Summer of Mostly Peace next year.
Greenhut, your only examples of the Republicans being crazy is
1. Trump making fun of his political opponents
2. Arguments between Shapiro (an Isreal Forster), Candice Owen's (a psycho leftist), Fuentes (a person mainly propped up by the left), and tucker carlson(a guy that believes in potemka cities)
The thing is, Republicans allow open debate in the party. If you want totalitarian thought policing go become a Democrat.
Can you update the article to include actual policies and actions that back up your claim?
He did mention the Tariffs of the Week.
The thing is, Republicans allow open debate in the party. If you want totalitarian thought policing go become a Democrat.
I didn't read the article. Greenhut is too abjectly retarded for a person of even pretty low IQ to waste their time on. Maybe if you were stuck in Orange County without internet or any electronic devices, he's better than reading the ingredients off a food label. Even then, I'd say there's more innate benefit to knowing about what you're putting in your body.
The tone of the title, from a fake, Orange County Democrat posing as a libertarian reads like "Why haven't Republicans chosen their next top man already?" maybe even "Why haven't Republicans chosen their next top man so the DNC can get started on fabricating a Russian Hoax dossier on him yet?"
Schadenfreudiest part of the latter is that even in 2016, it would've been a bit parody, but after the brazenness and status quo amnesty and pardoning of the intervening years, why wouldn't they do that? Not exactly to say Trump has failed but if you can kill a million people with illegal GOF research and not wind up swinging from a lamppost, autopen you way through a Presidency, and put on the campaign that Harris/Walz did, complete with voting manipulation and then-known welfare fraud, and suffer nothing from the media besides "The CBS interview wasn't really *that* bad." why wouldn't you just pick someone slightly more charismatic and functional and do it all again?
A big part of the reason Greenhut and journalists scream "But TRUMP!" (or "But [INSERT NEXT GOP CANDIDATE]!") is deliberately to distract from their own ineptitude and malfeasance.
"Nationalism doesn't just historically correlate with bigotry—it consistently drives antisemitism"
Is this true for the nationalists in Isreal?
Where's Misek to explain to us that the Zionists are fake Jews?
Once again,
Either Greenhut is a fundamentally dishonest shitheel who will lie in order to compare himself favorably to George Washington, or he's retard who doesn't know the difference between feet and yards.
Either way, Reason should stop paying him to produce content (for them secondhand).
Why would I listen to a uniparty globalist explain the current state of American conservatives?
Might as well read BBQ reviews written by a vegan.