How can Trump hurt the GOP establishment?

[GunnyFreedom]

It addresses the thread title - the basic, fundamental question.

The rest of the overly complicated criteria outlined in the OP is actually the thing that confuses the issue.



Hillary Clinton enjoys a tremendous amount of support from the entire shadow-government.

Like grants of eminent domain for personal profit?

 

[LibertyEagle]

My hope is to analyze the situation, not make a case for anything.

One of the underlying themes that is appearing is that without broad and sustained change anything that is done will soon revert back to the status quo. We've seen that in many cases in the past, so part of the questions are, how will it be different for Trump?

Otherwise, thanks for the respect.

There will never be a time when we can say, there, we can now go back to not paying attention. Far too many people doing that, is how we arrived where we are today. The degree of freedom we have will always be related to how vigilant we are.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I think it takes 6-8 years of sustained effort to make a systematic change in a national party like the GOP. The people who rammed Mitt through in 2012 got started around 2006 by mapping out his 2008 run. By 2008, they couldn't win the nomination, but they had the people in place to frontload the 2012 primary schedule with contests known to be favorable. Even after he won the nomination, they were trying to fix the rules to prevent a 2016 primary challenger for his second term.

Don't know a lot about Ron 2008, but from what I've read, it was very difficult to get anything from the state parties. Ron 2012 was different, I believe that run was all about getting a foothold in some of the state party apparatus and expanding during the off years to build support for Rand in 2016. But what happened after taking those state parties, the ones who were unseated said, "we'll be back," and by the 2013, 2014 conventions they were. Those people ran the state parties into the ground before they left, and withheld donor support until all the Ron 2012 people were forced out. Those people during the off years made good on their promise and retook their old positions.

I think it is a mistake to blame the "establishment" or Rand for how he ran his campaign, what he said or didn't say, etc. The blame is on "us" for not protecting and building upon on what was earned. I do understand there are a number of people who did follow through and have worked hard for 8+ years, just saying there was not enough.

Yes...but I think we need to distinguish between a change in policy and a change in sociological will. With a relatively small effort, we could affect sweeping changes in policy within 2-3 years. With a much larger effort and longer investment, we can make fundamental changes in the sociological will of these bodies in 6 to 8 years.

Seizing a Party has to be a multi-pronged approach. You cannot only take the Executive Committee, but also the Central Committee, for example. A huge hinderance to this is the apathy and revulsion that loads onto principled people when operating in an unprincipled Party. Technically, you could totally seize an entire Party apparatus with only the manpower we have already demonstrated. If you could get the 8's and the 10's and the 12's and the 14's and the 16's together, you could easily overwhelm the establishment resistance and seize control over every committee and the chairmanship. The problem is drafting your army and putting them on the field.

In truth, the complete seizure of a Party can take place in 2 years or in 20. The entire logistical question is nothing simpler or more complex than how long will it take to raise and field your army.

We have already experienced these kinds of victories in the movement, where we fell apart was in the after-care. Elected persons didn't show for meetings. Two years later the Army did not come back and we were easily blown away.

Seizure of the Party apparatus is actually not as difficult as it sounds. It's a matter of doing the work to fill in the equation, and then let the math do the real work. If we could be relied upon to actually KEEP it for 6-8 years, then we'd start to see massive fundamental sociological change at the Party level.

 

[erowe1]

There will never be a time when we can say, there, we can now go back to not paying attention. Far too many people doing that, is how we arrived where we are today. The degree of freedom we have will always be related to how vigilant we are.

If paying attention is what got you to support Trump, then you would be better off if you went back to not paying attention.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

.



One of the talking points being repeated in pro-Trump circles is that Trump is going to harm, hurt or otherwise destroy the GOP establishment. For those that subscribe to this viewpoint, I ask the following.



Part 1: How will harm be done?
How can Trump harm the GOP establishment? What specifically can be done?

