Trump is just the beginning, not the end of right-wing populism. Be warned.

[Suburbia]

Let me be very clear. I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 over Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. I am a centrist. I despise far-left and far-right politics. I am a radical centrist. Regardless of whether the Russian-Putin government meddled in the election, whether Trump associates colluded with Russian government officials and associates to influence the election. Trump won the election, whether you liked it or not.
Some political experts and pundits say that Trump will be the LAST Republican president in the next 30 years. That the next Democratic president will begin a new demographic revolution that will lock the Republican Party out of power for a long time, and it would trickle to the legislative and state levels.

I don't think so. I feel personally that President Donald Trump is just the beginning, not the end of right-wing populism. It has trickled to corporations and entertainment venues (Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Texans owner Bob McNair, Yankees co-owner/general managing partner Hank Steinbrenner, Yankees president Randy Levine, WWE chair Vince McMahon).

After Trump or Pence, there might be a new Democratic president. That Democratic president, elected in 2020 or 2024 may be center-left, centrist, or far-left (Sanders, Merkley, etc.)

Regardless of who controls the Senate and House of Representatives in 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, and beyond does not matter.

The pendulum swings and yes, we will have a Democratic president again in the 2020s. But Democrats should not overplay their hands on multicultural identity politics (white privilege, whiteness, etc.) or else they will get some more intelligent, fierce, brash than Trump. That next right-wing populist may not be the typical white male conservative, but a female, a black or Latino individual.

Republicans should not overplay their hands either with the white identity politics and cultural white city suburban ethnic/Midwestern-Southern-Pacific West white rural/suburban resentment. Republicans need to appeal to minority, young white voters, affluent/professional, suburban and female voters or else the Republican Party will be extinct.

Demographics are not destiny. You have to make someone want to vote for you. What have you done for me lately?

That goes for both parties.

Regardless of Trump's controversial presidency, this is just the beginning of a potential right-wing populism reemerging in the future, not the end.

Trump is not a fluke. Be warned.

https://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2015/07/yankees_hank_steinbrenner_donald_trump_is_loyal_fr.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H6lB9sOEZQ

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/frank-rich-trumpism-after-trump.html

[KingSweden]

PEAK BRONZ ACHIEVED

[mvd10]

I don't think the GOP will be explicitly right-wing populist but I do think identity issues will play a role, it's naive to think we'll be a 'happy identity' fiscally conservative party that wins 90% of Asians and college-educated whites.

My best guess is that the future GOP coalition will consist out of better-off suburban/exurban whites (and a few wealthier hispanics/Asians who 'became whiter') plus whatever is left of white rural America while the Democratic Party will be heavily urban (young, progressive postgraduate whites + poor urban minorities). So I imagine some of the less diverse wealthy suburbs that swung D in 2016 will eventually swing back to the GOP column while some other places probably are lost for good because of demographic changes and those suburbs becoming more urban.

Or if things get really weird and demographics = destiny comes true we might see something like a three party system. The Democrats keep winning, the GOP keeps losing as the white identity party. Eventually there is a conflict in the Democratic Party between urban progressive professionals on the one side and poorer minorities and young left-wing activists in the other side. The urban professionals break off and team up with whatever is left of the Bush/Kasich/Rubio Republicans and you truly have a 'haves' vs 'have-nots' political system. A bit like we currently see in France where Macron is popular among urban young professionals (typically progressive) and old wealthy people (typically conservative) while both the far-right and the (far-)left hate him. But that's probably not going to happen because of the American system. And they'd have to come up with a compromise on social issues lol.

[Cassandra]

I agree with title of your post, Bronz, if not the substance.

2016 demonstrated that the vast majority of white America can be whipped into a frenzy by fear of losing their status in a country that is slowly but surely becoming majority non-white. I expect the continuation of that demographic trend will only serve radicalize right-wing discourse towards a more overt white supremacist approach. Already, most white people live in an entirely separate media ecosystem (Fox News, Talk Radio, right-wing facebook, etc) which is unified in pushing racist, xenophobic, anti-urban, anti-secular messages.
 
I expect the next move, after the Trump phenomenon runs its course, is for the Republican party to be hijacked or replaced by an essentially fascist formation which is willing to make "hard choices" to remove the supposed fifth column of racial minorities and white leftists (race traitors) from the country/the living. We may still be a generation from that act; I would not be surprised to see Trump followed by some weak Democrat, but sooner than later these reactionaries will try to seize power.

