This much we know: The Donald Trump phenomenon means something. A man cannot stay on top of national polls for month after month, energize vast mobs of online supporters, and dominate the media to an unprecedented degree without tapping into something real. Tonight, we’ll start to find out how real.
It’s possible that we’re looking at a political temper tantrum — an expression of disgust and loathing at the political class but one divorced from meaningful or extraordinary effort. Under this theory, the Trump phenomenon reaffirms two truths. First: The GOP base is far more diverse ideologically, economically, and temperamentally than is often understood. Second: A significant and perhaps increasing number of GOP nonvoters loathe the party’s political class but aren’t willing to rise up and back a new champion. Rather than revolt, they mainly stay home — and remain angry.
RELATED: Final DMR/Bloomberg Poll: Trump Holds His Lead
If indeed we’re in the middle of a mass temper tantrum, it probably means that the GOP will not so much crack up as it will slowly and bitterly fade away. Confronted with the Democrats’ much-hyped “coalition of the ascendant,” it will have trouble maintaining even its already-shrinking white base. Today, the upper middle class and the middle class are experiencing dramatically different economic realities. With these differences will come profound disagreements over policy and priorities, exacerbated by the natural cultural differences that arise when voters live in socioeconomic bubbles. Whoever wins one faction alienates the other, and national defeat is guaranteed.
If we’re in the middle of a mass temper tantrum, it probably means that the GOP will not so much crack up as it will slowly and bitterly fade away.
Or tonight could mark the beginning of a true political revolution, where voters decide to reject not just the classic GOP “establishment” but the GOP political class in its entirety. It would be impossible for any GOP elected official to be more anti-establishment than Ted Cruz, yet he’s still an elected official, part of the same class of people who failed to halt President Obama’s “fundamental transformation.” Marco Rubio is the Tea Party giant-slayer, the man who defeated Charlie Crist and arguably helped topple Jeb Bush. Yet he’s now widely attacked as the “establishment” choice, and Rubio supporters are derided online as little more than “GOPe” stooges and tools.
If Trump wins handily in Iowa — an Evangelical-heavy caucus where turnout is traditionally low — then where might he face his first loss? Not New Hampshire, where he’s long enjoyed huge leads. Not South Carolina, where two consecutive victories in very different states would only fuel his already-considerable momentum. And it would be foolish to believe that the so-called SEC primary will serve either as an establishment or tea-party firewall. Trump is particularly strong in the South, which is arguably the spiritual home of GOP populism.
RELATED: What If Trump Wins?
Moving into the general election, Trump would probably run a very different kind of race. Rather than rebuild and consolidate the classic GOP coalition, he’d aim to build his own — a coalition that would include blue-collar Democrats and potentially even an expanded share of the black vote. The conservative GOP would find itself in peril, with the constitutionalist wing apt to be less welcome in its own party than the classic, deal-making establishment wing would be.
#share#But there’s a third option, one far less consequential to the GOP or the political culture. The GOP might be experiencing nothing more than the same old internal conflicts, but with traditional and manageable differences temporarily magnified by Donald Trump’s megawatt celebrity and obvious media mastery. Going all the way back to 1996, Pat Buchanan declared that the “peasants are coming with pitchforks” and came in a strong second in Iowa, finishing with 23 percent of the vote in a crowded field. He then won New Hampshire, beating establishment favorite Bob Dole. When the field narrowed, however, he was overwhelmed and rarely able to pull together more than 25 percent of the electorate.
RELATED: Goodbye, Reagan Revolution
In both 2008 and 2012, populism played a role. Mike Huckabee, a form of pro-life Democrat, broke through in Iowa and ultimately chased Mitt Romney from the race before bumping into a hard ceiling of popular support. In 2012, a number of candidates auditioned for the anti-establishment, quasi-populist crown before falling to Romney. Are we pondering a political earthquake only because Trump chose to run now rather than four years ago? Is he simply the most potent possible champion of a longstanding and relatively stable portion of the GOP electorate?
#related#We’ll know soon enough. Some of the early indicators will be telling indeed. Is turnout up? Does Trump pull more votes than Pat Buchanan did in the early states? If the field shrinks, does Trump gain his fair share of new voters, or does his support hit a Buchanan-style hard ceiling? And — critically for the GOP’s general-election hopes — if Trump fades, does turnout also fade? Do his voters move to another candidate, or do they start staying home in a disastrous preview of November?
I get a sense that Trump is sailing into uncharted electoral waters, but I could be wrong. Trump might well be doing little more than navigating the same old channels — except with hordes of media perched on his beautiful boat’s fabulous decks. Only the voters can separate hype from reality now.
— David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.