First, I want to point out that "harm" in and of itself is not necessarily and automatically beneficial to the purveyors of liberty. Some harms to the establishmentarian status quo may be beneficial to us. Some harms to the establishmentarian status quo may be irrelevant to us, and some harms to the establishmentarian status quo may be quite harmful to us in their own right. Without actually assuming that Trump would in any real way harm the Establishment, even if he does that does not necessarily imply that it would be a benefit to anything whatever we care about.

It may help to better define the composition of the GOP establishment, which could be argued to include people from the following groups:

• GOP party leadership – including the Republican National Committee whose power is derived from the party system, party voting and the delegate process.

Trump could lower the grassroots confidence in their own partisan establishment leadership, leading to the election of new establishment leadership that has the approval of the Trump machine. Trump does not have a history of approving ideas things or people who would be beneficial to us or our principles in any way. Here is an example of Trump's potential to "harm the establishment" that would also harm us.

• GOP elected officials – This can include almost any Republican Congressman and certainly the leadership near the top, such as Paul Ryan. Their power is derived from the voting public.

Sadly, people are really too dumb and encumbered with Stockholm Syndrome to "throw the bums out," more likely the effect on public officials would be to incorporate a nationalist bent to their own policies and politics in an effort to mimic the success of Trump. Sending Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures on a Nationalist bender is another way in which Trump can "harm the establishment" but which ultimately hurts our cause more than theirs.

• GOP money men – Some of the big financial backers. Their power is derived from their wealth and their ability to leverage that with GOP party leaders and elected officials. This group would include people who get big government contracts, are big GOP donors and the like.

The ones Trump likes will be blessed, the ones Trump does not like will be cursed. Four years later, nothing will actually have changed.

• GOP bureaucrats - Non-elected, high level government workers often in appointed positions, such as the President’s Cabinet. Power is derived from being appointed or getting hired to a job.

Trump has already pointed to bog-standard oligarch establishment cabined members. The rest of the bureaucracy is certain to follow suit.

• GOP political consultants / intellectuals – Behind the scenes political operatives who work to advance the GOP establishment agenda, often being paid by the GOP money men and political campaigns. Their power is derived by being politically savvy. This group would include people like Karl Rove.

Rovians diminish for a while, and Trumpians climax for a while. The cycle continues. None of which even affect us, much less benefit.

• ???

Obviously some of these can be easily explained, but an analysis of how harm could be done to each of these groups is worthy of consideration and discussion.

What harms a successful Trump does bring to the oligarchy selected establishment status quo, are more likely to harm us or be irrelevant to us than they are to help us in any way.

Part 2: Value of the fight?
While there is certainly some friction between Trump and the GOP establishment, why would this feud be elevated to a level that could seriously damage the GOP establishment?

Consider…

• What level of resources will it take to harm the GOP establishment?

Resources are renewable. If they spend $1 Mn or $1Bn fighting Trup, their coffers will refill and they will have as much or more next cycle.

• Trump has talked about past cases where he has had business conflicts with others, battled against them, got the issued resolved and then moved on. Why would Trump not do that in his conflict with the GOP establishment?

Trump can cow them for as long as Trump is in power, but like a leopard cannot change it's spots, neither can the members of the bureaucracy. The issues Trump has against the status quo are a matter of style not principle. We will end up with nothing more than a new style of the same old shyt.

• Based on the principles that powerful people know how to choose their battles and that a long-term Trump vs. GOP establishment fight isn't a winning move for either of them due to the required resources, why would a truce be less likely than a more complete battle?

Whether we ultimately see an irrelevant truce or an irrelevant war of attrition, will ultimately be up to the whim of Trump, as he decides how he wants the history books written about him.

• Consider that Trump and the GOP establishment are vying for power right now, once this battle is resolved after the election, what would be the value for Trump to put resources into this fight? Why not just negotiate a win-win deal with the GOP establishment?

This is a highly probable outcome. It would not be a win for us.

