46

This is not a question about the ideological implications of supporting or not supporting Trump. It is merely a question about the rational behavior (or lack thereof) of a political party when faced with certain facts.

And the facts are these. Donald Trump is monumentally unpopular. His disapproval rating has remained above 50 % (to be exact: an average of 52.1 % across multiple polls) for almost the entirety of his tenure - mind you that other presidents have had worse ratings by the end of their tenures, but nobody has had such bad ratings this early and this consistently as Donald Trump. This suggests that a majority of the population are fundamentally opposed to Trump, to the point where it is hard to see what could possibly change their stance when 2020 arrives.

Further, it may well be argued that a major reason for Trump's 2016 victory was his opposition: Hillary Clinton. An often unliked and untrusted career politician with a plethora of personal scandals, who caused a historical divide even amongst the left-leaning populace, to the point where statistics later revealed that 1 out of 10 Bernie Sanders supporters ... actually voted for Trump (no, seriously).

But will such a scenario repeat itself for 2020? Probably not, given the immense popularity of the most likely Democratic candidates, be that Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Rourke, or Joe Biden.

With all that in mind, why does the Republican party not take steps to generate a movement against Trump, so that they can present a more viable candidate of their own for 2020? Is that not the rational thing to do? Trump is almost guaranteed to lose given the current state of affairs which, as argued above, differ significantly from 2016. Supporting him means giving up the most powerful political office in the world to your political opposition: is it not worth it to swallow your pride to avoid that outcome?

So why don't they? Is there political pressure not to from Trump himself? Is there a general lack of viable candidates in the first place? What rationale underlies their actions? Because as of right now, it seems the Republican party is by own volition taking the path towards defeat in 2020.

Martin Schröder
  • 3,795
  • 3
  • 30
  • 47
Jaood
  • 621
  • 1
  • 5
  • 3
  • I'm just here to chuckle in retrospect about Beto being one of the "most likely Democratic candidates" – Gramatik Aug 02 '21 at 19:14

12 Answers12

139

Because polling data and Trump's approval rating do not tell the whole story.

As right-wing political commentator Ben Shapiro is fond of saying, two things can be true at once: It's entirely possible to both despise President Trump's character, bombastic personality, and divisive rhetoric AND simultaneously appreciate what he has done and is trying to accomplish policy-wise.

Consider the following from a conservative's perspective:

  • Trump's signature campaign promise was to get tough on illegal immigration, and he has done exactly that. Illegal immigration has always been a major concern for the right. Even though his "zero tolerance" policy is heavy-handed (or an outright human rights violation if you're on the left), it has sent a clear, unambiguous message to Central- and South American countries that the US/Mexico border is no longer an open thoroughfare for entering the United States illegally.
  • The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act dramatically reduced corporate income taxes, which was previously the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. Regardless of whether you think this is good or bad for the economy, it has been a Republican policy wish for literally decades, and it finally got done under the Trump administration.
  • The terrorist group ISIS, which was a major Middle East security concern that plagued the Obama administration, has nearly vanished from world headlines. The U.S. had a large role to play in that victory.
  • US/Israeli relations are the best they've been in decades, and the Trump administration has been extremely friendly towards the Jewish state. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is widely seen as huge positive step among conservatives and Israel's supporters -- especially among Christian conservatives. Other countries have since followed America's lead.
  • Trump held a peace summit in Singapore with North- and South Korean leaders to discus nuclear disarmament of the Korean peninsula. It was the first time in history that North Korean and U.S. leaders have met face-to-face for talks. And while it remains to be seen what will come of them (North Korea has reneged on its promises in the past), it is nonetheless historic. North Korea has already destroyed some military outposts along the border, and has begun removing land mines from the DMZ.
  • Trump has appointed and continues to nominate conservative judges to federal courts and to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is another campaign promise he has fulfilled. Conservatives who oppose Trump still enjoy the fact that the conservative tilt to the federal judiciary will outlast his legacy as president.
  • Trump is constantly fighting back in the culture war. Despite his over-the-top rhetoric and criticism of "fake news", conservatives have been broadly troubled by left-wing identity politics and what they perceive to be pervasive liberal media bias for quite some time. This is the one place where Trump's rhetoric is a win for him politically among conservatives. Even many people on the right who don't support Trump's presidency tend to agree with him on this, even if they take everything he says with a grain of salt. Some conservatives argue that this reason alone is what got him elected in the first place.

