Is there anything positive in the now-likely nomination of Donald Trump? Well, the New York Times reports that Donald Trump’s More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in GOP. To which Democratic partisans respond in unison, “oh yeah, Hillary is better.” And on that front, she is (after a circuitous route based on the nation’s growing acceptance of gay legal equality).
But that’s not the question; the issue here is what Trump signifies for the GOP, and despite his likely drubbing in November (with the proviso that anything could happen in an election), we can at least say that classic LGBT fear-mongering of the Ted Cruz variety didn’t work, with even white evangelicals treading to Trump. That, if nothing else, is a positive change that could augur well for the GOP post-Trump.
More. From the NYT:
Mr. Trump is not as embracing of gay rights as the Democratic candidates are; he said during this campaign that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman…. But he does not emphasize marriage as an issue, and he makes no mention of it, for example, on his campaign website, which focuses on issues like immigration and trade.
And Mr. Trump, who has inflamed tensions with almost every group, from Hispanics to women to African-Americans, has avoided attacking or offending gay men and lesbians during the campaign.
Cruz is hoping the “bathroom issue” will make a difference in Indiana. We’ll see.
Also, I’m no Trumpian but I did get a kick out of The Ballad of Lying, Cheating, Stealing Ted.
Update: Despite a final push on the restroom issue, Cruz loses big in Indiana.
And Via Politico:
The only problem with Cruz’s socially conservative message? The voters he has to win over [in Indiana] don’t like it. …
Today, vast swaths of the state’s Republican electorate, from Indianapolis to West Lafayette, have retreated from the culture wars. And like the 50s-era diner itself, Cruz’s dogged socially conservative message seems anachronistic—and perhaps a little tin-eared—to these fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republicans….
On the other hand, hard to argue with Cruz’s takedown of Trump. If only they both could lose!
20 Comments for “The Post-Trump GOP”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m not sure the the “classic LGBT fear-mongering of the Ted Cruz variety didn’t work” (my guess is that all the fear-mongering in the world couldn’t overcome “Lyin’ Ted’s” sanctimonious sleaze and transparent insincerity except among the conservative Christian segment of the base, where “Lyin’ Ted” sounds and acts just like a superstar preacher), but Republican state legislators roll right along on the “LGBT fear-mongering” bandwagon.
Time will tell whether or not The President Presumptive’s relatively moderate views on “equal means equal” (he opposes marriage equality but doesn’t seem interested in pushing the “bathroom bills” or the rest of the current anti-equality agenda) influence the Republican Party’s course over the next few years, but we have a lot of work to do on the blizzard of anti-equality bills now pending in state legislatures across the country. It is work that cannot be put off.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Hasn’t the Donald promised to appoint SCOTUS justices along the Scalia model? I imagine he would appoint justices that would be most comfortable with the Citizen United ruling. Whether that coincides with the social views of a Scalia-like, I don’t know.
And, just to note, hasn’t Merrick Garland voted in an expansive way re: the Citizens United ruling? (i.e., Garland is quite the non-progressive, if you look at his record). So who knows what lies ahead for us and SCOTUS, regardless the nominator…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In late March, The President Presumptive promised to pick from a list of “five or ten” potential nominees, and revealed that the “Heritage Foundation and others are working on the list”. That suggests that he will nominate judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, but we’ll know for sure when the list is made public, if it is.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… despite his likely drubbing in November …
I wouldn’t count The President Presumptive down and out quite yet, despite the current polls.
Polls at this point are meaningless, and the Republican elite (which seems to be the prime mover behind the disaster meme) hasn’t been right about anything else this election cycle, so there’s no reason to believe that they are right about this.
The President Presumptive is a snake oil salesman, to be sure, but he is a genius politician with an uncanny ability to find and exploit the Achilles heel of his opponents, eventually provoking them into self-proving his taunts (witness the meltdown of “Little Marco”, who killed himself dead by coming on as a rabid chipmunk in the “Destroy Donald” debate).
This election is going to be a lot closer than the pundits think.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I believe that, too. Of course the way the media provides Drumpf free air time needs to be addressed — as does this whole the low bar of “taking the dishes out of the sink before he pees in it” = “presidential”.
The reality for Trump is that he’s already factored his negatives into the market — he’s a misogynistic narcissist with a bad temper, no filters and zero impulse control… and he’s going with that.
Clinton’s negatives are also largely factored into the political market as well — it will be interesting to see if the campaign let’s her “cut loose” as the smartest person in the room… I suspect that they will. Don’t expect her to take a supine pose like Kerry did during the Swift Boat attacks.
It’s all going to come down to voter turn-out & demographics.
posted by Houndentenor on
Trump is a celebrity whose only real business skill is self promotion. He’s brilliant at it. The press give him tons of coverage because he gives them the kind of access and PR stunt madness that viewers will tune in for. The other candidates complain but they all run off after the debates while Trump stayed around for hours and talked to every media outlet. Yes, that meant he got more air time. Politicians are still playing a 20th century political game with a 21st century celebrity driven media and they wonder why they aren’t getting their message out? Yes, the “news” media should cover the news and not the nonsense they love to spend time on. it’s so bad now that I joked to someone recently that there’s more music on MTV these days than there is news on CNN. It’s just part of their name and has nothing to do with what the channel is any more. But the real indication of how bad things are happened a few weeks back as the Brazil impeachment story hadn’t quite made it to the American media (but was huge in the rest of the world where they still have news) and Chris Hayes tweeted that he wish he had a podcast so he could devote a whole hour to what was happening in Brazil. HE HAS A WHOLE HOUR FIVE NIGHTS A WEEK ON MSNBC! But the network only wants election polls and sniping comments, not policy.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Don’t expect her to take a supine pose like Kerry did during the Swift Boat attacks.
