The GOP can't move beyond Trump until ...

After engaging a delightful wordfest of orgasmic disgust — Trump is compulsive, obsessive, vindictive, solipsistic, incompetent, chaotic, childish, mendacious, deceptive, self-serving, pathetic, frightening, ignorant, prejudiced, tribalistic, and least of all, careless — Michael Gerson concludes that the GOP is "being corrupted and stained" by this hideous little man. And so he asks:

What is the proper objective for Republicans and conservatives? It is the defeat of Trumpism, preferably without the destruction of the GOP itself. And how does that happen?

Worthy questions. But, first things first. What Gerson omits is an in-depth discussion of just how Donald Trump was ever a GOP possibility.

Two years ago he began his campaign as a joke of a personal marketing ploy; he never believed he had a shot at the White House, as evidenced by his debut from Trump Tower — an unrehearsed ramble of incoherencies designed only to grab a few more minutes of fame. His candidacy "speech" was colored by all of Gerson's presidential adjectives: compulsive, ignorant, vindictive, chaotic, etc.

And yet worse than that, his candidacy speech was predicated on months of huckstered birtherism — the absolute lowest point of American politics, which, looking back, almost guaranteed Trump's primary victories. He had shown he was willing to be the vilest Republican pol ever, and the GOP base came to love him for it. So one by one, down they went, the low-energy Jebs and little Marcos and lyin' Teds. As long as Trump held the most appalling guttersnipe territory, he would prevail.

Thus when Gerson envisions the defeat of Trumpism absent the GOP's destruction, he puts the ass before the cart, and flings a fait accompli. Only a lost, soulless, deeply corrupt party would need to rid itself of a victorious Trump. (Only a deeply apathetic nation would need to similarly rid itself of such a political pathogen, but that's another story.) And that's an insoluble paradox: Why would a deeply corrupt party wish to rid itself of its own deeply corrupt president?

In any case, there are indeed some Michael Gersons out there: Republicans who've managed to retain some semblance of conscience — and therefore detest the ever-unloving guts of Donald Trump. And so they ask: How is it we rid ourselves of this troublesome prick? Answers Gerson: A conservative third party is a "bad idea"; a 2020 primary challenge is an "unlikely idea"; impeachment is a "theoretical idea"; encouraging Democratic victories is a "heretical idea"; and simply "outlast[ing] Trump" is an unacceptable, "complacent idea."

And there he ends, as forlorn as when he began. "Whatever option is chosen, it will not be easy or pretty," concedes Gerson. "And any comfort for Republicans will be cold because they brought this fate on themselves and the country."

True enough. Yet going-forward options are not where conservatives' questions should begin. They must first look backward, asking themselves why racism, misogyny, religious prejudice, anti-intellectualism and vicious hyperpartisanship were so appealing as the party's political fundamentals? Trump was but the malevolent outgrowth of modern Republicanism, its logical culmination. He didn't impose himself on the Republican Party; the party primed itself for him. Which is another way of saying that Trump merely exploited the partisan rot that was already there. Why was it there?

Before moving on, Mr. Gerson, that is the question you must first answer.

 

Comments

[ren]

Tribalism and tax cuts?

[shsavage]

They'll move beyond him when they've gotten his "signature" on a few bills. Once Obama's legacy is gutted and the elites get their tax cuts, they'll be no more use for him.

[Max]

Amen, PMC. Gerson is a member of the Party of Personal Responsibility, former Bush the Lesser speechwriter and torture apologist, so he played his own part in the destruction of political norms. Now he wants to sort of help. Fine. But then own your own personal responsibility. Trump didn't just happen.

Speaking of the destruction of political norms, E.J. Dionne has a nice piece in yesterday's WaPo called, "The destruction of political norms started decades ago: Negative partisanship has been built on the idea of politics as war." It has a picture of N. Leroy Gingrich*. But Dionne lets HW Bush off the hook, though - no mention of Lee Atwater and Willie Horton, which broke the mold of what was acceptable in a presidential campaign. Dionne also neglects the same time of the rise of Gingrich so, too, were the rise of Limbaugh and Ailes and Fox News. Still, it's a piece worth reading and has more insight than Gerson is prepared to ponder in print.

*Gingrich was always big on politics as war, just not real war, draft-dodging coward that he is. Actually, he's a dope-smoking, draft-dodging deadbeat dad who divorced his dying wife, as Ms. Ivins put it.

[Ivory Bill Woodpecker]

The other GOP candidates offered the Stupid White Folks of Real Murka the same old dog-whistle racism, which is mere methadone maintenance.

The Orange Covfefe was shameless enough to offer the Stupid White Folks of Real Murka pure China White racism, straight up the mainline.

