National Archives file photo

Featured eBooks
Disaster Recovery and Resilience
Cloud Smarter
The Cybersecurity Challenge
Will Trump Destroy the Party of Reagan?

The rogue candidate threatens the coalition of social, economic, and foreign policy conservatives.

Ron­ald Re­agan is long gone, but for dec­ades Re­pub­lic­ans have con­tin­ued to revere his al­leg­or­ic­al three-legged stool: eco­nom­ic, so­cial, and for­eign policy con­ser­vat­ives, united as one to carry the party to vic­tory.

So what hap­pens when real­ity-TV star and self-styled “com­mon-sense con­ser­vat­ive” Don­ald Trump gets stew­ard­ship of the GOP? He in­sists that So­cial Se­cur­ity and Medi­care should be left un­altered, de­fends the non-abor­tion re­lated work of Planned Par­ent­hood, and calls NATO ob­sol­ete—thereby of­fend­ing all three ele­ments of the Re­agan trin­ity.

“He shat­ters the stool when he sits on it,” said Ari Fleis­cher, a top aide to former Pres­id­ent George W. Bush. “It’s bizarre, be­cause he has no prin­cipled, co­her­ent ideo­logy that we’re used to…. It cer­tainly won’t re­semble the stool any­more.”

What last au­tumn might have been an idle in­tel­lec­tu­al ex­er­cise is about to be­come, at least for “move­ment” con­ser­vat­ives, an ur­gent ques­tion. In as little as two months, Trump may well be the pre­sumptive pres­id­en­tial nom­in­ee and tit­u­lar head of the party of Re­agan.

“At the most ba­sic level, this is a party that be­lieved it had a good shot at keep­ing the House and the Sen­ate and win­ning the White House,” said Ramesh Pon­nuru of the con­ser­vat­ive Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute. “With him as the nom­in­ee, we have a shot at los­ing all three. So yes, I think it would be ser­i­ous trouble.”

For Re­pub­lic­ans still in­ter­ested in the “smal­ler gov­ern­ment, more free­dom” philo­soph­ic­al un­der­pin­nings of their party that stretch back to Barry Gold­wa­ter’s 1964 can­did­acy, the pos­sib­il­ity of a Trump nom­in­a­tion be­comes even more un­set­tling.

“I don’t use the term lightly, but I really do think it cre­ates an ex­ist­en­tial crisis for the Re­pub­lic­an Party,” said Nor­man Orn­stein, a schol­ar at AEI. “He rep­res­ents so much that is ana­thema to what has been the core set of val­ues to Re­pub­lic­an lead­er­ship.”

With Trump al­most cer­tain to enter the sum­mer con­ven­tion with the most del­eg­ates thanks to his many primary vic­tor­ies thus far, Re­pub­lic­ans have two choices: Give Trump the nom­in­a­tion, and make him the face of the GOP, or give it to someone else, and likely drive his mil­lions of sup­port­ers away from the party, pos­sibly for years.

“Either way, it brings down the cur­tain not only on the Re­agan party, but the Gold­wa­ter party,” Pon­nuru pre­dicted.

What would come next is less clear, and would de­pend partly on wheth­er the GOP nom­in­ee wins in Novem­ber, and also on how the party lead­er­ship goes about re­pair­ing the cracks. Thomas Mann of the lib­er­al Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion won­ders if that’s even pos­sible, giv­en all that has happened.

“It’s hard to see how they breathe new life in­to a party that’s suffered a hos­tile takeover,” Mann said. “It al­most looks like it’s time for a re­place­ment party.”

A re­in­ven­tion wouldn’t be the first for the party, which in its 160-year his­tory has already un­der­gone at least two ma­jor trans­form­a­tions.

Foun­ded in 1854 by ab­ol­i­tion­ists, Re­pub­lic­ans came to be defined ini­tially by their first pres­id­ent, Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln, whose struggle to hold the na­tion to­geth­er was for dec­ades re­viled in much of the South as “The War of North­ern Ag­gres­sion.” The sub­sequent Re­con­struc­tion years, over­seen by Re­pub­lic­an ad­min­is­tra­tions, ce­men­ted the Demo­crat­ic Party’s dom­in­ance in South­ern states, as did Re­pub­lic­an ef­forts in the first half of the 20th cen­tury to pass civil-rights le­gis­la­tion through Con­gress.

In that peri­od, par­tic­u­larly in the dec­ades lead­ing up to World War II, the party aligned it­self more closely with busi­ness and fin­an­cial elites while ad­voc­at­ing re­straint in for­eign af­fairs. Pres­id­ent Frank­lin Roosevelt’s ef­forts to help Bri­tain in the years pre­ced­ing Pearl Har­bor, for ex­ample, were de­rided as “Mr. Roosevelt’s war.”

The vic­tory of Al­lied com­mand­er Gen. Dwight Eis­en­hower over the GOP es­tab­lish­ment in 1952 and the start of the Cold War pushed the party to a more in­ter­ven­tion­ist for­eign policy po­s­i­tion. But the more fun­da­ment­al shift fol­lowed Demo­crat­ic Pres­id­ent Lyn­don John­son’s suc­cess­ful push of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Richard Nix­on was able to cap­it­al­ize on white, work­ing-class an­ger to­ward Demo­crats, par­tic­u­larly in the South, and cobbled to­geth­er a new co­ali­tion that de­livered Re­pub­lic­ans the pres­id­ency in five out of the next six elec­tions.

