Photo Courtesy of Unsplash.
The defeat of President Donald J. Trump has brought uncertainty to the future trajectory of the Republican Party. The wild antics and entertainment politics of Trumpism will most likely be abandoned by the Republicans, spare the possible candidacies of Tucker Carlson or Donald Trump Jr. The divide within the Republican Party is now between the free-market (economic deregulation) fundamentals of the pre-Trump GOP, and the more nationalist wing which gained support under Trump’s populist rhetoric. Following election night, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) tweeted “the future is clear: we must be a working class party, not a Wall Street party.” Similarly, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated “America needs a real, multi-ethnic working class party that understands that what may be good for Wall Street and Silicon Valley may not be good for our nation’s workers, communities, and families.”
Hawley and Rubio represent a significant number of Republicans who argue that the Republican Party should morph into a workers’ party, and support policies that they argue supports workers over elites. As a pure political strategy, they are right; the Republican Party should support policies that benefit all Americans, especially the lower and middle classes. However, this argument implies that free-market economics is ultimately not beneficial to the working class, and that the Republican Party had previously been against the well-being of the working class. Of course, anyone who supports these free-market principles would argue that laissez-faire economic policies are beneficial to the working class, through better standards of living as a result of competition and low taxes. As The Dispatch’s Jonah Goldberg puts it, “Show me the conservative or libertarian think tanker or pundit who argued for screwing over workers five years ago—or 50.”
So, what does it mean when Republicans like Hawley or Rubio advocate for a working class Republican Party? In Hawley’s case, it means an abandonment of traditionally conservative and Republican principles in exchange for economic nationalism. Under the label of a “pro-workers agenda,” Hawley pushes policies consisting of an increased welfare state, trade protectionism through increased tariffs, and stricter immigration policies. These policies arguably have benefits for workers in farming and manufacturing industries. Workers have greater job stability through government protections that prevent their industry from dying-out or losing their job to an immigrant. However, tariffs raise prices for American consumers and immigration increases competition, which stimulates the economy and arguably has a more beneficial effect for workers. Yet, despite the lack of inherent benefits of economic nationalist to the working class, Hawley advocates a sweeping party transformation claiming that free-market policies will never win over the working class needed to win elections (ignoring Reagan’s bipartisan working class coalition in the 1980’s).
Rubio, on the other hand, advocates a working class party not in the economic nationalist sense as Hawley, but in an attempt to garner the populist support that led to Trump’s 2016 victory for future GOP candidates (possibly Rubio himself.) Ever since Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012, the GOP has tried to become more inclusive in hopes of recruiting more minority voters, specifically those of the Hispanic workers demographic. Ironically, Trump was able to do just that, as shown in his major victory in the former swing-state of Florida thanks to the Cuban and Venezualean immigrant heavy county, Miami-Dade. Rubio accounts Trump’s success to his populist-nationalist rhetoric used on the campaign trail at rallies. This is partly correct. Trump gained a lot of support through his talks of building a border wall, draining the swamp, and protecting American jobs. However, Trump’s popularity came not through the specific nationalistic policies, but rather his brash, obnoxious, anti-establishment behavior and rhetoric. I have my doubts that Trump’s success derives from a pro-tariff voter base, largely because Trump himself has demonstrated a lack of understanding of how tariffs work. The MAGA crowd has been supportive of a significantly large portion of Trump’s policies. But what has been the most successful and popular of the Trump Administration’s policies? The first that comes to mind is the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which lowered taxes for every American. The tax cuts, the most boasted factual policy from Trump’s rallies, is a traditionally conservative plan, designed by former Reagan advisor, Larry Kudlow, and passed Congress with the help of notable conservatives Former Speaker Paul Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Another one of Trump’s most boasted accomplishments—Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges, most of whom were selected off a list provided by The Federalist Society, a traditional conservative/originalist organization formed in 1982.
Much of the support Trump garnered came through his populist rhetoric, not the nationalist ideas he spouted. The MAGA’s crowd views Trump’s greatest accomplishments to be that any other establishment Republican would have done. Had Scott Walker or Jeb Bush been elected president in 2016, we would see a similar tax plan and judges. Trump lost the election, not from his most popular free-market policies, but from his disrespect, political ignorance, and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump lost an election despite the successes from down-ballot Republicans, most of whom had traditionally conservative, free-market ideas. Heading into the Republican Party’s transformation, they should seek to transform into what brought them success, not to what caused Trump to lose. •