[Senator Spark]

Yep. Trump has set a new long term trend with his populism.

[cvparty]

agreed
it's really not surprising if you look at what had been happening in europe

[Zaybay]

I dont really agree with this idea. Its rather unlikely that Trump's populism becomes the new brand of the GOP in the future.

First of all, the Trump strategy of Populism will keep them out of the whitehouse. States in the South such as AZ, GA, and TX are trending away from the GOP, and the gains that Trump was able to make in the rustbelt are easily counteracted by the gains in the south. Trump-brand populism won the rural areas in the Rust Belt, but lost him the suburban core of the GOP. By the GOP continuing down this path, they would effectively be forfeiting the Whitehouse to Dem control. And this doesnt even mention how tenuous the hold on the Rust Belt is, with the entire thing swinging against Trump hard. If the DEM party follows the path of Sanders and Left-Wing Populism, its easy to see the GOP shattered in The Rust Belt, and in their rural areas as well.

The house would also be given to the Dems with this strategy. While Rs have been able to hold it with their suburban dominance, the double down on Right Wing populism would only continue to weaken their hold. If 2018 and 2020 lead to many reversals of gerrymanders in states such as NC, WI, PA, and so on, the Dems will likely hold the house for the next decade or so.

The Senate would be the only thing under likely R control in this scenario, and even then, its tenuous. While Rs won 30 states in 2016, and have 3 GOP senators in D states, (Collins, Heller, Gardner), the Dems have a total of 12 senators in states Trump had won. Combine that with the trending D states of AZ, GA, and TX getting D senators in the future, and the swingyness of the RustBelt, and DEM senators weird ability to get elected in Red States, and you have a chamber that is only tilt R.

So, overall, the idea that Right-Wing populism will dominate the GOP is ludicrous, as this would basically forfeit the entire country to Dem control. If such a scenario were to occur, its likely it would be a repeat of early American politics, with the Dems being the Democratic-Republicans, and the GOP being the Federalists. One party would have basic control of the entire government, and the other would be a more regional party. And, if such a scenario were to occur, it would likely cause the D party to split in two, and for those to be the new two parties in our system.

Whats likely to occur, as the GOP noted in 2012, is a step away social conservatism, and to become a more Libertarian Party. This would ensure their survival, against the Democratic Party.

I get Trump shocked everyone when he won, but just because the party is taking after him right now doesnt mean it will in the future. The Dem party didnt take after Carter, and neither will the Rep Party, lest they give up competing with the Democratic Party entirely.

[RINO Tom]

Cool, disagree!

[Beet]

Yeah, this is why I don't get the people determinedly hawking Nikki Haley as the future of the GOP. Even if right-wing populism weren't a thing, the hype for her would be totally unjustified as she hasn't really done anything of note as UN Ambassador. But the base is clearly heading more in the direction of the Tom Cottons and the Stephen Millers. Their group will try to unify the three great river basins of America (the Mississippi, the Missouri, and Ohio), then pick off enough states on the coasts to achieve a national coalition. Most likely the precipitating factor will be some kind of economic crisis in the next 10 or 20 years.

[Virginiá]

So, overall, the idea that Right-Wing populism will dominate the GOP is ludicrous, as this would basically forfeit the entire country to Dem control. If such a scenario were to occur, its likely it would be a repeat of early American politics, with the Dems being the Democratic-Republicans, and the GOP being the Federalists. One party would have basic control of the entire government, and the other would be a more regional party. And, if such a scenario were to occur, it would likely cause the D party to split in two, and for those to be the new two parties in our system.

The thing is, it doesn't matter what kind of losses such a change in the party triggers. It makes sense why one would think about it like this, but you're being too rational and focused on electoral performance. This isn't about winning or losing so much as it is about what people believe and what the GOP pols believe they need to deliver for their constituents. You could argue that the changes in the Democratic Party through the late 70s/80s-onwards triggered its massive losses of power post-1994 (I'd disagree in a number of ways, but I digress), but even with people making this connection, it still took decades for significant opposition to develop to the Third Way stuff. That is what will probably happen in the GOP. The Republican Party is really having quite an unflattering moment for itself. The policy agenda of the country club Republicans is out of step with an increasingly working class-heavy base, and it can't stay like this forever. However I'm sure after Republicans get cast into the political wilderness for a good long while, they'll have their own internal backlash and the party will shift again.

