Liberals and, to a considerable extent, the Republican leadership, have conflated the social conservatives and the Fortress America crowd as the Republican rank-and-file, but Trump supporters are making clear that this is not so. The most socially conservative element of the Republican Party -- southern, Evangelical Christian, regular church goers -- mostly supports Ted Cruz. Trump supporters are typically not especially religious, not regular church goers, and only slightly socially conservative. Their biggest issue appears to be disengaging from the outside world, whether in the form of immigration, foreign trade, diplomacy, or war.
And one can understand the Fortress America crowd's frustration. Until the Donald Trump candidacy, it had no real representatives in the Republican elite and no place at table. The libertarian leadership was forever advocating free trade and at least toying with the idea of an opening to immigrants, while really most focused on cutting its own taxes. To the extent it made gestures toward the rank-and-file, these mostly consisted of opposition to abortion and same sex marriage, which just are not priorities for Fortress Americans. Religious conservatives often complain that Republican donors want to buy them off with empty pandering, but Fortress Americans don't get even that. Until now.
Donald Trump has exposed this schism; he did not create it. Indeed, some commentators have remarked at similar candidates have been popping up quite regularly -- George Wallace, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ron Paul all blazed the trail that Donald Trump is now treading so confidently. Trump is the most mainstream of the bunch. Wallace was a flat-out racist; Buchanan was an anti-Semite with fascistic tendencies; Perot showed signs of clinical paranoia; and Paul had wacky goldbug ideas. Before his run for President Trump's politics, to the extent that he had any at all, were completely conventional. Even now, his views on subjects other than immigration are unremarkable.
So far as I can tell, these are how the three main components of the Republican coalition break down:
|
Libertarian
|
Social conservative
|
Fortress America
|
Base
|
High
income and education, donor class
|
Southern,
Evangelical Christian, church goers
|
Older,
working class, no college education
|
Leaders
|
Paul
Ryan, Rand Paul, Koch Brothers
|
Ted
Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Pat Robertson
|
Donald
Trump, much of talk radio
|
Priorities
|
Cutting
taxes, reducing regulation, cutting spending
|
Abortion,
same sex marriage, religious exemptions
|
Immigration,
foreign trade, no ground wars
|
Foreign policy
|
Extreme
hawks, oppose diplomacy, favor war
|
Absolute
support for Israel, oppose diplomacy
|
Disengagement,
oppose both diplomacy and war
|
Taxes
|
Cutting
rates is top priority
|
Not
a priority
|
Not
a priority
|
Obamacare
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Oppose
|
Social Security/Medicare
|
Want
to cut, turn to defined contribution, or phase out
|
Want
to preserve
|
Want
to preserve
|
Government spending
|
Oppose,
except for war
|
Oppose
in theory, less so in practice
|
Oppose
in theory, less so in practice
|
Abortion, same sex marriage
|
Favor
|
Oppose
|
Indifferent
|
Immigration
|
Favor,
but not a priority
|
Mixed
|
Opposed,
top priority
|
Free trade
|
Favor
|
Mixed
|
Oppose
|
Black Lives Matter
|
Indifferent
to mild support
|
Mixed
|
Oppose
|
So the real question has to be what to make of the Fortress America crowd. How large a share of the Republican Party are they? Do they deserve a respectable place in American politics or are they, after all, just a bunch of bigots and authoritarians? Is their propensity toward disreputable leaders like Wallace, Buchanan, Perot, Ron Paul, and Donald Trump a sign of dangerous authoritarianism, or simply an understandable frustration at being shut out of the political process and denied any "respectable" leadership?
I confess to not having the answers just yet, but these are important questions to keep in mind, and to explore.
No comments:
Post a Comment