How can Trump hurt the GOP establishment?

[Bryan]

You've asked for a research paper I don't write those anymore. All I can offer are my thoughts.

Consider me more interested in details than talking points.

Part 1: How will harm be done?
We've seen many establishment figures declare that if trump is the nominee, they will leave the party and maybe even vote hillary clinton. This exposes and weakens the neo-conservatives that have done unquantifiable damage to this country.

Many establishment figures use their fundraising ability to influence the candidate, as well as legislation priorities for the new administration. I don't view Trump as beholden to these figures, this weakens their overall influence.

Good point, there would seem to be some general weakening here. But which groups? GOP party leaders? Some of the top elected officials? But what would prevent the next wave of establishment types, now being groomed, waiting in the wings, to step up vs. a better flavor to take the helm?

Part 2: Value of the fight?
The scorched earth tactics of the NeverTrump movement is burning bridges. Even after Trump is the nominee, there's no way for many of these figures to save face and do a 180 turn to support Trump. They will go even further off the deep end, supporting democrats if they think it will benefit them and their influence. Many are offended that their donations won't buy them influence with Trump.

Good points, but how long of an effect would this be? Would the money mostly be back in 4-8 years? The Dems don't make for a good long term plan for them. Even with bridges bring burned, won't the GOP be happy to take them back along with their money?

Is a truce / reconciliation possible? Sure, but once Trump has the upper hand, he will certainly use it to his advantage for his benefit, not theirs.

Agreed, so Trump would have some upper hand over them. The question would become, how would he use it? And at that point, wouldn't the GOP establishment then just be #2 in the power pecking order for team red?

Part 3: Platform considerations
From a platform perspective I see three key issues: Tax reform, trade reform, immigration reform. I'm not exactly sure how progress on these issues hurt the establishment. But one thing is for sure, the status quo benefits the establishment. They don't want significant tax reform, trade reform, or immigration reform. They are happy the way things are.

Good points; the platform would certainly move some trends the opposite direction of the establishment (in general), so there would be some who would take an economic hit. Certain reforms could also deregulate some power which would make it harder to manipulate the systems. Mostly this hits the GOP money men, which weakens GOP funding - but would it be enough to really make a difference? Could anyone argue this is smashing the GOP establishment?

The long term issue is important again here, why could these reforms not get trended the other way in 20 years?

Part 4: Long term effect
Neo-conservatives leaving the party is a good start. Trump's recent comments on a rigged election system is encouraging. Voter disenfranchisement is a thing. Many of us were apathetic about the system before learning about Ron Paul, and we got our hopes and dreams absolutely crushed. Educating more people about the rigged system could lead to some changes. We need a lot more participation in elections, I truly believe there are enough people to get Ron Paul elected, just apathy is too perverse because the system is viewed as too corrupt and rigged.

Excellent point, to which I agree. I've been musing this is likely the most valued thing we have seen this cycle. This is an area where we can seek common ground with people new to the process; our message can be simple, "this is what happened to us in 2008/2012; let's join forces to change the system."

Part 5: Convictions
Trump has a deep conviction for RATINGS! He wants to do what is popular. Fighting the establishment is popular because it gets him a lot of voters, new voters coming in to support him.

Good point, the question would become, after the election, would it still be popular to fight the establishment? After a deal with the GOP, could he redirect his supporters to some other issue?

Other than that he does communicate a deep love and appreciation for this country. And he has watched as decades of bad policy has squandered the wealth and diminished the standing of the country. He lays the blame on democrats and republicans.

Agreed, and there could be some fallout from this - but how much? and would it change the course of the country? There has to be a lot of follow though on this. Will it happen?

I don't believe he has strong convictions for fighting the establishment or helping others fight the establishment. But you got to get your punches in when you can. Who else this election has any chance of disrupting the status quo??

Agreed. I see there being many shades of gray between "Only Trump" and "Never Trump". For many, they aren't going to get in Trumps way of attacking the status quo, but they aren't going to put their name down as a supporter either due to all the other issues.

Thanks for the excellent response, even if it wasn't a research paper.

 

[Bryan]

TPP is far bigger than NAFTA. If Trump puts the kibosh on TPP it would be a devastating defeat for the Establishment. Détente with Russia and securing the border would be two more devastating blows to the aims of the powers that be.