[Zaybay]

So, overall, the idea that Right-Wing populism will dominate the GOP is ludicrous, as this would basically forfeit the entire country to Dem control. If such a scenario were to occur, its likely it would be a repeat of early American politics, with the Dems being the Democratic-Republicans, and the GOP being the Federalists. One party would have basic control of the entire government, and the other would be a more regional party. And, if such a scenario were to occur, it would likely cause the D party to split in two, and for those to be the new two parties in our system.

The thing is, it doesn't matter what kind of losses such a change in the party triggers. It makes sense why one would think about it like this, but you're being too rational and focused on electoral performance. This isn't about winning or losing so much as it is about what people believe and what the GOP pols believe they need to deliver for their constituents. You could argue that the changes in the Democratic Party through the late 70s/80s-onwards triggered its massive losses of power post-1994 (I'd disagree in a number of ways, but I digress), but even with people making this connection, it still took decades for significant opposition to develop to the Third Way stuff. That is what will probably happen in the GOP. The Republican Party is really having quite an unflattering moment for itself. The policy agenda of the country club Republicans is out of step with an increasingly working class-heavy base, and it can't stay like this forever. However I'm sure after Republicans get cast into the political wilderness for a good long while, they'll have their own internal backlash and the party will shift again.

But we are jumping the gun on this. Reagan was able to change the fundementally change the GOP, not because he won the presidency, but because he was popular, and was able to lead commanding GOP victories accross the board. He was able to influence the party that had previously thought of him as crazy and beliveing in "Voodoo economics". Same with FDR and Woodrow Wilson. Most Dems were southerners at the time, and the Ds catered to their needs. Poor workers rights, free trade, social conservatism, etc. But with the victories of Wilson and FDR came a new influence on the Democrats, progressive economics.

Trump, so far, has lead the GOP to nothing but disaster, and he has failed at the job of changing the party. Obama failed to do the same, and so did Bush. They failed to influence their party and push it in a new, radical direction. Many Republicans, after Bush, despised him, and openly spat on "moral conservatism". Many Democrats now see Obama as synonymous with compromise, centrism, and spinelessness. How long after Trump leaves the GOP in a terrible state will they turn on him? Probably the month after he leaves office.

And I disagree that such a situation would be similar to the Dem wilderness of the later 20th century. During that time, while they had lost their grip on the presidency, they still retained the iron hold on the house, and sometimes senate. Its possible that the GOP will be locked out of all three. GOP politicians will want nothing to do with Trump after such a disastrous run.

And I think you overestimate the resolve of voter's ideology. I doubt many in the GOP were a fan of tariffs, building a wall, etc. before the 2016 election, and I doubt many DEM voters were a fan of single payer, federal jobs guarantee, etc. Voters are fickle, and will follow the voice of their party, who ever it may be. Reagan's ideas were unpopular at first, but he gained traction as time went on, to the point where that is the defining characteristic of the modern GOP. Many voters in Britain would have scoffed at the idea of nationalization, or the end of austerity, but now it seems that Labour is totally committed to it under the leadership of Corbyn.

What im trying to say is that its unwise to declare that the GOP will follow Trumpism to the end, just because he is popular now with the GOP base. Based on history, the current GOP prospects, and how fickle voters are, its unlikely most of his ideology will stick with the Rs in the future.

[mvd10]

agreed
it's really not surprising if you look at what had been happening in europe

In most countries the mainstream centre-right is still ahead of the far-right though. Most European countries actually have a centre-right PM (even though some are in a coalition with the far-right while others need a centre-left partner). We're not as f**ed as the GOP establishment yet . It's actually the centre-left that has completely collapsed here.

[TheSaint250]

The party will go with whoever the Republican nominee/President is. Simple as that.

[Suburbia]

I do believe that there will be a back and forth between populism and establishment Republicans in the future.

But the Republican Party is not dead.

[junior chįmp]

I do believe that there will be a back and forth between populism and establishment Republicans in the future.

But the Republican Party is not dead.

no its dead. Read its 2012 autopsy. They admit if they cant get the right demographics then its game over for the GOP

[5280]

Its difficult to not vote for a party that likes to give away free stuff.