It was a dra­mat­ic re­cast­ing: The party cre­ated to end slavery had en­gin­eered a “South­ern Strategy” de­pend­ent on the states that had se­ceded from the Uni­on. And as demo­graph­ic changes made the coun­try less white and moved states from Re­pub­lic­an to toss-up to Demo­crat­ic, the GOP re­li­ance on the South grew ever more pro­nounced.

In the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee Mitt Rom­ney won 206 elect­or­al votes, of which 118 came from the 11 states of the former Con­fed­er­acy—even though they ac­count for only a third of the coun­try’s pop­u­la­tion. Na­tion­ally, he won 59 per­cent of the white vote, but only 16 per­cent of the non­white vote.

Yet the Re­pub­lic­ans’ mes­sage to their new base of dis­pro­por­tion­ately South­ern, pre­dom­in­antly non-col­lege-edu­cated whites has con­sisted largely of so­cial and cul­tur­al cues—as­sur­ances that Re­pub­lic­ans sided with them on things such as pray­er in schools, abor­tion, and gun rights—rather than eco­nom­ic themes.

That, in fact, was the thes­is of Thomas Frank’s 2004 book, What’s the Mat­ter With Kan­sas?, which ex­plored why voters in that state typ­ic­ally sup­port Re­pub­lic­an can­did­ates even though their eco­nom­ic in­terests are more in line with Demo­crats.

What Trump has done with his can­did­acy is har­vest many of those same white, work­ing-class voters but with the mes­sage that his busi­ness ex­per­i­ence will let him re­store the prosper­ity and status they have lost—all mixed in with a sub­text of stand­ing against the “oth­ers” who have been chan­ging Amer­ica, such as Lati­nos and Muslims.

To Brook­ing’s Mann, Trump’s suc­cess is jus­ti­fied comeup­pance for a party that has vil­i­fied the na­tion’s first black pres­id­ent. “The Re­pub­lic­an Party in re­cent years have set them­selves up for this,” he said, point­ing out that Trump him­self was a lead­ing pur­vey­or of the the­ory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is there­fore an il­le­git­im­ate pres­id­ent. “They ef­fect­ively sanc­tioned the most hate­ful speech. Now they’re in no po­s­i­tion to con­trol it.”

Party lead­ers, though, did try to change the tone, at least for a while. After Rom­ney’s loss, the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee con­duc­ted an “autopsy” that warned that the party had to im­prove its out­reach to non-white voters, and urged pas­sage of an im­mig­ra­tion over­haul as a good way to start. But that ef­fort was blocked in the House by mem­bers from con­ser­vat­ive, largely white dis­tricts—a de­cision that ap­peared to be val­id­ated by GOP suc­cesses in the 2014 mid-term elec­tions.

“There was this think­ing: We’ve got these voters no mat­ter what. All we’ve got to do is talk about the threat posed by the Kenyan so­cial­ist,” Orn­stein said.

Pon­nuru, who ascribes Trump’s suc­cess more to his ap­peal to na­tion­al­ism than ra­cial griev­ance, nev­er­the­less agrees that the party’s re­li­ance on a tax-cut-ori­ented eco­nom­ic policy favored by the donor class rather than the work­ing class was a mis­take. Re­pub­lic­ans’ fail­ure to pass a cred­ible al­tern­at­ive to Obama’s Af­ford­able Care Act, for ex­ample, will con­tin­ue to hurt the party among those drawn to Trump.

“They’ll take af­ford­able health care over lim­ited gov­ern­ment,” Pon­nuru said.

Yet re­gard­less of why and how Re­pub­lic­ans got to this point, the path for­ward ap­pears to de­pend en­tirely on the in­di­vidu­al at the cen­ter of their cur­rent pre­dic­a­ment: Trump him­self.

If he loses the nom­in­a­tion, does he go away am­ic­ably, or blow up the GOP on his way out? If he wins the nom­in­a­tion but loses the gen­er­al elec­tion, does he aban­don polit­ics, or con­tin­ue to stir the pot with fre­quent speeches and TV ap­pear­ances?

“If Trump sticks around, it could have huge rami­fic­a­tions, be­cause it would make it enorm­ously dif­fi­cult for the party to re­set,” said Fleis­cher, who was among the coau­thors of the 2013 Growth and Op­por­tun­ity Pro­ject re­port.

And if Trump some­how over­comes his soar­ing un­pop­ular­ity with wo­men and non­white voters and wins the pres­id­ency, that would bring an even more fun­da­ment­al re-brand­ing of the GOP, Fleis­cher said. “The party be­comes ba­sic­ally un­re­cog­niz­able,” he said. “Obama didn’t change any­thing. This would be change.”

Ad­ded AEI’s Orn­stein: “This is un­charted ter­rit­ory for mod­ern times. It’s hard to see where this goes. … The bot­tom line is you can­not come out of this with a thriv­ing, in­tact party.”