It would definitely be a set back for the establishment in general, which would weaken some of the GOP money men. That's not really crushing the GOP establishment however.

As well, the long term effect still looms. The establishment is really good at licking their wounds, regrouping and trying something just a little different with different branding.

 

[Bryan]

All of these questions could apply to Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Just replace the word Trump with the word Paul.

Yes, I did specifically acknowledge that is true in part 4 (long term effects). It would be true in the others as well, to which we could do an analysis (for a different thread).

Didn't Rand supporters argue that his message was more practical than Ron's? It wasn't so much about education as it was about politics.

Spot on. And that is part of why Rand did not inspire people like Ron did. Rand's message did revolve around fighting the establishment some, but it still seems to be a bit different than what I'm hearing from the pro-Trump circles.

These questions/issues don't really resonate with me considering I've seen them asked about Ron Paul.

I'm not following your logic here, could you please explain? It would seem this line of questions would be of equal value for anyone.

Thanks!

 

[Petar]

This in no way addresses the OP or contributes to the thread. It is merely a repetition of the type of statement that led to the thread being created. Please expand on "they", and what groups "they" may fall in:

I think CPUd was right, "This in no way addresses the OP or contributes to the thread"

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.

The same could be said about Hillary Clinton.

Does that mean she's a libertarian?

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

 

[CaptUSA]

These are excellent points; but I would counter point that in the absence of a strong third party they would be short term effects as the money would soon be back. So I disagree with it being an uphill battle to lure them back. They will be back in 4 years since there is no place else to go. One thing that would not have changed is the GOP brand equity, all the perks they get from the government, media, debate commission and more.

Thanks for the solid contribution to the discussion.

Yep. I acknowledged this in Part 4. In the long term, the two-party system needs to be almost evenly divided. Not only does it increase their fundraising capabilities, but it also prevents people from going third party. Even in this forum, we have a bunch of people suggesting that we vote for their definition of what would be the lesser of two evils.

 

[Petar]

Yep. I acknowledged this in Part 4. In the long term, the two-party system needs to be almost evenly divided. Not only does it increase their fundraising capabilities, but it also prevents people from going third party. Even in this forum, we have a bunch of people suggesting that we vote for their definition of what would be the lesser of two evils.

Third-parties serve a purpose in maintaining the two-party system.

 

[familydog]

I'm not following your logic here, could you please explain? It would seem this line of questions would be of equal value for anyone.

Thanks!

As you acknowledge, these questions all could have applied to Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul skeptics in the Republican Party often did ask these questions. These questions didn't interest me then and they don't interest me now. Frankly, I find them irrelevant, but an interesting intellectual exercise. If the latter is what you are going for, I can respect that and I will respond accordingly.

Part 1:

GOP party leadership - Trump is challenging the candidate selection process and the damage may be irreversible. Whether Trump wins or not, the people will expect great transparency and great control of the selection process without having to go through a convoluted process. This threatens the leadership, because the leadership can be challenged directly by the people.

GOP elected officials - Trump might change the party platform. That threatens stalwarts of the current platform. They need to adjust or get voted out.

GOP money men - Trump is reducing the amount of money needed to run for the presidency. Yes, he is self-funding, but he is spending very little. He is a master of the media and despite 99% of the coverage being negative, he can always spin it in his favor. Plus, Trump is threatening the donor class through making their lobbying money irrelevant. The donor class loves their cheap labor. Trump threatens that.

GOP bureaucrats - I don't think he will threaten bureaucrats by in large.

GOP consultants/intellectuals - Despite being correct about a few things, the GOP intellectual class will need to change their focus. Instead of arguing topics that aren't relevant to the ordinary American, they will need to shift focus or become even more irrelevant than they already are. They won't have Trump's ear. Trump generally campaigns on his gut. He doesn't need lobbyists, consultants and focus groups. He is actually in touch with real people, because he actually talks with them. I think you will see Trump copycats from now on even if he loses.

Part 2:

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

I think that is an impossible question to answer. I don't know. What I do know is Trump has done quite well in this regard while only spending, what, 10 million?

"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?"

