Some hesistant prognostications concerning the Republican Party

As a student of history, I do not usually engage in futurology (or as Dominic Cummings would have it, 'superforecasting' ) which I regard as an inherently risky and dubious activity. (I won't make a cheap point about Cummings' being completely unable to foresee the demise of his career as Johnson's factotum, although he claims to have done so : I am altogether too kind). However, a reader of this blog, whose opinions I immensely respect, has suggested that I outline my thoughts about the future of the Republican Party, based on my knowledge of its historical development and present situation. So here goes.

At present, I can envisage two possible futures for the Republican Party.

One is that it will decide that its only future is as a constitutional, democratic political party which ostensibly respects the rule of law and political pluralism. It will seek to embrace 'Trumpism without Trump' (a transition which will be greatly assisted if one of the many prosecutions is successful in putting an end to his, and his family's, political ambitions). The aim of this transition would be to incorporate those aspects of Trumpism (economic nationalism, isolationism) which would be advantageous for the party in maintaining its electoral coalition, while discarding its toxic and extremist aspects (e.g. criminality and racism). This would not be a complete transformation of the Republican Party's policy programme, as other features (deregulation, low taxes for the rich, weak protections for labour, consumers and the environment, increased spending on defence) would remain, thereby satisfying corporate interests and their lobby groups. However, if it is serious about maintaining a broad electoral coalition (which includes, as the 2020 Presidential election shows, small but increasing numbers of African American and Latinx voters), it will have to think seriously about rejecting some of its so-called 'respectable' anti-democratic practices, such as voter suppression and 'redistricting' (or gerrymandering). It would be advisable to tone down its extreme nativist, anti-immigrant stance. As these are ingrained habits, these would be difficult to repudiate. The Republican Party would also have to think about offering enhanced health protection and education for 'blue collar' voters, to compensate for its hostility to labour unions. It would also have to go through the motions of treating its political opponents as legitimate competitors for votes, not as enemies of the republic, engaged in some monstrous conspiracy.

Trump's embrace of economic nationalism, nativism and isolationism brought significant numbers of blue collar voters into his electoral election, but I doubt that, by themselves, these policies will retain these voters. However, if it wants to keep these voters in its coalition, the Republican Party will have to perform these parts of its ideological repetoire quite loudly.

The psychological problem for the Republican Party in embracing this policy direction is that it would have to revise, or reject, many intuitive habits and assumptions which it has cherished long before Trump. I am not sure that the party is in sufficiently in contact with political reality to engage with the scale of the problem, or if it is capable of knowing that there is a problem.

The second option is that the Republican Party repudiates political pluralism and the rule of law, embraces far right extremism and an alliance with the proliferation of far right paramilitary groups, and emphasises racism and extreme nativism as part of its core appeal. To those who would object that this scenario is rather far fetched, I would point to the fact that crucial elements of this policy direction are already in place. American history affords examples of coercive action by non-state actors, whether the Ku Klux Klan or the private armies deployed by 19th century industrialists to defeat striking workers. It is quite possible to envisage the Republican Party (led by Mike Pompeo ?) harnessing the potential of these organisations. The Republican Party would then become even more of a dysfunctional cult. That does not mean, however, that it would not be successful in elections. A sufficient number of voters have to be persuaded of important far right propositions (that the Democratic Party is inherently illegitimate ; that it is part of 'a conspiracy so immense', to quote Joseph McCarthy ; and that African Americans, immigrants, liberals etc pose a threat to the 'American way of life'). The evidence is that quite a number of voters are already persuaded of the truth of these assumptions.

The Republican Party may try to embrace elements of both options, or it may deny that the choice exists, but my intuition suggests that they will be forced to make an explicit choice in the next two years or so,