Politics & Policy

The End of Reaganism

President Trump speaks at CPAC, February 24, 2017. (Reuters photo: Jonathan Ernst)
The past few days have shown how far Trump has led Republicans from the values they once cherished.

In the course of a few days, President Donald Trump showed how thoroughly he has conquered conservative activists and the Republican party.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, the attendees would have carried him in on a litter if they had been afforded the opportunity, and Republicans applauded everything he said in his address to the joint session of Congress.

The GOP reaction to Trump’s speech was one of the night’s fascinating subplots: Would Republicans applaud protectionism? Of course. Would they give a standing ovation to an infrastructure program that would have had them scowling in disapproval if Obama proposed it? Yeah, why not? Would they enthusiastically greet talk of paid family leave and investments in women’s health? By all means, sign them up.

Trump’s ecstatic reception from the right over the past week is testament to the sheer gratitude of the GOP rank and file that Trump, against all expectations, vanquished the House of Clinton.

Something more fundamental is going on, though. We are witnessing the end of Reaganism, and among the very people who were supposed to be most supportive of it. This doesn’t mean that Trump and Congress won’t pursue conservative policies — tax cuts, a defense buildup, and deregulation all have a distinctly Reaganite ring — but the defining commitment of Reaganism to cutting the size of government is clearly fading.

If this commitment was always easier to enunciate than to effect, the aspiration was nonetheless important. Neither Ronald Reagan nor Newt Gingrich succeeded in paring back government, but they slowed its growth. And limited government was an organizing principle for the Right.

This year at CPAC, Steve Bannon offered a different principle. He posited that nationalism unites the Right, and that limited-government conservatives are just one element of the broader coalition. This view encapsulates the change wrought by Trump — in part because Reaganism had become so stale.

The conventional Republicans in the 2016 primary race hewed to Reaganism as a creed frozen in amber circa 1981. It didn’t need significant updating; it just needed reassertion — with feeling. They were too rigid, too insular, and too nostalgic. They were beaten by someone who was none of those things (actually, Trump was nostalgic, but not for the Reaganism of the 1980s).

Whereas they mistook all of America for a CPAC ballroom, Trump existed outside the ideological consensus of the GOP and picked up on issues that didn’t enter the worldview of politicians obsessed with the glories of the 1980s, like wage stagnation.

Trump took his heterodox mix of policies, won the election, and then could show up at CPAC and in Congress — venues where he was largely disdained twelve months ago — and bask in the adulation of eager Republican converts to Trumpism.

This Trumpism is still a work in progress. As expressed in his speech to the joint session, it is a jumble of populism (the dominant strand, with its emphasis on protectionism and immigration restrictionism), conventional GOP priorities (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.), and Ivanka-ism (family leave, women’s health).

The only thing that doesn’t fit is limited government. Trump wants both guns and butter, a military buildup and nation-building at home. He is not overly concerned with how to pay for this, or for his tax cut. Social Security and Medicare, an enormous swath of the budget, appear to be off limits. The risk is that Trump may give us the rhetoric of Andrew Jackson, with the fiscal discipline of LBJ.

Yet no one can be certain where this is headed. It is possible that the Republican majorities in Congress will impose more fiscal restraint on the president than he is inclined to impose on himself. And the staying power of Trump’s reorientation of the Right will depend much on the success or failure of his administration.

Perhaps Reaganism, one way or the other, will emerge again, although, for now, its former guardians and enthusiasts have fallen hard for something else.

— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2017 King Features Syndicate 

Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

Immigration

Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More
Immigration

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More