I think people who see Trumpism as something aberrant in the Republican Party haven't though much about the history of the Republican Party. Unless they're NeverTrumpers, in which case they're in a state of denial. 1/
Successful Republican campaigns and presidencies have *always* involved an integration of the party's populist and establishment wings. Nixon, Reagan, and to an extent W have all had ties to both wings, and balanced them well. 2/
The campaigns that have been heavily weighted toward the establishment track? Ford, H.W., Dole, Romney? Not so successful. 3/
With the exception of H.W.'s '88 campaign, which was of course a campaign for Reagan's third term. What Trump basically represents is the antithesis of Romney '12: a populist campaign without the establishment wing. 4/
Mid-to-longterm, I don't think this strategy works either, unless the populists find a way to build the cross-racial blue collar coalition that eluded the Post-CRA Southern Democrats. Good luck with that. 5/
But please, spare us the "taking the party back from Trumpism." The Republican Party completely cleansed of populist impulses is basically three upper middle class white guys in a think tank cubicle. 6/
and two of them are going to vote for Gary Johnson anyway. The answer, here and Europe, is to do what establishment groups in two-party systems have done with populist movements since the 1800s: synthesize. 7/
And if you can't do that, no problem, then you're a Democrat or an Independent. But neither party can survive without some kind of appeal to their populist base. It's delusional to suggest otherwise. 8/8
