Trump Spells End of Republican Party And Beginning Of Long-Overdue Realignment

The Washington Post ran a piece today asking numerous republican and conservative figures how the party should respond to Trump. The replies ranged from the reasonable, Haley Barbour("unite), to the idiotic, William Kristol("third party candidate"). One, from former Bush Press Spox Ari Fleischer, caughtmy attention.

Fleischer basically said that Trump, if nominated or elected, would spell the end of the republican party as we have known it and would usher in a party realignment. The dems would be the ultra libs, the republicans the traditional conservatives,whatever that means now, and Trump would head a populist faction of blue collar workers, independents, etc.

This idea has been mooted on these boards many times in the past. It seems the time may have finally come, fostered not so much by Trump himself but by the irrational opposition of party insiders, neo-con war mongers and self-described conservative intellectuals. They have demanded that we support their loser candidates, eg the Bushes, Bob Dole, McCain and Romney, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly it's different and they will have a tantrum if they can't get their way.

The dems have become increasingly bizarre. Their candidates are a comical duo of an elderly commie and a woman so dishonest her own supporters rate her as very untrustworthy. In their last debate, they pandered so wildly to the open borders/amnesty crowd that even the Washington Post had to interrupt its non-stop anti-Trump screeds to denounce their proposals as unworkable and incompatible with national sovereignty. It's no wonder Trump has drawn untold numbers of nominally democrat voters, many of them who look a lot like the Reagan democrats of old. Blue collar union workers who live in the real world, not the university/media/government fantasy land of the party elites.

On the republican side, we have a group of "leaders" with no followers. The party elite's favored positions on trade, immigration, foreign affairs, entitlement reform, even social issues like gay marriage, are deeply unpopular with rank and file voters. See Cantor, Eric. For all their talk now of conservative purity, what has it gotten us? Gay marriage, obamacare, open borders, a crazy iran deal and a series of increasingly idiotic middle east adventures. Thanks guys, for nothing.

As Fleischer noted, Trump could just be a one-time personality cult phenomenon. If elected however, it's likely he would usher in a more far-reaching realignment. The dems would be the far left, euro-socialist party, the republicans the think tank conservative/country clubbers. and the Trumps would be a coalition of economic populists, nationalists and cultural traditionalists. When you contemplate the ramifications, you understand why the powers that be, in both parties, are so desperate to derail Trump.
 
Realignment to unicorn butt.

Donald Trump's plan is "not in the universe of the realistic"

"Some political commentators like to describe fanciful proposals they view as wildly unrealistic as "puppies and rainbows" plans. Here's the New York Times's Josh Barro doing so about Marco Rubio's position on tax cuts.

"But if Rubio's tax plan is "puppies and rainbows," then Donald Trump's may be best described as "unicorns and time portals." It's so far beyond the plausible that science fiction, rather than children's literature, feels like the right genre for capturing its essence.

"It's not even in the universe of the realistic," said Goldwein.

"Here are a few ways of thinking about just how massive Trump's proposed tax cuts are:

  • The projected US deficit for the next 10 years is $9.4 trillion. Passing Donald Trump’s $9.5 trillion tax cuts would more than double that total.
  • The federal government is expected to bring in about $21 trillion in individual income taxes over the next 10 years. Trump’s cuts amount to a 45 percent reduction from that projection.
  • Trump's proposed tax cuts amount to about 80 percent of the total budget for Social Security, the federal government’s largest program.
  • America's defense budget — which funds the Army, Navy, Air Force, etc. — costs a little more than $6 trillion. In other words, you could completely dissolve the entire American military and still only be two-thirds of the way to Donald Trump's proposed tax cut.
"But it's not just that Trump wants the biggest tax cut of any of the three candidates. It's that he's also promised to maintain funding for entitlements while increasing spending on the military. There's just no way to reconcile all that. Taken together, even the most sympathetic reading of Trump's plan dissolves into incoherence.

"This does help explain, though, why Trump is so intent on having Mexico pay for the border wall — under his administration, America almost certainly couldn't afford it."
 
no one can say tax cuts would increase the deficit. As the last 4 sets of tax cuts has seen and increase in tax revenues to the govt.
 
As the last 4 sets of tax cuts has seen and increase in tax revenues to the govt.
But they also had spending increases, crowding out, or both. We're at the zero lower bound now, so are you advocating Trump increase spending?
 
In one way the rise of economic populists, powering both drumpf and Sanders, is win/win. It means the public left and right is firmly rejecting the Laissez Fairey.
 
Last edited:
Their candidates are a comical duo of an elderly commie and a woman so dishonest her own supporters rate her as very untrustworthy.

"Mr. Trump continues to win contests — 15 of 25 so far — and insists that he would easily beat Hillary Clinton in the fall if she were the Democratic nominee. But his general election weaknesses are glaring.

"He’s running well behind her in polls this month by The Washington Post/ABC News and The Wall Street Journal/NBC News. More alarming to Republicans, in the Post/ABC survey, only 27 percent of voters rated Mr. Trump as honest, 10 points less than Mrs. Clinton on an issue that is her Achilles’ heel. In the Journal/NBC poll, Mr. Trump got a 64 percent negative rating from all voters compared with only a 25 percent positive. That 39-point net negative is territory previously reached only by politicians such as Richard Nixon during impeachment."
 
One thing this campaign is not about is details. The public is easily bored by details, plus they know instinctively that most of it is lies anyway or has no chance of getting enacted.

This is a big ideas campaign, and Trump has recognized that and capitalized on it.
 
what zero boundary and how would you or anyone else know what actually causes GDP to expand and tax revenues to go up after taxes. its all guess work.

But I do know we have lots of taxes which could be cut.

as phil mickelson said before the IRS was jackbooted upon him, he has a 63% rate. So tack off 13 percent for CA. that is still 50. and we have 200 other taxes.

There is most likely a lot of tax cutting before it hurts the govt.

We don't really have to worry about spending increases or inflation being the actually cause of economic expansion until Congress decides it would be nice to force the FED to tell us how man trillions of dollars they are creating privately each year.



But they also had spending increases, crowding out, or both. We're at the zero lower bound now, so are you advocating Trump increase spending?
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid that the GOP has learned that they have to be more like Trump. That is what will win for them going forward. Bigotry, nationalism, xenophobia, fear, scapegoating and authoritarianism.
 
oh its the leftist list of isms.... how nice and alinskyish.

I'm afraid that the GOP has learned that they have to be more like Trump. That is what will win for them going forward. Bigotry, nationalism, xenophobia, fear, scapegoating and authoritarianism.
 
Back
Top