It's difficult to negotiate with authoritarian sociopaths. With that said, these are people who never made deals. They never had to. They don't want to and I don't think Trump wants to as well. He will make enough gestures of goodwill to get by, but that's it. I think it's safe to say that he has been permanently put on their bad side.

"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?"

I think a truce is likely. However, that truce will be gone if/when he moves into the White House.

"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?"

Perhaps he will, but he will likely be a one-term president if that's the case. He (and Bernie) have changed people's expectations on how their voices will be heard.

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

I think we are starting to see that. Some are openly admitting that even if he doesn't reach 1237 delegates, he will have to be the nominee if he is close.

Part 3:

"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?"

I don't know, but it probably wouldn't. His stance on Obamacare isn't as strong as it should be.

"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?"

Probably. He isn't Ron Paul when it comes to the Constitution. He has decades of executive order precedent behind him. He will also have a mandate from the voters and Congress be damned if they step in between him and the people. For better or for worse, that's the way it will probably be. The GOP establishment relies on the donor class. The donor class depend on cheap labor. Anything that harms the donor class will harm the establishment. Besides, the GOP establishment isn't that far removed from the Democrat establishment. They both depend on importing massive amounts of people who end up inevitably voting for and supporting big government.

Part 4:

"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?"

That's the danger. Chance are, the power vacuum will be filled after a Trump presidency. That's the nature of government.

"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."

Despite my deep love for Ron Paul, I disagree with him on this. I am an anarchist. I don't think long-term changes for the better are possible with a government.

"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?"

We won't know until we see how Congress changes under a president Trump. We also won't know until we know what kind of Supreme Court nominees he would choose. My guess is he would choose fairly conservative justices (like Alito) as a show of good faith to the Ted Cruz faction to gain their support. Heck, he might even say he will nominate Cruz.

Part 5:

"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?"

Trump is a conduit for the average person. In my opinion, the average person lacks convictions in many areas. His convictions are helping the middle and working class. Whatever that means is up to interpretation.

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

It's difficult to be a successful businessman in New York and upset the apple cart. Why he is doing it now? He saw an opportunity and took advantage of it.

"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?"

Trump didn't cry fowl before, because he wasn't running for president before. This is just as much marketing as it is deeply held beliefs. He is winning the public opinion battle with his message and it's helping him get votes. Like it or not, people are waking up to a corrupt system.

"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?"

As stated before, he will have a truce until he is elected. Then all hell breaks loose, in my opinion. If the establishment is dumb enough to fall for it, they are just as dumb as I know they are.

"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?"

Why should he stand up for people when it doesn't benefit him? We all support liberty candidates because we all hope to obtain something from it. I reject the the premise that only helping someone when it benefits him is inherently bad. That's business. That's politics. That's reality. I supported Ron Paul, because I know his presidency would be good for me personally.

I hope that helps.

 

[familydog]

Don't ever do that. Ever. There is no comparison. Only contrast.

That's quite an authoritarian response.

Ron Paul is anti-establishment - Trump is establishment.

*yawn*

Ron Paul has principles - Trump does not.

Trump has principles, you just disagree with them. (and so do I with regards to many of them)

Ron Paul led a principled grassroots campaign to become the GOP base - Trump has been using a corporate-media sponsored, populist air campaign to fracture the GOP base. (Hmmm, I wonder how that could benefit the establishment...)

How has that campaign worked out? Trump is a better marketer than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul meant a change in political direction - Trump means an increase in speed in the same direction.

In your opinion.

Trump means more power for government and less for you.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's no different than any other candidate. Why single Trump out?

If you want to believe this fantasy, I can't stop you, but don't expect it to go unchallenged.

When I say I expect my post to go "unchallenged"?

When did I say I supported Trump?

When did I say he would make a good president?

Some anti-Trumpers seem to be unhinged.

 

[erowe1]

He can hurt them in ways that don't help us. If he gets the nomination, they'll probably lose the election, and will definitely lose a lot of down ticket races. They will also lose out on a lot of potential funding.

But two years from now, when this race is over, the same group of people who are in charge of the GOP will still be in charge. There may be more Trump allies among them, but they won't be an improvement on the current occupants. They will still get money from, and be just as beholden to, the same basic people.

