I thought this was shrewd and interesting, @davidfrum. It's impossible to rebut, because there's no written platform. I think you're probably about right, but I'd add a few points:
1. The GOP claims that it still embraces the 2016 platform. It's worth reading it to see what has and hasn't been implemented. Remember, for two years they had the House, Senate, and Presidency: That should have been enough to get a lot of this achieved: prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/document…
What you wrote is not all that far off what the 2016 platform stated. The first section--and being first suggests "the key priority"--suggests that the GOP does indeed believe that if you lower taxes, prosperity follows. 
Nowhere does it say, "especially for society's richest citizens," but if you think that lowering taxes encourages investment--and this is exactly what it says, ("Wherever tax
rates penalize thrift or discourage investment, they
must be lowered")--it follows, somewhat logically:
rates penalize thrift or discourage investment, they
must be lowered")--it follows, somewhat logically:
Society's richest citizens have the most money to invest, so that's where you get the most bang for your buck by lowering taxes.
The problem is that this does not seem to have been, empirically, what happened.
The problem is that this does not seem to have been, empirically, what happened.
It's hard to say, because we can't know whether it would have been much worse without them, but two years after the cuts--enough time to see the effects--the evidence suggests they didn't have the intended effect.
The 2016 platform also stresses the importance of simplifying the code. But in 2020, these complaints are as prevalent as ever. (Here's one example of this complaint; obviously, there are many more: fool.com/retirement/201…)
NB: The 2016 platform also strongly emphasizes the importance of reducing the federal debt. It's probably obvious why the GOP wouldn't now want to call attention to this in 2020.
What about the promise to make the Federal Reserve more transparent? (This was a dumb, populist promise to begin with, but I just point it out.) What happened to the promise to make the electric grid less vulnerable? It's 2020: urgentcomm.com/2020/08/25/ele…
The 2016 platform deplores trade deficits and calls for "better negotiated trade agreements that put America first." (Are trade deficits are genuinely a problem? I remain agnostic. But if you believe they are, it is an unsolved problem.)
The 2016 platform calls for expanding trade agreements with like-minded countries. We're to understand that the GOP still adheres to this platform. But how so? Perhaps we're to conclude, from the evidence, that these countries comprise the null set.
foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/24/tru…
foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/24/tru…
I could go on, but I leave it as an exercise. The Republican Party controlled the Senate, House and presidency for two years. Compare the 2016 platform with what they actually did. We're now to understand that the platform is unchanged. What does that mean?
2. As for healthcare, the 2016 platform has strong words against "any approach" that results in rationing or lowering the quality of care to the elderly. What then are we to make of what happened under the GOP? wsj.com/articles/ratio…
3. Here's another plank of the 2016 platform, which is, we're to understand still the GOP platform--as is "undoubtedly unanimously agree[ing] to reassert the Party's strong support for the President."
So which is it? Is the GOP for or against subjugating the Internet to agents of government? Is it for subjugating the Internet to agents of government by Executive Order? marketplace.org/shows/marketpl… You cannot both support the 2016 platform and the President: It's a contradiction.
I could go on in this manner, but if your reaction, at this point, is to say that I'm missing the GOP's point, tell me--what's its point?
