It does seem more likely than Republicans giving up MAGA.
Kind of off-subject, but what would "giving up MAGA" look like? I've always conceptualized "MAGA" as more of a rhetorical phenomenon.
Then there are the large themes of populist rhetoric--(anti-big business, anti-elite, anti-establishment) that I don't think are going anywhere at least for a large majority of Republicans.
Hypothetically foreign policy, trade/tariffs, "immigration" are all pretty big deviations in terms of what he has stated as policy at least in terms of scale. But who knows what would actually happen. Trump gets lazy and is bored, but saying you are going to deport millions of people with the national guard is different than the "self-deportation" line that used to get trotted out at Republican primaries.
The funny thing is actually how traditionally right wing Trump's campaign is--tax cuts, pro life, anti-"regulation", get rid of the Department of Education etc.
Yeah and I would toss immigration into that bolded list there too, even if the rhetoric and policy is more amplified under Trump. And that's really what I'm driving at. The general policy positions look largely familiar, and I suspect they will moving into 2028. If "MAGA," boiled down, is a function of Trump's (1) personal charisma and rhetoric, (2) draconian immigration stance, plus (3) a handful of unorthodox policy positions (i.e. his general foreign policy, tariffs), then I don't really see how "MAGA" survives as a threat beyond the 2024 election (win or lose, really). I assume the right will continue to bang the immigration drum, but that drum was beating far before 2015/2016. And I don't see a reason future candidates will carry his niche tariff/foreign policies moving forward.
What would be left of MAGA, then, is Trump calling people fat and ugly, and I haven't seen anyone else who can pull off that song and dance as effectively as Trump. I just don't think "MAGA," as a particular, definable, thing, works without Trump.
I think the "immigration" and "foreign policy" and "tariffs" are all about someone "ripping us off" and finding that enemy to punish in some way. That is for sure staying around and Josh Hawley is the best at using that rhetoric to make people look pretty silly when he is reading questions at hearings etc. He might have a little too much Tom Cotton pyscho to ever be presidential materials but he is how this will evolve I think.
The social media companies and schools and media and DEI and election workers are the enemies. They take the same broad appeal of Bernie's class war on billionaires and just change the lines.
Yeah, I just suspect things like Trumps's flavor of foreign policy and the tarriffs are dubious enough that they won't be held onto.
Hawley's song and dance doesn't strike me as "Trumpian." Honestly, his demeanor reminds me of the horseshow theory version of AOC. Nor do I see DEI/School stuff as particularly "Trumpian." My view is that DEI stuff largely arose independent (though alongside) of Trump. I just view that stuff as the current flavor of the social culture war -- and i think social culture wars are kind of a constant in modern US politics. To that end, I agree that DEI arguments will likely continue beyond Trump (unless one side or the other waves a functional white flag). But I still wouldn't consider anti-DEI arguments as particularly "MAGA."
Starting with a definition of MAGA would be good I guess.
That's why I asked the question originally. "The Republicans are unlikely to give up MAGA" begs the question. And I've enjoyed this discussion of trying to boil it down. I think your last post does a really good job of it trying to excise MAGA from the more traditional Republican platform:
-Cult of personality/rhetoric/insults;
-Disregard of democratic norms;
-Foreign policy scapegoating;
-Hyper-draconian immigration rhetoric.
I don't think disregarding democratic norms really works without Trump. It's hard to imagine anyone else (compellingly) saying "this will be the last election you'll have to vote in." And I do think the immigration rhetoric will continue, but again, I think that was on the rise before Trump. Who knows about the foreign policy/tariff stuff.
Now, I absolutely think there will be Trump imitators at the primary level for a long time. But I have serious doubts whether anyone will be able to effectively fill the post-Trump-power-vacuum by engaging in MAGA rhetoric/cult of personality the same way Trump was able to. People criticize Trump for all sorts of valid reasons, but I think a lot of people short-change what a compelling, revolutionary, and unique figure he really is and was (especially in the 2016 election). It's really hard to do what he does effectively, and I haven't seen anyone else who comes close.
