Future of the US Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in 1853 from a number of previous incarnations, including the Whigs, the No-Nothings and the anti-slavery movement. It has always been a pro-business party and a WASP party but was temporarily a progressive party in the 1860s because supporting the retention of tariffs, in the northern and southern states, to the chagrin of the latter, which had less industry than the northern states, also meant opposing secession. The constellation of interests that came together in the 1850s resulted in the Republican Party taking on the evil of slavery in the US and defeating it. Progressive people in the US and outside it supported that struggle. The Republican Party ultimately reverted to type (with President U.S. Grant, for example, ensuring that the Indian tribes were conquered) but with occasional bursts of progressive activity such as Teddy Roosevelt taking on the robber barons of the late 19th century and adopting progressive positions on the environment. Teddy Roosevelt remains, probably, the most interesting president the US has had but, unlike Lincoln, who belongs to the ages, Roosevelt was an imperialist and recognizably a Republican in today’s terms. He was also, however, a very competent chief executive of the state.

 

The business class in the US will always have its own political party. Whether it continues to be the Republican Party or whether a new party emerges from the damage Trump is doing to the Republicans is not important. What is important is that people recognize that Trump is a political freak. He is a wealthy man, who wants to change the economic and trade policies a corrupt-beyond-repair elite is pursuing because Trump understands that current US trade policy will damage the US, including, ultimately, its elite. He is, in fact, showing the elite the way to save their own skins. His policy on trade and globalization is progressive in the same way that the policy of tariffs adopted by the Republicans in the 1850s was co-incidentally progressive because it led to the end of slavery. If Trump were to win and change US economic and trade policy, the people of the US would be its main beneficiaries. If Hilary Clinton wins, the people will not benefit. Hence, Robert de Niro or no Robert de Niro, Trump is the more progressive candidate of the two. When so-called progressives look at Trump they see someone saying things about trade policy and about other issues, such as political correctness, that progressives should be saying but are not. That embarrasses them and explains much of the over-the-top comments about Trump.

The Republican Party, post a Trump presidency, would ultimately return to protecting the interests of business and the Democrats broadly-speaking the rest. Hilary Clinton, however, will probably win the presidency and the US will continue merrily sowing the seeds of its own destruction.

 

Freakish temporary realignments in politics occur from time to time in states. It is important to recognize what is happening and to see it as freakish and temporary. Instead people are getting excited over the admittedly boorish behaviour of one of the candidates and in doing so are missing the overall picture.