How can Trump hurt the GOP establishment?

[Bryan]

.



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?

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• ???

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.



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?

• 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?

• 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?

• 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?

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



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.

• Trump will put in his own Cabinet – great.

• 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?

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

• 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?

• ???

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?



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?



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?

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

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?

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?



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.

[euphemia]

In one of the very early debates, Trump mentioned that he has lines of politicians waiting for him to write a check. I don't know how many people heard that, but I think Trump understands very well how this thing works, and if he decides to funnel his money somewhere else, the RNC and the DNC will definitely know it.

Here's another thought: Trump seems to have dialed down the outrageousness in the last couple of weeks, and it is not unnoticed by the press. What this tells me is that Trump is willing to listen to sense and make a smart decision based on his market. I don't see people as set in stone. I know I have changed my thinking on a number of issues over the years. A good, intelligent person will listen and be open to change. If Trump is sending a modified message, it may be that he is convinced that he needs to change his opinion. He's new at politics. He has expanded his circle beyond his family, and I think that might be good. I can see some growth. He didn't get where he is by not finding a place among monied, polite people.

I guess we will see what happens between now and November.

[CPUd]

In one of the very early debates, Trump mentioned that he has lines of politicians waiting for him to write a check. I don't know how many people heard that, but I think Trump understands very well how this thing works, and if he decides to funnel his money somewhere else, the RNC and the DNC will definitely know it.

So does this belong in Part 2?

[euphemia]

So does this belong in Part 2?

Not necessarily. Some of it belongs in Part 1.

[CaptUSA]

Ok, I'll take a stab. Understanding that we are only talking about the GOP establishment and not the establishment as a whole. (Trump is just as much a part of that establishment as Hillary Clinton.)

Part 1:

There is a good possibility that Trump will severely damage down-ballot candidates with his epic defeat. In this, it is possible that some of the party loyals will get pissed at the leadership for allowing this reality TV show to play out so long.

There is also a possibility that the donors, seeing little chance of victory, start hedging their bets more and placing more on the other side of the aisle. It will be quite an uphill battle for the GOP to lure these people back. *Remember, they pay our money to get a return on their investment. If the GOP has little power, then it doesn't do them any good to waste their cash there.

Part 2:

This is interesting on how this might play out. Like watching a slow moving train wreck. What is clear to me is that it will never result in more liberty candidates gaining power. In fact, there could be a populist strain taking over which doesn't care about an issues at all much less issues concerning the liberty of individuals. Luckily, I expect this segment to fade quickly and never materialize into a real movement - they need a leader to follow and when Trump is gone, they'll go back to watching their TV's like good little subjects. In all, the value of this fight is nil. The danger, of course, is that a true "outsider anti-establishment" candidate will likely be tarred with the stench of the Donald for a decade or two.

Part 3:

Trump has no platform but what sounds good for Trump. Anything else is just wishful thinking. Moving on.

Part 4:

I expect the long-term effect to be a very progressive Supreme Court for a long time and our rights will erode at an ever quickening pace. If you want to bring about the destruction faster, I think you have your candidate. For the parties, I expect them to bounce back to even since it benefits both sides to stay about equally split. Fundraising relies on having one party with power and an opposition party within striking distance.

Part 5:

Trump is about Trump. That's his conviction. Rules don't matter. Laws don't matter. And the Constitution certainly doesn't matter. Trump wants what Trump wants and he will use the power of government to get it for him.


In summation, though, you will see nowhere in this response any sense of a possibility that Trump could actually help the liberty movement. That is just pure fantasy, but people like to believe it. You can really convince yourself of anything if you want to believe it bad enough.

[r3volution 3.0]

How Can Trump Hurt The GOP Establishment?

...by losing in November, as he will surely do.

This will mean the Dem establishment profiting at the expense of the GOP establishment.

Naturally, we libertarians won't benefit in any way from this.

So...act accordingly.

[Petar]

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...

[RandallFan]

What about Cruz and others being forced to take over state parties to beat Trump? What sort of things can these people do assuming Trump wins anyway (on the first ballot) but these Cruz & Rubio people are in charge of state parties?

Will these Cruzers stay there or will they be removed like the Ron Paul people in Iowa?


What about the fact that the people in charge of China and other countries seem only scared of Trump (maybe creating restless natives in their countries); not fearful of Cruz taking over country clubs in the backwaters. Is that worth anything that globalist leaders seem to fear the "trump effect"?

[spudea]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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??

I'm not here to be pro-Trump, I'm not voting for trump. I offer these thoughts as an objective contribution to the discussion to help understand where the country is in this election.

[CPUd]

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...

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:



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

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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• ???

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

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...

The same could be said about Hillary Clinton.

Does that mean she's a libertarian?

[RonPaulMall]

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?

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

Are you aware of the irony in advocating higher tariffs while sporting an avatar of John Wilkes Booth?

[familydog]

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

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.

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

[otherone]

Are you aware of the irony in advocating higher tariffs while sporting an avatar of John Wilkes Booth?

RPF is ironic these days. There are many here who advocate building a wall around the Liberty Forest.

[CaptUSA]

Just replace the word Trump with the word Paul.

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

Ron Paul is anti-establishment - Trump is establishment.
Ron Paul has principles - Trump does not.
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...)
Ron Paul meant a change in political direction - Trump means an increase in speed in the same direction.
Ron Paul meant less power for government and more for you - Trump means more power for government and less for you.

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

[Bryan]

Ok, I'll take a stab. Understanding that we are only talking about the GOP establishment and not the establishment as a whole. (Trump is just as much a part of that establishment as Hillary Clinton.)

Part 1:

There is a good possibility that Trump will severely damage down-ballot candidates with his epic defeat. In this, it is possible that some of the party loyals will get pissed at the leadership for allowing this reality TV show to play out so long.

There is also a possibility that the donors, seeing little chance of victory, start hedging their bets more and placing more on the other side of the aisle. It will be quite an uphill battle for the GOP to lure these people back. *Remember, they pay our money to get a return on their investment. If the GOP has little power, then it doesn't do them any good to waste their cash there.
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.

[Bryan]

...by losing in November, as he will surely do.

This will mean the Dem establishment profiting at the expense of the GOP establishment.
Agreed, but would you argue this is a long-term effect or a short term loss?

[Bryan]

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

[Bryan]

What about Cruz and others being forced to take over state parties to beat Trump? What sort of things can these people do assuming Trump wins anyway (on the first ballot) but these Cruz & Rubio people are in charge of state parties?

Will these Cruzers stay there or will they be removed like the Ron Paul people in Iowa?
Excellent points, basically, without a GOP ground game the "GOP party leadership" group is untouchable; unless Trump takes a federal wrecking ball to the party system. Do we have any indication that will happen? What kind of fight would that be?

Thanks for the post!

[Bryan]

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

[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.

[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