This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Despite the acrimony in the national political environment, most Republicans and Democrats favor a stable, effective, and legitimate two-party system. Such a political system offers a range of diverse opinions and policies and would, eventually, lead to turnover in elected officials and in party control. Yet, as most of us already know, the Republican Party since 2008 has undermined itself and its legitimacy as an effective political party in our two-party system. Democrats, along with Republicans, should be greatly concerned for our collective political future.
The problem with this party is that there are really two Republican parties. Republican 1.0 is the historical and traditional party while Republican 2.0 emerged from the anti-Obama movement known as the Tea Party. What are the differences between these two political groups, both of which claim to be Republican? The differences lie in the policy positions of Trump.
1. Trump articulates an anti-free trade position. He seeks to impose high tariffs against China and other US competitors. His trade position stands in stark contrast to the traditional free trade orientation of Republican 1.0. The US Chamber of Commerce, a staunch supporter of Republican 1.0, has condemned his trade policies.
2. Republican 2.0 promotes a significant increase in the nation's debt and, thus, stands apart from Republican 1.0. Trump's domestic economic and fiscal policies would significantly decrease taxes on the wealthy, but also would increase military spending while not decreasing public spending in other areas. Republican 2.0 favors a "cut taxes and spend" policy that would dismay traditional Republican 1.0 supporters.
3. Republican 1.0 typically favors the construction of a large tent in which all adherents to its fundamental policies would be encouraged and respected, especially minorities, women, and religious groups. A large tent is meant to maximize the attraction to the Republican Party and thus be in a stronger position to win at the polls. However, Trump's Republican 2.0 seeks the opposite: he intentionally has alienated significant segments of the voting population driving them away from this wing of the Republican Party.
4. Republican 2.0's foreign policies similarly separate itself from the majority of Republican voters. Republican 1.0 typically favors selective interventionist policies in the name of removing dictators, promoting democracy, and facilitating international trade. John McCain and other 1.0 Republicans have argued for more direct military intervention in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Trump, as the leader of the 2.0 Republicans, has pushed for a policy of non-intervention, walls, and protectionism.
5. Moreover, Trump's foreign policy position directly contradicts the 1.0 stance on how we treat our allies and our enemies. Trump has argued for closer and more respectful ties with North Korea and Russia. More recently, he has praised Mussolini, Qaddafi, Putin and Saddam Hussein as strong leaders. And, again in direct contrast to Republican 1.0 supporters, as he seeks to draw closer to our enemies, Trump wants to distance the US from our allies and, indeed, punish them when he thinks they have betrayed him.
Due to a series of mistakes, bad policy decisions, and incompetence, the Republican Party has painted itself into a tight corner with very few options. Indeed, I foresee three unenviable options for the Republican Party:
1. Acquiesce to Trump and his version of Republican 2.0. This implies forfeiture of core and fundamental Republican principles and the reinforcement of Republican 2.0 policies. Since this group constitutes a minority within the Republican Party, acquiescence would further marginalize this political party from the electorate. This option would lead to devastating and long-term consequences, not only in terms of losing this fall's election, but many others to come.
2. Privately oppose, though publicly support, the policies of Republican 2.0. This tactic seems to be dominating Republican leadership heading into the convention. This option constitutes a policy of wishful thinking, that is, hoping that, over time, Trump will be malleable and alter his policies in substantial ways. Trump rarely if ever backs down from his misstatements; indeed he is more likely to further retrench himself in unsustainable corners. As we all should know, a policy of wishful thinking is neither viable nor sustainable.
3. Finally, the adherents to Republican 1.0 could call for a policy of reformation leading to a leaner, more focused and, ultimately, more "Republican" party. In reality, a reformation implies a direct and sustained attack against Republican 2.0. Ultimately, a reformation would lead to a purge of Republican 2.0 supporters from the party and a stronger, more unified core of Republican 1.0 proponents.
Would the third option be viable at this point? Certainly, the reformation of the Republican Party will not offset the demise of the party this fall. However, in the long term, this option remains the likely alternative to a prolonged wandering in the national political desert. Time will tell if the Republican Party is wise and determined enough to save itself from its own mistakes and wrong-headed policies. In order for our system to maintain a legitimate and stable political order, the Republicans need to decide in which direction their party should take, and they must decide quickly.
Howard Lehman is a professor of Political Science at the University of Utah.