Hanania on the GOP
Here’s Richard Hanania:
We can already see Republican candidates and institutions shifting over to Gribble messaging. The Heritage Foundation, once believed to represent elite conservative thought, goes to Twitter and implies that the Secret Service tried to assassinate Trump. JD Vance has praised Alex Jones as a truth teller. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz and Vivek Ramaswamy went around earlier this year predicting that the Democrats would make Michelle Obama their presidential nominee. Recall that Trump’s original rise to prominence within Republican politics was through his embrace of Birtherism. . . .
I’ve always said that if Trump loses this election, he’s got a very good chance of being the 2028 Republican nominee. But if he’s not in the running for whatever reason, then the Gribbles will be up for grabs. They won’t get anywhere in a Democratic primary given that the party is now composed of more educated and high trust voters. But on the Republican side, a candidate who consolidates Joe Rogan and Tucker types can be a force in a divided primary where it may take no more than a third of the vote to win. He may not be a conventional conservative, but it would be fitting if the Trump era culminated in Republicans becoming more moderate on policy while getting crazier and more paranoid.
Could this figure be RFK himself? Note that the Low Human Capital types who make up the Republican base love celebrities. There’s a reason that some conservative papers that sometimes do serious journalism like The Daily Mail and The New York Post double as gossip mags. The Kennedy family itself has a large role to play in QAnon cosmology. RFK has a history of holding liberal positions, but Trump showed that one can easily flip-flop, and even if you don’t, Republican voters can be very forgiving if you’re a celebrity who hates elites enough and endorses conspiracy theories. Kennedy has already started walking back some of his prior beliefs, like his previous views on gun control, that would be unpalatable to a conservative electorate.
I doubt that either Trump or Kennedy will be the 2028 nominee (partly because I expect Trump to win in 2024.) But Hanania’s entire post is well worth reading, if you like politics. Or should I say if you hate politics? And when you think about it, is there any difference?
The TLDR is “Yeah, we’re definitely a banana republic.”
PS. NYT headline of the day: “Trump Can Win on Character”
Tags:
27. August 2024 at 12:33
Would never fly but I’d like to see 2028 GOP Gabbard with Rogan VP (or vice versa). GOO needs to move away from the votes they have locked up anyways, old white guys who are crypto-democrats. Just seen the Gabbard news today, if only he had picked her over Vance he would have my vote but I think Palin poisoned that well on the GOP side for at least a generation or two.
27. August 2024 at 12:59
Peter, How about Rogan as the Democratic nominee, now that issues don’t seem to matter anymore?
27. August 2024 at 15:47
I bet Harris will win.
Trump is not a pleasant fellow and Harris is anodyne and popular with women.
D-party ballot harvesting strategies are effective and ballots are now mailed by the millions.
I disagree with Hanania that Republicans are low human capital types.
I cannot explain the lack of candidate quality in both parties in recent elections.
We used to think Mitt Romney or George McGovern were subpar.
27. August 2024 at 20:31
I don’t know enough about Rogan to rule out voting for him as the DNC candidate, hell I voted Feingold [WI] (though retrospectively wished I didn’t). I think if I was sure it was going to be a GOP Congress, I’d probably vote for him even as a Democrat. To be honest the only Democrat who 100% have my vote is Wyden.
27. August 2024 at 21:36
Peter, When you’ve got a banana republic, does it even matter who wins?
28. August 2024 at 02:30
Scott,
Hannania writes
“…note that the Low Human Capital types who make up the Republican base love celebrities…”
what a despicable person..
30. August 2024 at 08:10
He over generalizes and the GOP does not have a monopoly on the low human capital types, but it has become the home for conspiracy advocates. I am not sure how to describe their attitudes towards expertise. It’s not that they reject expertise but rather that they have decided to have different experts. Those experts seem to largely come from their political class, talk radio or people with little direct research experience but some adjacent expertise in the field of interest who cherry pick bad data. Also of note, a surprisingly high percentage of them have experience working for the tobacco people.
Steve
30. August 2024 at 08:15
Steve, Ha! I just posted on that.