Gerson:
Some Trump-obsessed, hysterical nitwits have overstated the case that the Republican Party may be on the verge of self-annihilation. “If Trump were the nominee,” said one, “the GOP would cease to be.”
That quote would be mine. The mood of the moment (not to mention the rhythm of
the sentence) was irresistible. But the Republican Party would probably not
disintegrate if either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz were its nominee. The reality
is both less dramatic and (for those who wish the GOP well) more tragic.
On the
whole, the Obama era has been the best time to be a Republican since Herbert
Hoover left office. The 2014 election yielded the highest number of GOP House
members since 1928, and the second highest number of GOP senators. There are
currently 31 Republican governors. The GOP controls 70 percent of state
legislatures and enjoys single-party rule in 25 states.
RealClearPolitics
election analysts Sean Trende and David Byler put together an index of party
strength, based on performance at federal, state and local levels. By their
measure, Republicans are doing their best overall since 1928. “The Republican
Party,” they conclude, “is stronger than it has been in most of our readers’
lifetimes.”
The
overwhelming volume of presidential election coverage creates an illusion that
only presidential elections matter. But Democratic decline at the state and
local levels has radiating effects — influencing the shape of redistricting,
emptying the bench of future electoral talent, and helping to undermine the
implementation of Democratic initiatives such as Obamacare.
Consider:
If Republicans had fielded a strong presidential nominee this year, who managed
to win a winnable election, the party’s success would have been more
comprehensive than any since 1980. The tragedy is not that Republicans are on
the verge of self-destruction; it is that they were on the verge of victory,
and threw it away.
This
singular failure is not a small thing for the GOP. The patient is brimming with
health and vigor in every way, except for the missing head. Either of this
year’s likely Republican failures would complicate the job of candidates down
the ticket and alienate demographic groups that are essential to future
national victories.
At the
presidential level, the GOP has two arguments in desperate need of defeat — two
ideological fevers that need to break. The first is the tea party claim that
ideological purity is the key to presidential success. Republicans, in this
view, have lost recent presidential elections because their quisling
candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could not turn out 4 million “missing”
conservative voters.
That
number, it actually turns out, is a myth, rooted in the slow reporting of vote
totals after the 2012 election. “There’s no magic formula,” said Dan McLaughlin
of RedState, “no cavalry of millions of conservatives waiting just over the
hill to save the day.” A Custer-like loss by Cruz — who has shown little
ability to expand beyond his narrow ideological appeal — would demonstrate this
point.
The
second fever is less common in the United States than in Europe, but it is a
particularly vicious strain. This is the claim by right-wing populists that
Republicans need to completely reorient their ideology in favor of nativism,
protectionism and isolationism in order to appeal to working-class whites. This
was the message of Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns starting in the 1990s.
With Trump, it is back in full force.
The
problem? Aside from the fact that protectionism is self-destructive economic
policy, and isolationism is disastrous foreign policy, an attempt to pump up
the white vote with nativist rhetoric alienates just about everyone else. Trump
has secured his stagnant plurality in GOP primaries by earning record-level
disapproval from the rest of the country. If Trump were the Republican nominee,
winning states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan would require an
increase in the white working-class vote so vast that the math is essentially
impossible.
This is
now the subject of many conversations among Republicans: Is it better to lose
with Cruz or Trump? The arguments for tea party purity and for “white lives
matter” nativism each need discrediting defeat. Unfortunately, they seem to be
the two available choices.
Eventually,
Republicans will require another option: a reform-oriented conservatism that is
responsive to working-class problems while accommodating demographic realities.
This is what makes Paul Ryan so attractive as the Hail Mary pass of an open
convention. But, more realistically, it will be the work of a headless
Republican Party, reconstituting itself in a new Clinton era.
