State of Republicans in 2020: Deeper Confusion

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 22, 2020

When pondering the state of the Republican Party these days, an Electric Light Orchestra song comes to mind: “Confusion.”

At one point, Jeff Lynne sings: “Confusion – it's such a terrible shame.
Confusion – you don't know what you're sayin'.” 

I sometimes wonder: Do various people with an “R” after their names know what they’re sayin’?

Although, it should be noted that confusion is not necessarily new ground for Republicans. Twenty years ago, I wrote about a confused Republican Party. At that time, there was a struggle between Democrat-lite Republicans, wet-fingers-in-the-air Republicans looking to polls over principles, and conservative Reagan Republicans. And among the GOP conservatives at the time, disagreements existed, of course, though a fair chunk of the fracturing on the GOP Right focused on what to lead with, such as economic or social issues.

The confusion in today’s Republican Party runs far deeper. The last two decades  - in particular, after the 2008-09 economic downturn – witnessed a dramatic rise of populism within the GOP. That movement found an initial voice in the 1992 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, and it eventually seized the party via Donald Trump in 2016. 

Hence, the Reagan Republican emphasis on expanding opportunity, limiting government, embracing traditional values, the importance of character, and winning the nation and world over to freedom has been in retreat. Advancing have been populist priorities on fear, isolation, and victimhood, with the present-day Republican Party, as a result, pushing opposition to immigration; embracing protectionist trade policies; using rather than opposing large government; and offering a, yes, confused foreign policy swinging wildly from withdrawal to military action. In addition, the idea that character matters has been jettisoned in favor of the ends justifying the means, including, ironically, by many Republicans favoring social conservatism.

And given that populism is an us-against-them view of the world, it’s not surprising that the GOP largely has abandoned attempting to expand the party’s appeal. Instead, the emphasis is on ginning up action (or outrage) among its base, which largely is white and rural, and scaring others into voting against Democrats. (Of course, the Democrats have cooperated in providing a heck of a lot to fear.)

While the current Republican political recipe might win an election or two in the very short run, it points to defeat in the longer term. It’s worth noting that looking at the 31 states where party registration is required, according to Ballot Access News and reported by the Washington Post, registered independents in early 2020 exceeded the number of registered Republicans for the first time. While Republicans were 10 percentage points ahead of independents in 2004, in early 2020, registered independents came in at 29.09 percent of voters, versus 28.87 percent being registered as Republicans. Registered Democrats, by the way, stood at 39.66 percent of registered voters. 

That should be deeply troubling to Republicans, and it confirms what demographic and political analysis told the GOP after its presidential defeats in 2008 and 2012, that is, the party needs to broaden its base. Republican leaders in the not-too-distant past understood this reality, including Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and George W. Bush. But it seems to be ignored more recently. Indeed, populism is not a path to expansion.

In fact, one has to ask: Is populism enough to even sustain a major political party? The answer is no. A political party needs to be about more than fear, and saying that they’re better than those other guys.  

The great unknown for the Republican Party is where it will go after Donald Trump leaves office – whether that be in January 2021 or January 2025. Will it be a populist party, a conservative party, or a party largely driven by polls? 

One option that isn’t really on the table is a merged populist/conservative party. Why is that not an option? Because conservatism and populism, contrary to what many Republican politicians and commentators assert, are fundamentally not compatible. As foundational matters, populism’s emphasis on victimhood, using government on behalf of themselves and others they view as victims, opposing trade and so-called “globalism,” favoring isolationism, and distrusting business, particularly large businesses and banks, is more aligned with Progressivism than with a conservatism rooted in individual freedom, Madisonian skepticism about government, Judeo-Christian values, free enterprise, free markets, a strong national defense, and a reliance on private enterprises and institutions to improve and enhance life, in both a material and spiritual sense.

And in terms of how a political party functions, populism is like preaching to a dwindling choir, while conservatism – confident and at its best in the political arena – is about getting more people into the church.

However, there’s always the option of trying to rename “populism” as “conservatism,” if it serves a perceived political – or in some cases, personal – purpose. And there seem to be plenty of people in the Republican Party who would be fine with such an effort.

There’s that ELO tune again ... “Confusion, it comes as no big surprise.”

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York – signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.