I’ve heard a number of commentators--right, left, and center--characterize Trump as the pivotal problem with Republican leadership. But why was Trump overwhelming to the Republican party? Why was he gradually embraced by nearly all Republican leadership? And would the Republican party be much different today without him?
Each party is made up of different interest groups. Two large factions of the Republican Party are fiscal conservatives and the Christian Right.
The fiscal conservatives are dominated by Free Market Fundamentalists. Anti-tax pledges and opposition to virtually any government regulations are Free Market Fundamentalist positions, and those positions are prominent in the current Republican party.
The Christian Right wants white Christian conservative values to dominate American culture. They once did dominate American culture, and they want to turn back the clock.
These two influential factions of the Republican party do not make natural teammates. Free Market Fundamentalism is not concerned with feminism, gay marriage, or abortion. Christianity is not founded on a particular economic philosophy (with the ironic exception of mercy for the poor).
Despite their differences, these two groups do have a policy goal that unites them. They’d probably describe that goal as “small government,” but the goal can be more frankly stated as “weak or dysfunctional government.”
The Free Marketeers seek an unrestrained capitalism that is red in tooth and claw. Regulation limits the pure capitalism they desire. And any level of taxation is a threat to their wealth.
The Christian Right can no longer dominate national-level politics electorally, so they fear national political power. They glorify local political power in opposition to national political power and glorify historical periods when they had more control.
A weak or incompetent government also furthers the Christian Right narrative that only Christian organizations can be wise or do good works. Secular organizations that do good are a threat to their business model, and the federal government is an inherently secular organization.
Republican Party factions may each want to build things and achieve positive ends through the federal government, but they can’t agree on what they should build. Their path of least resistance is to choose the strategy that no faction opposes, which is to weaken the federal government. The more that any faction deviates from the goal of federal incompetence, the more they are punished by other factions in the party.
It is also easier. It is easier to tear things down than it is to build things up.
Republicans can pass legislation or develop new ideas to support their agenda. But that's hard. It’s much simpler to deny funding, obstruct legislation, cast doubt on science or analysis, cast aspersions at reform or at reformers, and demonize the federal government generally.
Let’s take the IRS as an example, (although it’s true of almost every federal agency). If you can’t legislate lower taxes, why not underfund and disrupt the agency responsible for collecting them? It’s a win-win, because not only do wealthy donors remain unchallenged in their tax avoidance strategies, but the agency’s reputation suffers as it cannot keep up with normal expectations. The public experiences the poor service, and you can celebrate as the public’s anger grows. It is hard to run a complicated agency, and easy to disrupt it.
Donald Trump was acceptable to all the factions of the Republican Party because those factions don’t want the government to be seen as capable and competent. Republican leadership did not love Trump. But they were happy to watch federal institutions descend into chaos.
"Aw, c’mon, man. Conservatives support limited government. Nobody in their right mind supports dysfunctional or incompetent government, so don’t be a jerk and suggest that they do."
Most Republicans are good people and clear thinkers. But as large systems move forward, sometimes the behavior of the system does not reflect the desires of the individuals. I agree about the decency of these individuals, but I’m not a jerk just because I can clearly see what is happening in the system that they support.
In game theory (or my limited understanding of it), a strategy is an equilibrium strategy when it’s the best strategy regardless of the choices other players make.
This describes the state within the Republican party: The anti-government strategy is an equilibrium strategy. If one faction in the party decides to build something positive at the federal level, it loses support from other factions, and becomes too weak to move forward.
But if one faction finds a way to demonize or disrupt federal government, the other factions will applaud and join in. The strategy of federal incompetence and disruption has become the only rational way to gain favor from the different factions of the party.
The Republican party was once at a different equilibrium, where good governance was part of the strategy. What changed?
We all personify the American idea to some degree, and like to see America through the lens of our own ideals. We like to identify with America in a personal way. Most of us, historically, were offended by a federal government that was feckless. It reflected poorly on us. We took it personally.
The base of the Republican party no longer identifies with America in that personal way. They don’t identify with an America that is multiracial, multicultural, and secular. They don’t identify with an America that is urban and cosmopolitan. They don’t identify with an America they cannot dominate politically. They dream of an America from 40 years ago, but cannot have it.
When the Republican base stopped identifying with America in a personal way, they stopped insisting that American governance be good and competent. If American governance is an embarrassing mess, they no longer take it personally. There is no longer pressure on Republican leadership to respect the institutions or norms of American government.
That’s how the Republican party’s equilibrium strategy shifted from principled conservatism to chaotic governance. Individuals didn’t make that decision--good people and clear thinkers would usually not choose unstable, chaotic governance. The bad governance option opened up when the base stopped identifying with the evolving American idea, and the bad governance option became the path of least resistance.
The American election system is the latest institution to come under full attack. People who love American Constitutional democracy keep thinking that these extremists can’t stoop any lower. But this isn’t the end of this struggle. It’s just the end of the beginning.
-----
Notes
I feel compelled to point out that there’s another player in the game who embraces the strategy of weak or dysfunctional American governance. Any foreign adversary shares an interest in weak or dysfunctional American governance. When players in a game share the same goal, they do not need to cooperate in order to benefit from each other’s actions. Or, put another way: collusion is beside the point. Russia celebrates American political chaos. It is exceptionally dangerous for an American political party to share this kind of interest with foreign adversaries.
Comments