Conservatives at Inflection Point: Where To Go After Trump?
By Mike Sabo
After Donald Trump wrapped up what just might be the most inevitable primary in American history, energy and enthusiasm seem to be gaining on the Right.
The most up-to-date RealClearPolitics polling average shows Trump up by 1.6 percent nationally over Joe Biden. Even more relevant for his re-election prospects, Trump leads Biden by an average of 3.2 percent in the top battleground states. Despite the protest of evangelical elites, at least 80 percent of evangelicals, if not more, will vote for Trump in the fall.
As Trump gains ground, things are looking a bit bleaker for President Biden’s hopes for a second term in office. The southern border continues to be invaded, trillions are added to the national debt each year, the military is having an increasingly difficult time recruiting white males, mortgage rates look to stay high for the foreseeable future, the U.S. involves itself in yet more wars that further diminishes our reputation abroad, and formerly great American companies like Boeing have clearly lost their way as parts drop from their planes—sometimes in mid-flight.
While Biden’s popularity diminishes, former Republican primary political foes and critics are coalescing around Trump’s campaign. Ben Shapiro and big-money donors who formerly backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have publicly declared their support for Trump, and have even pledged to fundraise for him. Trump will need their help, as he currently trails Biden’s impressive $155 million war chest—with $53 million raised in February alone—to his paltry $74 million by comparison.
Make no mistake: Democrats are the party of the rich. Darel Paul reported in the wake of the 2020 election that the top of the Democrats’ famed top-bottom coalition is very well-off, with wealthy suburbs giving their money to Democrats over Republicans by a sizable margin. The Claremont Institute’s Jeremy Carl pointed out after the 2018 midterms that Democrats then controlled all 20 of the richest congressional districts.
A running mate for 2024 and beyond
Would picking the right running mate boost Trump’s fundraising prospects? A fundraising guru among Republicans in Congress, Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York would likely be the pick if this was the only consideration. But there’s more to choosing a candidate for vice president than amassing funds. Though he did surprisingly well in the governor’s race, New York’s Lee Zeldin still came up short and doesn’t have the national branding that Trump likely desires.
Selecting DeSantis would mimic the Pence pick in 2016: an experienced candidate in Republican circles who has served both as governor and in the U.S. House. DeSantis would allay some of the concerns of D.C. politicos and suburban voters who find Trump distasteful. But his loyalty is an open question, an attribute Trump highly prizes. And like Pence, DeSantis’s true fit with a full-spectrum MAGA policy agenda is another possible source of disagreement.
These possible drawbacks may point to another candidate: Ohio Senator J.D. Vance. The once darling of the elites and the now-populist U.S. senator of my home state, Vance would undoubtedly be an intriguing pick. By doing this, Trump would elevate the one national Republican who looks to have both the brains and courage to lead the party in the decades ahead.
The media class most likely sees Vance as the candidate who could carry on the mantle of “Trumpism without Trump,” if such a thing was possible. (Just ponder how well Reaganism without Reagan has fared.) Contrary to the press’s received wisdom, Vance would instead look to build on Trump’s accomplishments but mold the party in his own image, as all good statesmen in history have done.
Vance also seems to possess the brashness and feistiness to fend off the Democrats’ quest to firmly entrench one-party rule.
The only person who could be Vance’s equal in the qualities Trump wants is Tulsi Gabbard, who just appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast. Much like Trump, she is despised by the elites in both parties. Her trenchant criticism of the U.S. foreign policy blob and generals that lose war after war—and are likely to be humiliated again when China invades Taiwan—is largely sympatico with Trump, and possibly even more far-reaching than his own inclinations.
Trump will certainly need a fighter, as Democrats look to ensure not only that Trump’s political efforts are stopped but that his very name and visage are melted down like public statues of Confederate generals. For the Democrats, Trump needs to be made an example of so that his kind never rises again. And Americans need to be taught a lesson that their racist, nativist inclinations have no place in “our democracy.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James’s nakedly political prosecution of Trump is part of this larger effort. The recent clumsiness of the lawfare machine, however, is raising eyebrows even on the Left.