 

[RonPaulMall]

It would definitely be a set back for the establishment in general, which would weaken some of the GOP money men. That's not really crushing the GOP establishment however.

As well, the long term effect still looms. The establishment is really good at licking their wounds, regrouping and trying something just a little different with different branding.

But it will provide an excellent opportunity for us to attack. Unite with President Trump on Foreign Policy and shooting down "managed" trade deals and unite with the liberal dems (who will suddenly start pretending to care about this stuff again) on Civil Liberty issues. The raw, emotional hatred many on the left will have for President Trump will be so great that they'll even start to be open to discussions about secession. We need to jump on that train as it provides the only real solution in the long term and we won't get many more chances.

A President Trump introduces a measure of chaos to the system and we need to use that to our advantage!

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't believe Trump can hurt The Establishment. I refrain from labeling it the "GOP establishment" because I no longer have faith that there is any difference between the establishment of the two major political parties.

It remains to be seen whether Trump is a player in this Establishment. If he is not, I don't believe he will be successful, and therefore no damage will be done to The Establishment. If he is successful in securing the GOP nomination and goes on to defeat Hillary Clinton, I will take that as a sign that he (and The Establishment) had a lot of people fooled, because there's no way he will win unless they want him to win. The only question is what to do with all the people who are behind Trump if he really isn't part of The Establishment and they need to get rid of him.

Bottom line: Trump can't hurt The Establishment. They can only hurt him (but Trump can hurt the country, too...see Ron Paul's many warnings.)

 

[twomp]

What makes Trump "anti-establishment?" Is it because the MSM said he is? So that must be true? Bill Kristol and Lindsey Graham and the neo-cons hate him? They hate Obama too. Does that make him "anti-establishment?" He believes in the same police state, Israel loving, big government polices as they all do. He has been on every side of an issue. What he says today can be contradicted by what he said in the past. The only reason people say he's "anti-establishment" is because the MSM told them he was. The same MSM that has given more media than anyone else.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It would definitely be a set back for the establishment in general, which would weaken some of the GOP money men. That's not really crushing the GOP establishment however.

As well, the long term effect still looms. The establishment is really good at licking their wounds, regrouping and trying something just a little different with different branding.

Bryan, with all due respect, you seem to be making the case for not trying at all; rather than anything specific to Trump.

 

[Bryan]

As you acknowledge, these questions all could have applied to Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul skeptics in the Republican Party often did ask these questions. These questions didn't interest me then and they don't interest me now. Frankly, I find them irrelevant, but an interesting intellectual exercise. If the latter is what you are going for, I can respect that and I will respond accordingly.

Thanks for the great response. These questions interest me on several levels; they are an interesting exercise, they can help people reshape their viewpoint on this matter (whatever it may be), the discussion can lead to a particular course of action for activists and they can help plan for future efforts.

Part 1:

GOP party leadership - Trump is challenging the candidate selection process and the damage may be irreversible. Whether Trump wins or not, the people will expect great transparency and great control of the selection process without having to go through a convoluted process. This threatens the leadership, because the leadership can be challenged directly by the people.

I agree this can be an interesting aspect. The questions become how will this challenge be done and what is the long term drive to change this? Will this be done in the courts, the legislator or within the party system itself? As well, what specifically is the issue that is to be attacked as to how the selection process is performed? Here are the issues that I see being brought up:

• Party leadership has too strong of an influence over the outcome of the delegate process, in part by manipulating rules and leveraging their existing position.

• Caucus systems aren’t desired by some people; they just want a primary vote to decide everything. You shouldn’t have to be a master at parliamentary procedures and have the party rule book memorized to have your voice heard.

• Is it fair to have super delegates as part of the process?

These bring up a valid question, what is the exact reform the liberty movement should argue in favor of? Obviously there will be large scale disagreement but the topic is worthy of debate, for another thread. Of course many will argue to diminish the party system, or eliminate it, or to go full an-cap.

As for the damage being irreversible, to some degree it will be, just like what happened in 2008 and 2012 with us. It was also what happened with the Tea Party groups, the question is, will it be enough to seriously change things. I think the key is to have a large grassroots that is motivated and organized that gets involved. The Ron Paul campaigns and the Tea Party did get a lot of people into GOP leadership positions, while there are positives, they haven’t changed the upper leadership elements. How is Trump’s efforts to this end?