• At what point does the GOP establishment seek a deal because they have lost the fight?

I think they were "seeking a deal" the minute they started the fight, and have had an eye on publicity the entire time. I expect to see some grandly scripted reality tv show to come to a kumbaya moment following the RNC Convention.

Part 3: Platform considerations
To what degree does Trumps platform require harming the GOP establishment? What will he have power to do?

• Trump wants to shut down a few federal departments (Education, EPA) – great.

If this isn't just a bunch of hot air. The same guy criticized the Oregon Ranchers for disobeying the BLM.

• Trump will put in his own Cabinet – great.

I'm pretty sure that the cabinet members he's already indicated as potentials are already firmly entrenched establishmentarian oligarchs.

• Trumps wants to allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines – a definite free-market plus; as a result some GOP big money men will see lower profits, but how would this do major damage?

He also favors single-payer government health care. Which flip flop are we supposed to believe?

• Trump wants to build a wall – some of the GOP big money men will want some of those construction contracts.

Trump's builder friends will receive those contracts. Trump will argue that it was because he knows their skills. Dems will argue that it's graft. This will blow up into a huge Wallgate scandal before it blows over forgotten and irrelevant.

• Trump doesn’t like the deal we got with NAFTA – great; but will Trump be able to do anything about this without Congressional approval? While this again will affect some financial elements, how would it harm the GOP establishment?

Just like a rising tide floats all ships, so does a receding tide lower them. Whatever Trump does to the economy will affect them just like it affects everyone else, to help or to harm. Ultimately irrelevant to our purpose.

• ???

What level of political capital will Trump need to do anything that will harm the GOP establishment? Why would Trump focus his energy on changes that will have a lot of political opposition?

Trump is about Trump, full stop. What he will do, is what he believes will make him look the best in his memoirs. If he thinks fighting the establishment to an unconditional surrender makes his memoirs look better, he will do that. If he thinks brokering a mega deal with the establishment will make him look better in his memoirs, then he will do that. Even if he does choose the route of fighting them to a full surrender, it will not benefit us. One flavor of oligarch will simply be replaced with another flavor of oligarch, probably with a nationalistic bent.

Part 4: Long term effect
For arguments sake, consider Trump gets elected and does some major damage to the GOP establishment. In what way would the country be changed such that new forms of the GOP establishment couldn’t quickly work its way back into power?

I understand that anyone would have this issue, even Ron Paul, but consider differences in their platforms and campaigns. Dr. Paul’s campaigns were based on education and deep rooted changes, they presented a foundation for long-term change.

Trumps platform could be argued to be based more on attacking issues from a practical viewpoint vs. driving a philosophical change which requires educating people on fundamental issues. What is Trump doing that would give any indication of a lasting change without his influence?

Absolutely nothing. Trump is a cult of personality. Cults of personality do not last beyond their person of focus. They never have, and they never will. All of history testifies to this.

Part 5: Convictions
Is Trump fighting the GOP establishment because of deeply held convictions based on principles or is it more because it’s needed for practical reasons to achieve his objectives?

Neither. He is padding his memoirs and seeing the dollar signs in residual sales. He doesn't really care about the country as much as he cares about his own legacy.

If these are strongly held convictions then why hasn’t Trump fought these battles in the past?

Trump's only conviction is self-promotion and self-aggrandization.

Consider, Trump is now calling on the GOP to fix its nomination system, fair enough, but the process hasn’t really changed in a long time, why the concern now? In 2008 and 2012 there were many cases of Ron Paul supporters being marginalized with rules and procedural manipulations, if Trump had strong convictions on these issues, what did he do to stand up and fight then?

He did. He fought against Ron Paul.

Certainly Trump had to know about these issues in the past, considering he had been musing about a presidential run for a very long time.

While Trump certainly has no obligation to fight on others behalf, does this not provide an indicator of the level of fight he will maintain vs. working out a deal with the GOP establishment?