Mark Hemingway noted at The Federalist that no one seems to want to defend James’s triumph in a $454 million ruling against Trump, which shattered a number of legal precedents (for the Left, “protecting the Constitution” always means shredding it.) A New York appeals court reduced Trump’s bond to $175 million and overturned Judge Engoron’s ruling that prohibited Trump and sons Donald Jr. and Eric from serving as officers or directors of a New York company for a specified number of years.
Taking Truth Social public will help Trump remain financially stable, not to mention re-establish him as the branding genius he is. The Wall Street Journal reports that the company will “become publicly traded under the stock ticker DJT.”
The only way the Democrats’ fever dreams can be realized, of course, is if any of the charges stick, which is still a possibility given the numerous pending cases. It’s almost an afterthought that a New York City grand jury would vote to indict him; whether judges will allow these cases to go to trial is a separate question. But if Trump is convicted even on one major charge, it could shave off enough support among independents to stall his candidacy.
Success beyond Trump
The Right’s ability to achieve a series of fundamental political victories can’t simply be up to Trump, however. To have a hope of defeating the Left, a goal that will certainly outlast Trump, the Right must continue to make itself into a coalition that can have sustained success. For that to happen, there are certain tendencies the Right must overcome if it wants to have a chance to undertake a true political revolution and not just put on annual cruises for aging boomers.
For one, the black pill spiral must be avoided. Things are bad on any number of fronts, but the overly, gloom-and-doom scenarios that end in trading stories behind barbed wire in camps must be shelved for the time being. The fact that Trump could still be elected in 2016 and is winning in current polls demonstrates that all is not yet lost, even with the impressive array of institutions, high-ranking elites, and money that the regime has at its disposal.
The Right also needs to get over another spiraling tendency. It must move past purity tests, which was a notable characteristic of the sinking conservative movement in the lead-up to the 2016 election. Stop harping on how someone voted then as a way to critique his political opinions today. Many Americans woke up in the intervening years and clearly understand the political moment far better than they once did.
After all, Donald Trump’s rise on the Right was boosted by breaking through the myriad fencing that had been erected by conservatives over the course of decades. His violation of the tenets of orthodox conservativism was met with the kind of reaction that likely accompanied violations of the countless unwritten laws of the Pharisees. But the endless purity tests didn’t stop him. Trump triumphed in part precisely because he broke with the ossified, almost theological system of doctrines that had mostly led the Right to defeat because it elevates abstractions over the concerns of everyday people.
Related to this is the propensity to use your political heroes as a vibe killer. Constantly harping on how if your preferred candidate would have won decades ago, things would’ve been far different happens quite frequently on the Right. Apart from being a truism, it’s also irrelevant. Political heroes are important to have, but one should not cling to them too tightly.
Although it may be heresy in certain corners to point this out, neither Pat Buchanan nor Ron Paul won the presidency. However, this shouldn’t dissuade us from using the good sense that both had in varying ways—which mostly went unappreciated by the bipartisan political class—and applying those insights to our own circumstances.
Buchanan’s focus on preserving the tangible things that must be present for our nation to be healthy—a vigorous public Christianity, strong families, a wholesome culture—is in short supply today. And Paul’s emphasis on the regular violation of citizens’ civil liberties by unaccountable agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, along with the ineffectiveness and unsustainability of our artificial, propped-up markets, needs to be heeded as well.
In the face of intransigent opposition from all corners, the Right must continue to shed ineffectual candidates and a habit of losing. Barry Goldwater should never be publicly mentioned on the campaign trail. The word “conservative” should be used only very sparingly, and only with older audiences. With these things in mind, the Right must work to build a national coalition that can thrive in a post-Trump political era.
Original Here
|
Join the Conversation!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
We have a wonderful, active, and engaged community. Come join us in the comments section below! You'll need a Hyvor account (100% free) if you don't already have one.⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