GOP elected officials - Trump might change the party platform. That threatens stalwarts of the current platform. They need to adjust or get voted out.

Valid points. The questions become, how much can they hide their true colors (something that has been mastered in DC), and how long of a storm will they have to weather?

This is the common pattern: There is an uprising, people get mad and press their officials; the officials respond, provide assurances. The uprising dies down, the officials go back to business as usual. So what’s needed is consistent scrutiny and principled people to run against them. The question also comes down to platform, what is really going to change? As-is, the GOP platform isn’t seen as the problem for many, it’s that it’s not followed.

GOP money men - Trump is reducing the amount of money needed to run for the presidency. Yes, he is self-funding, but he is spending very little. He is a master of the media and despite 99% of the coverage being negative, he can always spin it in his favor. Plus, Trump is threatening the donor class through making their lobbying money irrelevant. The donor class loves their cheap labor. Trump threatens that.

I agree that the key is to make the money irrelevant. Trump along can play a big part of that, but again there has to be some big and broad changes for this to make a serious impact. There can certainly be some lessons-learned from the Trump campaign, media management being one.

GOP bureaucrats - I don't think he will threaten bureaucrats by in large.

GOP consultants/intellectuals - Despite being correct about a few things, the GOP intellectual class will need to change their focus. Instead of arguing topics that aren't relevant to the ordinary American, they will need to shift focus or become even more irrelevant than they already are. They won't have Trump's ear.

Agreed, to a point. Here the issue to fight against is that the intellectual class will embrace, extend and subvert the message. That’s the classic pattern. So again, the issues get down to broad and sustained change.

Trump generally campaigns on his gut. He doesn't need lobbyists, consultants and focus groups. He is actually in touch with real people, because he actually talks with them. I think you will see Trump copycats from now on even if he loses.

Maybe so, certainly we've already seen this with Herman Cain. I think some more lessons learned from this campaign is that name recognition, even outside of the political process, makes a big difference.

Part 2:

"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?"

It's difficult to negotiate with authoritarian sociopaths. With that said, these are people who never made deals. They never had to. They don't want to and I don't think Trump wants to as well. He will make enough gestures of goodwill to get by, but that's it. I think it's safe to say that he has been permanently put on their bad side.

I’d agree that I don’t seeing them becoming best friends, but I think that part of this point is that as they are going to be working in the same circles of power they’ll have to know when it’s in their best interest to make deals. For certain, no one can do everything themselves, they’ll always need by-in and partnerships.

"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?"

I think a truce is likely. However, that truce will be gone if/when he moves into the White House.

I’d disagree on this point, I’d think a truce will set the stage for his term, the GOP establishment would know what they won’t fight against but will also retain key points of power.

"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?"

Perhaps he will, but he will likely be a one-term president if that's the case. He (and Bernie) have changed people's expectations on how their voices will be heard.

This could be the topic of another discussion as I’m not see this change in the populace.

Part 3:


"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?"

Probably. He isn't Ron Paul when it comes to the Constitution. He has decades of executive order precedent behind him. He will also have a mandate from the voters and Congress be damned if they step in between him and the people. For better or for worse, that's the way it will probably be. The GOP establishment relies on the donor class. The donor class depend on cheap labor. Anything that harms the donor class will harm the establishment. Besides, the GOP establishment isn't that far removed from the Democrat establishment. They both depend on importing massive amounts of people who end up inevitably voting for and supporting big government.

The big point here will be the battle with Congress. Trump has said he’d wouldn’t accept keeping bad trade deals because of Congress – but if that’s the law, then how far is Trump going to push it? The real question may be, what will Trump do that other presidents haven’t or have failed at, when going against Congress? As you reference, the use of executive orders could be interesting.

Part 4:

"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?"

That's the danger. Chance are, the power vacuum will be filled after a Trump presidency. That's the nature of government.

Agreed, so again, there has to be a broad and sustained change to fill the vacuum; else it gets filled with what was there before.

"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."

Despite my deep love for Ron Paul, I disagree with him on this. I am an anarchist. I don't think long-term changes for the better are possible with a government.

"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?"