What indication is there that Trump would stand up for others in the future against the GOP establishment when it doesn’t directly benefit him? Wouldn’t this correlate with his desire to make a long term impact against the GOP establishment?

None. No indication whatever. In the past when he spoke to those issues, it was to tear down Ron Paul. He will only help those who kiss his ring, and he will work to destroy those who do not kiss his ring. The underlying policies and principles will be wholly irrelevant to this.

Notes
The goal of this discussion is to education those who don’t see the “Trump will take down the GOP establishment” line as valid and/or to have some Trump supporters reconsider this issue.


Important: This discussion isn’t about promoting or attacking Trump. Keep posts on-topic, anything off-topic will be flagged to be deleted. Thanks.

 

[Champ]

I think the GOP is in a lose lose situation, regardless of the final outcome. Three major possibilities can happen.

1) If the GOP has its way:

If they do what they have been hinting at doing for the past few months, and "stealing" the nomination through rules changes, stealing of delegates, corrupt party insiders making back room deals, etc, then the backlash from enraged Trump supporters, the media, and people at large that are paying attention and see this as "unfair", will be damaging to what is left of the integrity of the party. Yes, very little is left. They are already backed into a corner due to the shenanigans they pulled against Ron Paul and other presidential hopefuls over the years and due to the intense coverage by the media of Trump, will amplify the backlash far more. Losing to weak candidates like Obama and potentially Clinton certainly will not help. Not ideal, but they at least get to put in "our guy" and will have temporary comfort.

2) If the GOP let's the process play itself out:

Then Trump wins, and we have an outsider that never has really been a part of the Republican party winning the nomination. The policies party insiders want the party to stand for, neo-con foreign war policy, tax money being used for nation building, rather than defense, and strong religious focus and morals on social issues, will potentially be thrown to the wayside. No one knows what Trump actually wants to do or is going to do. Since we have no record to go by in the absence of past political governance, we can only go by the stuff he brags about, his authoritarianism, expanding the military, and building a bunch of things. These things may or may not coincide with what the GOP elites want or has been presented with what they stand for, as demonstrated by the "winners" of the GOP nomination in past presidential elections. The people at large see this, they know he is not liked by the party whose nomination he is seeking, yet he is the front runner. It makes the party look weak, coming apart at the seams, and no longer a concise organization of neo-conservative belief, but a party that lets people who talk the loudest and can bully the best become their representative. This is a damning image to have and even if this option does not happen, the damage has already been done. At best Trump brings instability to what the party stands for and shows cracks in its armor and at worst he undoes all the things that conservative republicans believe in (ie: Trump believes in some social issues that most Republicans do not).

3) Brokered Convention

Mayhem. Nothing would bring more chaos than this option and the typical coronation proceedings would for the first time in decades be absent.


I don't think any option gives the GOP room to escape unscathed through this process. They may not collapse as some have said and they may live on. They've proven to be resilient through centuries of existence. This might just be another bump on the road. Or it could be end times for the GOP, when outsiders, people that the powers that be within the party, win and party bosses have absolutely no control over them anymore.

Long time neocons have already mentioned the possibility of 3rd party support. You don't hear that too often since they almost always get their guy in there, but it appears they feel threatened enough. 2016 has shaken things up so much that the very people that have represented the party for decades are sounding like they want to move on. I know it would never happen, but I can't think of a better outcome than to have, as a result of the 2016 shenanigans, the authoritarian neocons joining up with the authoritarian democrats for some ultimate authoritarian party. Most people at these boards already see them for what they are, but it would make it so much easier for the common man that doesn't care much about politics to know what he was voting for. Just a dream.

In any case, I'm just sitting back, preparing popcorn and watching the destruction happen. There could be room to take advantage of this from the Rand/Amash/Massie wing of the party if enough people bow out over this election cycle, vote 3rd party or vote for Hillary. Don't waste this opportunity guys!

 

[CPUd]

bump for current events