OF COURSE they went for him.

As I sometimes need to remind myself, don't blame Bubba and Bobbie Sue in the boondocks for this. Blame their affluent cousins in the suburbs and exurbs.

https://www.thenation.com/article/trumpism-its-coming-from-the-suburbs/

[Peter G.]

Quite the formula is it not? Vision of Newt and thought of fog, dings of bats and dicks of dog...for a party of powerful trouble, like a hell broth, boil and bubble. Nightly, on Fox.

I was thinking along the same line as shsavage. If they can't get rid of Trump they might as well get maximum use out of the dimwit. You can get Trump to do just about anything by either flattering him into thinking something he signs will make him popular or by convincing him he will exact revenge on those who oppose him. Their calculation is rational, their voter base is so inflexible that most will continue to vote Republican through shear hatred of the only alternative. That's okay. Let them keep their base. The demographics they are achanging.

[Max]

But the problem will continue to be: if the GOP gets rid of Trump and in whatever time-frame, regardless of how much he will have delivered for him, a large swath of the GOP base will be infuriated. This party cares about only one thing: Power. No principle whatsoever will prompt them to compromise that. None.

[Peter G]

We should make a distinction between party factions within the Republican party. If Trump were less of an ass on other issues and less embarassing Gerson would have no problem with Trump eviscerating health care for millions of Americans. But I have no doubt that Gerson does completely despise a good chunk of the party he supports. Nevertheless, channeling Colonel Jessup, he wants them in that voting booth, he needs them in that voting booth. And that's their problem in a nutshell.

[Anne J]

Thank you, Max I was about to post pretty much the same thing but you articulated it so much better than I could have. Michael Tomasky has said pretty much the same as Dionne.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newt-gingrich-hypocrisy-pioneer

The party of personal responsibility can't figure its way out of their mess if they can't be bothered to figure out how they got there in the first place.

[RT]

"[Trump] didn't impose himself on the Republican Party; the party primed itself for him. Which is another way of saying that Trump merely exploited the partisan rot that was already there."

Trump is the GOP's Remington Steele. The party apparatus can't deny him without blowing the con, and Trump knows it.

[shsavage]

Politics in America has been war since the 1850s. The Confederate armies may have surrendered, but the war never ended. Newt was just a bit more overt about it than his fellow travelers.

[Peter G]

Want a laugh? The current top post at Duffer's lair is entitled the Ultimate Insult and it is in regard to a movement to Midway airport in Chicago after President Obama. Not O'Hare mind but the secondary field at Midway.

To which I felt compelled to reply as follows:

I'm guessing you have not the slightest idea of the history at play here. It may interest you to know that the Ronald Reagan National airport used to be named after some obscure individual named Washington. But it was changed in 1998. What's really interesting is how that airport came to be in the first place. Once the prohibition was lifted in 1938 on the federal government building such facilities a recess appropriation by another obscure individual, initials FDR, was made to actually create it. Against the strenuous objections of the party which Ronald Reagan came to lead. No little irony there. And when you throw in the fact that the great victory at Midway occurred under the leadership of that same FDR you might begin to wonder why there is no airport named after him. Except in the Caribbean Netherlands where one does exist. Given the number of streets bridges, libraries and other public structures whose histories were relegated to obscurity by naming them Reagan ( there are 3067 counties in the US and every blessed one of them has at least one thing changed to Reagan) I begin to detect the subtle smell of sour grapes in your post.

Perhaps you prefer a giant statue of Trump on which could be carved the promise: If you have a pre-existing condition, we conservatives promise you will keep it.

[Anne J]

Very nice, Peter! Once again they are whining for the same kind of political correctness that they accuse the left of demanding. Did anyone reply to your comment?

[Peter G.]

I'll see if if I've been banned yet.

[Peter G.]

Nope but the commentariat there is pretty thin. Re Reagan everything. Have you noticed how the Republicans seem to oppose building or even fixing anything? But once it is built and proven useful they do love to put their names on them. See Hoover damn.

[Anne J]

They fanned the flames of the human brush fire, now they're surprised they're getting burned. This really is not good for the country, not just their party. If they can't admit wrongdoing, they won't feel a need to change and they are the ones who keep winning elections.

[Anne J]

I thought it was started under Hoover and originall named Boulder Dam?

[Anne J]

Ok I read some history and looks like construction started in 1931, was named Boulder Dam from 1933-1947 when the republican controlled congress passed a joint resolution to rename it Hoover Dam. That makes them perfect for Trump. Just like him they take credit for other people's work by slapping their name on it.

[Max]

I understand your point, but there were times in my own lifetime when it was better, where the parties could work together. That included WWII, civil rights, Watergate and other instance.

[Max]

Yup.