We won't know until we see how Congress changes under a president Trump. We also won't know until we know what kind of Supreme Court nominees he would choose. My guess is he would choose fairly conservative justices (like Alito) as a show of good faith to the Ted Cruz faction to gain their support. Heck, he might even say he will nominate Cruz.

Beyond the Supreme Court (which is a unique outlier) I think this again comes back to a broad and sustained change.

Part 5:

"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?"

Trump is a conduit for the average person. In my opinion, the average person lacks convictions in many areas. His convictions are helping the middle and working class. Whatever that means is up to interpretation.

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

It's difficult to be a successful businessman in New York and upset the apple cart. Why he is doing it now? He saw an opportunity and took advantage of it.

I’d agree, and there is nothing wrong with this, but if that’s the case we can’t look to Trumps convictions on issues as being an indicator that he will carry through with things. Basically, if the value of the opportunity goes again, then there is nothing to take advantage of. This is certainly what is done in business, but politics, and the ramifications that go with it (debates on abortion/death penalty, etc.) are different. Many people stand up against abortion for reasons beyond their direct and personal benefit, because they have convictions on the matter that they see as worth fighting for.

"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?"

Trump didn't cry fowl before, because he wasn't running for president before. This is just as much marketing as it is deeply held beliefs. He is winning the public opinion battle with his message and it's helping him get votes. Like it or not, people are waking up to a corrupt system.

I’m not sure who would not like it if people are waking up to a corrupt system. Otherwise, I think the point is the same, the fight is being done for practical reasons, not based on deeply held convictions.

"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?"

As stated before, he will have a truce until he is elected. Then all hell breaks loose, in my opinion. If the establishment is dumb enough to fall for it, they are just as dumb as I know they are.

"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?"

Why should he stand up for people when it doesn't benefit him?

As said, Trump has no obligation to stand up for others, but people often do stand up for others when they see it’s the right thing to do. Certainly many support liberty because we would get something from it, but also because it would create a better world at large. That’s often a general point of people getting involved.

We all support liberty candidates because we all hope to obtain something from it. I reject the the premise that only helping someone when it benefits him is inherently bad.

I’d agree, and to be clear I wasn’t trying to imply that, part of why I qualified that he had no obligation.

IMO, the point of looking into convictions here is to provide a multiplier for someone’s current efforts, and to help project long term impacts. They are an indicator, but certainly don’t define the future.

I hope that helps.

Thanks, yes, this was very helpful!

 

[Bryan]

A President Trump introduces a measure of chaos to the system and we need to use that to our advantage!

I would agree with that, there will be some chaos and it should be used to our advantage. -- For the record, that potential for value does not necessary equate to value in supporting the campaign, the two do not have to go hand-and-hand.

Thanks!

 

[Bryan]

I refrain from labeling it the "GOP establishment" because I no longer have faith that there is any difference between the establishment of the two major political parties.

The situation is a bit confusing, but I would argue that there is a GOP establishment, a Democrat establishment and a more general establishment. Some in the party establishments will cross over into the general establishment. In my OP I outlined the GOP establishment, more or less.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, with all due respect, you seem to be making the case for not trying at all; rather than anything specific to Trump.

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.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The situation is a bit confusing, but I would argue that there is a GOP establishment, a Democrat establishment and a more general establishment. Some in the party establishments will cross over into the general establishment. In my OP I outlined the GOP establishment, more or less.

I get your meaning. Clarifying mine: they're working together for the same goals.

To answer your question, as you've defined GOP establishment, I don't think Trump will hurt them. They won't allow that to happen.

 

[CPUd]

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.

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.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's very simple.

They would not be fighting tooth and nail to sink him, if they felt that he was contributing to their end-goal...

Goals are not distributed along a 1 dimensional line. Goals vector off in at least 3, and maybe 4 dimensions. Just because off-stage Oligarch Trump is travelling outside of his lane and pissing off his on-stage oligarch colleagues, does not mean that the direction an on-stage oligarch Trump is going to take us, will be anywhere remotely helpful.

This idea that "If my enemies hate it, then it must be good for me" is an illusion created by relying on overwhelmingly linear thinking. Whatever a player plans to do is not restricted to a single, back and forth line, but designs can spiral off in any direction, a lot of them are even more unhelpful to us than the current incarnation of the oligarchy.