Reaganite America may struggle in the post-Trump era

Those with better insights about former US President Donald Trump’s personal considerations, as well the Republican Party’s factions on the rise, can determine whether the Republicans are at an ideological crossroads … or not.

Many, including myself, who do not claim to have privileged information about what goes on within the Republican Party, were surprised when Trump chose J.D. Vance, a young senator from Ohio, as his running mate for the presidential election in November. We, the community of foreign observers, have seen, over the past months and even years, how much Trump has succeeded in tightening his grip on a party with a long history and that is traditionally known for having many “heads.”

We saw how many leaders he eliminated … and how many others he marginalized.

We saw how many positions and policies were imposed on a partisan institution. Empowered by his simple, direct slogans, he managed to swiftly ensure shifts on matters that had been mulled over and considered painstakingly until the recent past. So much so that the party is not prepared to play the game under customary terms and restrictions.
Trump, who has absolute control over his base, has rebuilt the party, which now operates his way.

Trump, who has absolute control over his base, has rebuilt the Republican Party, which now operates his way.

Eyad Abu Shakra

In turn, the party did not object to handing a “magician” the reins and giving him a mandate to do whatever he wants, as we saw and heard at the end of last week’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. The two historical models closest to the Trumpian phenomenon, be it in terms of the intensity of its right-wing politics or the extent to which it has shaped the rules of the game in the party and the country, are perhaps those of former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan.

However, if the former model led to a disastrous defeat for the Republicans against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, the latter achieved historic success in 1980. For decades, the Reagan model shaped not only the Republican Party but also right-wing politics throughout the Western world. This success was broadly recognized as having brought an end to the Cold War by pushing the Soviet Union to collapse.

Goldwater’s extremism, which left hundreds of millions frightened by the prospect of him pushing the “nuclear button” during the Vietnam War, did not have the same effect when Reagan ran for office. Goldwater’s men raised the slogan: “Better dead than red” (i.e., it is better to die than surrender to communism). No, but the message of Reagan-era hawks like Secretary of State Alexander Haig and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was very clear about the prospect of waging a “limited” nuclear war, especially containing the “nuclear theater” in Europe and keeping it under control.

In fact, Reaganist hawks dragged Moscow into a costly “Star Wars” battle that the Russians did not have the economic capacity to wage. Thus, the series of Soviet surrenders began under Mikhail Gorbachev, who was delighted to hear Western officials speak of his “wisdom” and “vision.” In the end, the Soviet Union collapsed and the two halves of Germany were reunified. The Warsaw Pact collapsed and NATO grew.

Three domestic pillars laid the foundation for the success of the Reaganite model, both within the Republican Party and across the US.

The first pillar was market liberalization and reducing the state’s role in the economy, which Reagan and his economic team called “small government” and which came to be known as Reaganomics.

The second pillar was the powerful grip of the military on foreign policy, which underlined America’s status as the world’s only superpower.

The third and last pillar was making an intellectual and social commitment to (evangelical) Christian conservatism the safeguard of America’s unilateral global leadership. Thus, pastors and evangelists like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell garnered unprecedented political influence.

Last week, following the Milwaukee convention, observers argued that 39-year-old Vance being chosen as Trump’s running mate marked the beginning of a new phase in the course of the Republican Party’s history. Although it may be too early to know for sure what Vance will manage to do when he takes the helm — if he ever does — there is undoubtedly a wing within the party that the Trumpian phenomenon has obscured from view. This wing, if we are to understand its philosophy through the statements of Vance before his nomination in Milwaukee, indicates that some Republicans, though with great caution, are moving away from the three pillars of the Reaganite model.

Foreign military and political interventions going hand in hand, an absolute commitment to the free market economy and the centrality of evangelicalism, with its religious and moral teachings, do not seem like they will continue to be taken for granted once Trump hands Vance the reigns and the time comes to change the guard, as they say.

Supporting Ukraine, for example, does not mean much to the movement embodied by Vance. Neither does ensuring Europe’s security through a strong and broad NATO, nor does containing Vladimir Putin’s ambitions. Indeed, Moscow is no longer the greatest threat to US interests, as Trump was keen to remind us.

Moreover, the free market economics of Reagan and the Chicago school’s monetary Friedmanism do not suit the states that are religiously and socially conservative or the poor states that rely on obsolete economic resources, such as coal mines and other traditional industries in the Rust Belt. Accordingly, state intervention is needed to push back against cheap foreign labor and the advanced technology creeping in from East Asia.

Finally, while the Christian faith runs deep across the spectrum of the American right — especially among rural Republicans in the Bible Belt — the “theology” of right-wing identity is clearly on the back foot in favor of the “nationalist” face of Make America Great Again, sometimes in explicitly racist terms, targeting some minorities and large sectors of immigrants.

Yes, it may still be too early to determine what comes next for the Republicans, but it will certainly be interesting.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949