Please note that this is not an overt argument in support of Trump. I am merely laying out the case for why conservatives specifically have not disowned him outright. If you could separate Trump's character and the garbage he craps out on Twitter from the way he has actually governed as President, his policy agenda and accomplishments to date read almost like a conservative dream come true.

Also note that there are a lot of policy disagreements among conservatives as well that work to temper their support; his belief in tariffs and his cozy disposition with world dictators are notable examples.

The bottom line is that, unlike with previous presidents, you can't conflate Trump's popularity and his performance as a governor. As to whether or not he will get re-elected, it all depends what happens between now and then, and on who the Democrats pony up for the 2020 race.

Wes Sayeed
  • 12,075
  • 3
  • 27
  • 48
  • 8
  • It never was and net migration from mexico is negative. 2) false. 3) Not Trump, but yes the US. 4) false. (they do love the move of the embassy, but not much else). 5) mostly true. 6) true (Although I would say it's a terrible thing). 7) what ??? This isn't close to reality. This is just a Republican talking point.
    • – xyious Dec 04 '18 at 22:10
  • 41
    @xyious; Please clarify. 1) what never was? And what part of statement 2 is false? Aside from that, the OP wants to know the conservative viewpoint, so disagreement with anything on the list -- especially "Republican talking points" are irrelevant because those talking points are specifically what the OP was asking about. For example, #3. Doesn't matter if it was Trump or not; only that conservatives believe it was. – Wes Sayeed Dec 04 '18 at 22:24
  • 53
    @xyious This answer is addressing the question with specifics. The accuracy and spin of the claims being made are not being discussed, just whether or not it is a claim Republicans agree with or use when defending a vote for Trump. And, just to clarify a side note, voters don't care about net migration. Republicans, in general, don't even really care about migration. They are opposed to illegal aliens coming to the US. A very important distinction. – David S Dec 04 '18 at 22:52
  • 38
    @xyious Nowhere does it say that voters must vote based on reality.... – user3067860 Dec 04 '18 at 23:35
  • 10
    It might be easier to process this list if you point out that you're intentionally viewing this from a conservative's viewpoint before reeling the list off. Many of the disagreements about the veracity of these claims can easily be swept aside by pointing out that you're viewing it through the optics of a conservative legislator and/or their constituents. I'd say your argument that its that view that matters is spot on. If one is tuned into the left side of the media, some of these may be shocking. – Cort Ammon Dec 05 '18 at 01:35
  • 12
    Do any Trump supporters believe he actually has much to do with the demise of ISIS? – leftaroundabout Dec 05 '18 at 12:56
  • 5
    @WesSayeed 1) It was never an open thoroughfare. Border security has been pretty strong for decades. 2) Almost all of it is wrong. it was never the highest rate in the industrialized world (it wasn't even in the top 10). – xyious Dec 05 '18 at 16:30
  • 6
    @leftaroundabout Yes, they very much think that. When you've been taught not to trust traditional media and only believe propagandic sources, it is easy to shape the narrative to suit. – Carduus Dec 05 '18 at 17:38
  • 20
    Hey, don't forget eroding trans rights, a recent favorite of right wing politics. – Monica Apologists Get Out Dec 05 '18 at 19:28
  • 4
    Please give references for each one of these bullet points. – Joel DeWitt Dec 06 '18 at 13:08
  • 10
    “…corporate income taxes, which was previously the highest tax rate in the industrialized world.” I have no doubt that that is a Republican belief, but you state it like a fact, which it is not. – VGR Dec 06 '18 at 14:57
  • 5
    @leftaroundabout The military leaders say Trump has a direct role in the decimation of ISIS. So, yes. Unlike Obama he lets them lead themselves for the most part. There are numerous interviews of leaders and middle management military that talk about how much their hands were tied under the Obama administration and how they couldn't make choices on the ground fast and fluid enough to deal effectively with threats like ISIS and the Taliban. – Rig Dec 06 '18 at 20:33
