EMBRACING AN INTERLOPER
Donald Trump brought to 2016 the brute force of visceral energy. Unlike any earlier entrant, his electric presence and unrivaled stamina literally steamrollered across the Republican primaries and the ensuing election. If he didn’t win the popular count, he did almost as well as Mitt Romney had four years earlier, when growth of the electorate is factored in.
Central to Donald Trump’s success was the hold he came to have over his party. His mantra of restoring American might played a key role. But just as crucial was that regular Republicans, on their own and ultimately collectively, found themselves accepting that he was their man. They tacitly agreed not to be deterred by his demeanor, even at its most outrageous. The first task for those who aspire to leadership is to amass a following. Donald Trump did that.
So Republicans who had rallied to Mitt Romney and John McCain chose not to be shocked by Trump’s checkered history, demeaning behavior, and contempt for figures long loyal to the party. By now, the list is memorable. A sampling is provided below.
True, some Republicans were ill at ease, at least for a time. Evidence of this came from an unusual source. When approached by pollsters, a not-small portion who had decided to vote for him declined to admit that they would. Were they just a little ashamed, even on the phone in an anonymous interview? (These evasions were much of the reason why surveys showed Clinton ahead.) But by November, reluctance and hesitation had vaporized. Regular Republicans chose to see him as an errant member of the household, even while wincing at his assaults.
The table below highlights this continuity. Results from a cross section of states shows how Mitt Romney’s and Donald Trump’s 2012 and 2016 followings were almost identical. It’s important to add that the two elections had similar defection rates. CNN exit polls in both years and for both parties showed just about 8 percent crossed over, a customary quotient.1 Much has been made of Democrats who switched to Trump. Romney had recruited just as many.
WHAT REPUBLICANS CHOSE TO IGNORE
• Donald Trump’s blithe refusal to release his tax returns.
• That various of his ventures ended in bankruptcy, leaving his investors, suppliers, and workers with the bulk of the bills.
• Tapes showing him bragging of assaulting women.
• Three marriages, interleaved with infidelities.
• Hiring overseas workers for his resorts and importing construction materials.
• Evading military service by citing a dubious disability.
• Revealing no religious inclinations, attendance, or affiliations.
• Continual insinuations that a recent president was not native born.
• Refusing to cast himself as conservative, long expected for Republican aspirants.
• Brutally ridiculing his primary opponents, despite their impeccable party credentials.
• Mocking John McCain for his capture during the Vietnam War.
• Deriding the previous GOP president for invading Iraq.
• Calling climate change a hoax and a ruse by China to gain trade advantages.
• Voicing admiration for Vladimir Putin, Russia’s autocratic premier.
• Dubbing his opponent “Crooked Hillary” and smirking at roars of “Lock Her Up!”
The atmosphere at Trump’s rallies during the primaries and general campaign was unlike that ever observed at Republican gatherings. The walls resounded with cries for blood. A common explanation was that most of them were blue-collar newcomers, a bit coarser than the older guard, arriving in denim shirts and pickup trucks.
In fact the GOP resembles the Democrats in being a multiclass party. It has long had blue-collar echelons, notably along an arc stretching from South Carolina to South Dakota.2 While the party does well among the affluent, its adherents are less likely to be college graduates. Most of the states Republicans carry do little to encourage education. So this stratum was not newly co-opted by Trump. It has always been there, augmented when the party absorbed the former Confederacy.
| CONTRASTING CANDIDATES, COMPARABLE SUPPORT | ||
| Romney | Trump | |
| Arkansas | 62% | 61% |
| South Carolina | 55% | 55% |
| Minnesota | 45% | 45% |
| Connecticut | 41% | 41% |
| Nevada | 46% | 46% |
| New Hampshire | 46% | 47% |
| Florida | 49% | 49% |
| Wyoming | 69% | 68% |
Equally numerous were middle-class stalwarts who had, as noted, lined up for Mitt Romney, John McCain, and the two Bushes. They had basked in Ronald Reagan and endured Richard Nixon. And in all of these earlier campaigns, they had displayed the bearing of their luncheon clubs and golfing outings. If they were passionate about their party, in earlier elections they showed it by sedate applause rather than bellicose bellowing.
