In the weeks since Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, disenchanted conservatives have circulated a social media meme juxtaposing Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott standing together with an unflattering image of the billionaire.
“We could have had this,” reads the text accompanying the picture of the Hispanic senator, Indian-American governor and African-American senator campaigning together in South Carolina. “Instead we have this,” says the text near Trump.
It’s a good example of why some conservatives have found Trump’s likely nomination so disheartening. One image of the Republican Party is relatively young, diverse and in touch with the country’s changing demographics while remaining conventionally conservative. The other is old, white, angry and unpredictable on policy.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, a disciple of Jack Kemp, clearly identifies with the former more than the latter. But as he began his delicate dance with Trump, he was fighting for more than imagery. Insofar as Trump signifies anything larger than himself, he could shift conservatism away from the libertarian-traditionalist fusionism of the GOP since Ronald Reagan toward the nationalism and populism of right-wing political parties all over the world.
Conservatives haven’t always been happy with the Republican Party since Reagan. That was as apparent in Ted Cruz’s candidacy as Trump’s. The only other movement conservative to ever win the party’s presidential nomination is Barry Goldwater, who went down to a landslide defeat.
But since Reagan, even the party establishment has moved to the right. George W. Bush and Mitt Romney were more conservative than their fathers George H.W. Bush and George Romney. Even Jon Huntsman, widely considered the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in 2012, was a pro-life supporter of Ryan’s free-market entitlement reforms.
Post-Reagan, conservatives defined the party even if they didn’t always control it. Post-Trump, conservatives might have a place at the table. It just won’t necessarily be the head.
An Ohio Republican elected official who spoke to the Washington Examiner before that state’s presidential primary in March sounded almost sanguine about the prospect, even though he entered politics when Reagan became president. He compared it to his parents and grandparents being New Deal Democrats who were unprepared for the “Reagan revolution.”
“It’s had a pretty good run,” he said of Reagan-style conservatism.
The Heritage Foundation’s Lee Edwards cautioned that there still is a conservative movement while there is nothing comparable supporting Trump’s more idiosyncratic politics. After five decades, he said, “The roots are deep.”
Yet even some Republican members of Congress who met with Trump on Capitol Hill conceded they might have to rethink some things. The New York Times quoted Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, as saying they’d have to “look at the broader implications of trade agreements” and Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., as saying, “We need to listen to the people.”
“There wasn’t a constituency for Bush Republicanism,” conservative columnist and three-time presidential candidate Pat Buchanan told the Examiner. “I’m not sure there’s any going back.”
It’s an identity crisis for the party, perhaps most obviously disconcerting to the #NeverTrump activists who are already publicly stating their intentions to bolt the GOP or abstain from voting for president in November. It’s no less real for the many more Republicans who will eventually come around.
