Ring Side Reckoning
It’s possible for a party to nominate and continue to support a narcissistic demagogue and still stand for a coherent policy agenda. And this is more than a theoretical possibility if (1) the demagogue became the party’s leader because the rank-and-file believed other leaders weren’t fighting hard and effectively enough on behalf that agenda and (2) the demagogue, despite his other failings, has not abandoned the agenda. (Trump hasn’t, as discussed below.)
One can blame GOP leaders for lacking the courage to denounce Trump’s outrageous behavior — an easy enough take for pundits who don’t have to worry about running for office. But lack of courage isn’t the same thing as lack of an agenda. And failing to stand up to a bully isn’t the same thing as failing to stand for anything substantive, especially if the bully stands (or pretends to) for many of things you stand for.
What does the GOP stand for? With a few exceptions, pretty much the same things it stood for pre-Trump. (Some conservatives are frustrated that the GOP isn’t more innovative, but standing for old stuff isn’t the same thing as standing for nothing.) …
It’s certainly the case that party leaders haven’t come up with anything like the 1994 Contract With America. I imagine, though, that individual candidates are campaigning hard on at least some of the substantive issues mentioned above.
In any case, if the GOP is short on specificity about policy in this campaign, that’s evidence of a tactical choice, not evidence that the party stands for nothing.