You betcha! Hilliaryous.
posted by Jorge on
Is there anything positive in the now-likely nomination of Donald Trump? Well, the New York Times reports that Donald Trump’s More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in GOP.
It’s the best of both worlds. Anti-PC and sensible. And Caitlyn Jenner taking him up on his inclusive bathroom offer brings a whole new meaning to the Dump Trump movement.
The President Presumptive is a snake oil salesman, to be sure, but he is a genius politician with an uncanny ability to find and exploit the Achilles heel of his opponents, eventually provoking them into self-proving his taunts
It did not work on Megyn Kelly. Attacking someone’s strength does not always work. By the way, I’m very glad he agreed to be interviewed by her. This makes it more likely that he will eventually come to a good deal with Russia and China, because it means there is like after burning bridges.
“Mr. Trump is not as embracing of gay rights as the Democratic candidates are; he said during this campaign that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman…. But he does not emphasize marriage as an issue, and he makes no mention of it, for example, on his campaign website, which focuses on issues like immigration and trade.”
Most of the people on the right who consider it important to oppose the gay rights movement per se are sickeningly sweet goodie-goodies, and most of them are so confident in their own righteousness they would never consider that maybe Satan has co-oped them. In contrast Donald Trump is depraved–and he knows it. He does not care about whether something conforms to biblical appearances, only in whether it has value or liability to the interests he has declared his own.
posted by Doug on
“This makes it more likely that he will eventually come to a good deal with Russia and China. . .”
With all due respect doing an interview with Megan Kelly means nothing with regard to Russia or China.
posted by Doug on
Meanwhile the House Armed Services voted to add language to the Defense Authorization bill, a must pass bill, that blocks Obama’s Executive Order that forbids discrimination against LGBT folks working for government contractors.
Apparently the GOP controlled House hasn’t gotten the message from The Donald yet.
posted by Houndentenor on
I have been saying all year that Cruz is worse than Trump. By a lot, actually.
And I agree with you Stephen. Trump and Kasich are better on lbgt issues than the other candidates. Even toning down the rhetoric is an improvement. Yes, the Democrats are a lot better on those issues but I welcome any improvement in the GOP. I’m tired of the constant battles over nonsense. The party leadership has pandered to the bigots for decades and someone is going to have to have the courage to stand up to them. Neither Trump nor Kasich is doing a lot but compared to Cruz? Even daring to saying anything positive at all. And of course what’s ridiculous about that is that Cruz was happy to go to a Manhattan fundraiser hosted by a gay couple. Do any of them believe a word of the filth they spew?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Do any of them believe a word of the filth they spew?
Its irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant what Bush/Rove/Mehlman believed about the anti-marriage amendments. The spew has consequences.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I see that George Will is in a major snit this morning, ranting on about “quislings” and “collaborationists” — Republican politicians like Pennsylvania Congressmen Lou Barletta, Tom Marino, and Bill Schuster, who are bowing to the will of Republican primary voters in their districts and endorsing The President Presumptive.
I can’t imagine the disdain — or for that matter, what words — Will reserves for the Republican primary voters who have propelled The President Presumptive toward the nomination.
Whatever words Will might choose, Will does not appear to believe the hype (“… the average Republican is better educated and has a higher IQ than the average Democrat …“) from the article Stephen used (along with Will’s nonsensical ramblings) to spearhead Stephen’s attack on elitist, smug, know-it-all liberals in the previous thread, “Liberalism: What Went So Terribly Wrong“.
Maybe it is time for Stephen to ask the corollary question: “Conservatism: What Went So Terribly Wrong”.
posted by JohnInCA on
To be clear, just how often does a *failed* candidate create a lasting change in the party? If Trump doesn’t win in November, why would the Republican base conclude that they should try to be *more* like him to win elections? Especially since, and this really is key, *they keep winning elsewhere*.
This optimism seems unwarranted.
posted by tom jefferson III on
I suspect that Mr. K is still running because he hopes to get something out of the GOP convention.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Also, I’m no Trumpian but I did get a kick out of The Ballad of Lying, Cheating, Stealing Ted.
It is pretty funny. Thanks for sharing it.
Cruz is downright dangerous, entirely aside from his positions on LGBT issues and his lack of character. He shows every sign of being a Christian dominionist or so closely linked with the movement that it makes no difference.
If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to chose between Cruz and Trump as the next President, I’d choose Trump.
posted by Doug on
I’m of an age that with a draconian choice like that I might just choose the bullet. I think both could be a real danger to the entire world.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think both could be a real danger to the entire world.
I agree. But that is the choice Republicans are facing, and that is likely to be the case for years to come.
The President Presumptive is clearly not conservative in any meaningful sense. Lucifer isn’t, either, despite his claims. And neither are Republican primary voters.
Ronald Reagan conservatism has been dying in the Republican Party for the last fifteen years, and is, I suspect, now dead. The party is no longer a conservative party in any meaningful sense, but instead a radical right-wing party similar to the fringe parties of Europe. Whichever brand of radicalism prevails this election cycle — The President Presumptive’s brand or Lucifer’s brand — the struggle between the two radical philosophies embodied by those candidates represents the future of the Republican Party for the next several election cycles.
Ask yourself — just who is going to turn things around? Who’s left to do so?
posted by JohnInCA on
“I agree. But that is the choice Republicans are facing, and that is likely to be the case for years to come.”
If that’s the choice Republicans are facing, it’s 100% because it’s the choice they *choose* to make.
posted by Indiana - IGF Culture Watch on
[…] (Moved up from an update to an earlier post.) […]