So it was the same stalwarts roaring, now in Trump’s arenas. Apparently, these furies had long been repressed, waiting for a tribune to unleash them. Ironically, it awaited a self-aggrandizing New Yorker to expose an underside of Republican fealty, an edge not seen since its obsession with communist subversion six decades earlier.
Journalists and other observers, stunned by Trump’s vulgarity, became convinced that many mainstream Republicans would be equally repelled. They were thinking of landscaped suburbs, soccer moms, and college-bound seniors. As noted, some of these denizens were initially hesitant about Trump. Yet as it became apparent that he would be their party’s nominee and carry its banner in the campaign, insurance agents joined electricians in “Make America Great Again” caps and clamoring to “Build the Wall!” Most simply, Donald Trump would grasp the presidency for their party and sweep in the rest of the ticket. So there emerged an agreement to stomach him as he was, and not cavil over his bragging and bullying, even if it extended to sexual molestation.
There is another, less remarked, facet to browbeating. Recall schoolyard days, when youngsters who would later be dentists and accountants would seek a burly classmate as a protector. In a word, gain a safe haven behind their own bully. Or on the distaff side, toadying up to the mean girls, who took you into their clique, or at least its periphery. So another aspect of Trump’s virtuosity was his understanding that a lot of people don’t oppose intimidation. Rather, they want it on their behalf.
In the end, four of every ten women who cast ballots rejected the first-ever candidate of their gender. No less striking, they turned out for a man who belittled them as trophies or toys. To be sure, many liked his policy positions, like his long-held views on immigration and his newfound stance on abortion. This noted, other impulses may have abetted their decision. Some women are drawn to “bad boys,” finding themselves falling for guys who break the rules, bringing a frisson of daring to routine lives. (It’s a reason so many households are headed by women; these men make babies and move on.) If Trump made some men feel more manly, for some women he was an avatar of virility.
Not to mention the cheers when he boasted of evading taxes, an avowal no earlier candidate dared to emit. Yet even country-club Republicans might harken with admiration and envy. Could it be what they would themselves do, had they his audacity? The bad-boy magnetism can work on men as well. Main Street pillars were mesmerized by a crass Manhattan marketeer.
Another 2016 mantra was that Trump’s supporters were angry. Indeed, they were depicted as more incensed than any audiences in living memory. One rendering was that many had been employed in well-paying work, and were no longer able to find the kinds of jobs they felt were their due. Hence their venting on Asian nations, for undercutting American manufacturing. Or on migrants from Mexico, who dragged down wages in such jobs as remained. Adding to the rage was seeing values they cherished being derided by arrogant elites. Hence rallies vibrated with cries, from building a wall to consigning a competing candidate to prison.
Yet it would be hard to show that this fury had been smoldering in the nation. The party’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns neither disclosed nor released such rancor. On the contrary, they were stolidly sedate, albeit with a few riffs from Sarah Palin. All indicators showed that Republicans were living comfortably, signing up for Caribbean cruises and sojourns to Disney parks, and installing granite kitchens. Had a Rubio or Kasich or Cruz been nominated, 2016 would have been much the same.
Here’s a test of whether a cadre of Republicans found Trump too crass for their tastes. Were that so, they might have left the presidential column blank, but would still have turned out for the rest of their party’s races. Had that occurred, Trump would have run behind down-ballot Republicans.
But he didn’t. In most states, Trump got essentially the same totals as the party’s statewide and congressional candidates. In some, he did better. In Pennsylvania, he came in 19,031 votes ahead of his party’s senatorial entrant. In Missouri, he garnered 161,114 more votes than its choice for governor.
So for all Trump’s rough and raucous ways, Republicans soon decided they wanted him for their president. Not least, he satisfied their party’s checklist: abortion, cutting taxes, guns, military might, slowing the nation’s progress toward a diverse population. Above all, they saw him as a vehicle to put all branches of government under their control. On January 20, 2017, they had just that.