  • 5
    @Rig Without verifiable references this is just you making arbitrary claims. – barbecue Dec 06 '18 at 21:35
  • 15
    Ok then. Mattis among many others have stated exactly this. There are a litany of interviews with soldiers that have been on the ground that state that the game was changed under Trump. Including one where a unit was pinned down, thinking they were going to die, waiting for air support, and under Obama's rules air support was denied. https://www.newsweek.com/trump-isis-raqqa-isis-capital-687391 https://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/did-trump-really-beat-isis – Rig Dec 06 '18 at 21:51
  • 5
    Corporate Income Tax Rates around the World, 2016: https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2016/ – aepryus Dec 07 '18 at 23:35
  • 1
    On the first point, I think it is incorrect that illegal immigration has always been a major concern of the right. Restricting immigration generally has nearly always been the policy of the Republican party (even very early on), but how that manifested and the arguments for it and the priority it was given has shifted drastically throughout history. I think its being given primacy in the party is a very very recent phenomenon. – magnus.orion Dec 10 '18 at 00:46
  • 4
    I take issue with #2. It's one of those "technically true but really not", the actual paid tax rate due to loop holes and credits was the lowest of the industrialized world before and has only fallen further. – Magisch Dec 10 '18 at 13:57
  • 6
    It's worth noting these talking points are just that, talking points. They capture at most half of each of the issues: "It was the first time in history that North Korean and U.S. leaders have met face-to-face for talks." The North Koreans have asked every president to have face-to-face talks, because it would lend great legitimacy to their regime... and every previous president has denied doing so without them first taking some concrete action. So, whether or not it was a good idea, it is hard to cast as an accomplishment the taking of an open invitation. – TemporalWolf Dec 10 '18 at 20:13
  • 3
    @Magisch That's a good thing. It's better to have a sustainable tax rate that's actually paid than to artificially inflate the perception of the tax rate while providing opportunities for avoiding paying anything. High taxes and loopholes only benefit large business - reasonable mostly flat rates revitalize competition and make small businesses much more viable. Did you notice how many american companies merged into huge conglomerates over the past decades? There's pretty much no reason for that other than using their profits for anything they can find rather than wasting it on taxes. – Luaan Dec 11 '18 at 09:48
  • 2
    @Luaan except, most loopholes weren't touched. So many companies are now paying an even lower effective rate. The answer to the merging thing you mentioned isn't to then lower taxes, it is to stop making purchases tax exempt and to tax income instead of profits. profits can be hidden in a variety of ways. – Magisch Dec 11 '18 at 10:40
  • 6
    @Magisch Which is why the call should be to make taxes lower and simpler. Taxing income is something that could address the merging, but even short-term, the side-effects would be utterly devastating; it just isn't a good policy. Taxing expenses seems like a much better idea - it can be extremely simple (just a single flat rate like VAT), and encourages frugality and efficiency rather than needless waste. Why should you be penalised for turning $1 in raw materials into $10 of value? That's exactly what should be encouraged. – Luaan Dec 11 '18 at 15:58
  • I agree that the republicans believe Trump did all this, but I'm still stuck on "how's that different then any conservative leader?" Things like lowering taxes and electing conservative judges would have happened if any conservative was president. The only ones of these that felt like they could be sited as being uniquely Trump, rather then something any conservative president would likely claim, are the first and last bullet point. – dsollen Jul 30 '21 at 17:09