Gordon L. Weil
We just got a look at what American politics could look like
after Donald Trump.
Trump won’t always be at the center of the national
debate. He could lose the election,
leaving him to focus on meeting his many legal challenges. Or he could win, serve his term in office,
and depart. Or, given his age, death or
disability could overtake him, allowing Vance to assume power. But he will go.
Whatever his future, his role over the last nine years
raises questions about the future of Trumpism without Trump. Will his policies
survive? Will the Republican Party be
dominated by his partisans or will the traditional members he labeled RINOs –
Republicans in Name Only – be able to restore their “compassionate
conservatism.”
The performance of Ohio Sen. JD Vance in the vice-presidential
debate provided useful hints about the post-Trump future, at least for the
Republicans and likely for the political world.
Vance’s answers, while displaying the required loyalty to Trump, were
notable for smoother packaging. They were important for what they omitted.
On the issues, immigration stood out. The key issue for Trump when he first ran in
2016, it remains at the center of GOP politics.
Vance repeatedly resorted to unrestricted immigration to explain most of
the economic and social problems facing the country. His answer was not only a sign of Trump
loyalty, but his silver bullet solution to winning the election.
Trump had torpedoed a bipartisan bill to begin dealing with
the issue, often raised by the Democrats, but that means less to voters than
the problem itself. Underlying
opposition to immigrants and immigration is anguish about the coming end of a
white majority in America. Making
America “great again” is about stopping, slowing or even denying the inevitable
change.
Immigration is sure to be Trump’s legacy. Difficult to solve, it can become a perennial
political focus. Vance stuck with it,
but dodged backing deportation of more than criminal aliens. Trump is far more sweeping. Vance also
avoided racial undertones to his position.
But here as elsewhere, he went along with Trump’s unfounded assertions.
For the Democrats, the personal freedom of women over their
own bodies – the abortion issue – remains the keystone of the campaign. Here, Vance was seemingly contrite. He
admitted that his own restrictive position has been rejected by his state’s
voters. He said that his party would
have to do better in building trust on the issue.
Contrast his remarks with Trump’s. The former president keeps shifting his
position, trying to lessen the impact of his efforts to topple Roe v. Wade, but
he makes ludicrous charges about how Democrats want to kill babies. Vance looked more reasonable, retreating
after the debate to veer right again.
Like Trump, he seeks an impossible position aimed at satisfying both
sides.
Media attention has highlighted the civil and coherent
debate between Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee. They listened to one another and occasionally
claimed to find some common ground.
There were no personal attacks or use of degrading nicknames or huge
lies, characteristic of Trumpian discourse.
But Vance hewed to his leader’s lines.
Walz entirely boxed him in once. He asked if Vance believed
that the 2020 election was stolen, and the senator evaded answering. In effect, he had to remain loyal to his
leader, but managed to refrain from openly supporting him. Vance obviously shares a Trump-like political
vanity. Looking to his own future career, Vance showed himself as more deft
than dangerous.
The American government has been almost paralyzed by an
unwillingness to compromise between dominant elements within both parties. Agreement on federal spending has become
almost impossible. In the GOP-dominated
House, it’s a matter of “my way or the highway,” sending the American people
down that road by an unpopular Congress.
This state of affairs cannot last. Either the system will be mortally wounded,
making authoritarian government quite likely, or traditional majority rule with
a role for the minority view must be restored.
This election could be the turning point. If Trump were to lose and the Democrats gain
control of Congress, it could happen now.
Kamala Harris would need to work with responsible Republican leaders. When the intimidation from Trump possible retaliation
fades, senators like Vance might work with the Democrats to achieve workable
compromises.
If Trump loses, but the GOP controls Congress, it would be
up to Harris and Vance, as a GOP leader, to find a path to compromise. If Trump wins, congressional Republicans
could foresee his influence waning, though they would support his policies. Of course, it’s possible that an aging Trump
might have to give way to Vance at some point.
Whenever Trump leaves the scene, restoring compromise is
essential. Vance may have tried to make
it look possible.
Polls: An additional note.
I wrote about the adjustments being made and not made to survey
data. Then, The New York Times wrote: “Ms.
Harris has since shored up her support among older voters and has begun making
inroads among Republicans: 9 percent said they planned to support her, up
slightly from 5 percent last month.”
Slightly! An 80 percent increase? The four percent as a share of the total Trump
vote in 2020 is about 2.8 million voters.
That many voters or even a half of them could swing states or put some
leaners into doubt.
