A month before Election Day, I predicted…
A month before Election Day, I posted this on Facebook:

As the last three days’ events around the failure of the Republicans and Trump to shape Congress’s most recent spending bill reveal, I got this prediction pretty much right.
I should confess right off the bat that I do get a fair number of predictions wrong. Most painfully, I was sure Clinton would win in 2016, a prediction that my critics, understandably, have never let me or my readers forget.
But one thing I did get completely right about Trump’s first term, before it even began, was that he would be a spectacularly weak president; failure, rather than success, would be his lot. The reason for that failure and that weakness, I argued again and again, had little to do with Trump’s personal fecklessness or incorrigible incompetence, considerable as they were and are. It had much more to do with the dysfunction internal to the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
I continued to make that argument throughout Trump’s first term and was frequently criticized for it. Which has made it all the more surprising, these past few months, to see people claim that the new Trump, the Trump who ran and won in 2024, has learned the painful lessons of his first term, when key underlings opposed him and even more key Republicans departed him. Last I had checked, hardly anyone was willing to acknowledge that the story of his first term was not Prometheus Unbound but a lot of sound and fury, signifying, well, you now how that goes.
Regardless, as this Facebook post from October suggests, I’ve not been convinced that Trump 2.0 would necessarily be all that different from Trump 1.0. Nothing having to do with Trump, personally; I’ve always thought the focus on his personal flaws and hapless leadership has distracted us from the deeper rot within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Well, with the last three days’ events, the media has finally realized the truth: the dysfunction continues. The problem, for Trump, remains what it has always been: not the so-called moderates in his party but the hard right. The media, which, before and after the election, was anticipating a new conservative colossus, seems, at least for the moment, to have had some clarity put into its perspective.
All those claims about a Republican Party now and newly beholden to Trump, terrified to cross him (or, I guess, Elon Musk, who’s now deemed to be the true Mephistopheles of the moment)? This is what the New York Times had to say about that on Thursday:
Just two days ago, President-elect Trump and Elon Musk threatened to ensure a primary challenge for any House Republican who voted for a bill that didn’t include a debt limit increase. Tonight, 170 of them did just that.
Again, none of this is new. As I’ve argued repeatedly, whenever the GOP has wanted to cross Trump, they have.
There are many reasons for this, but a key source is a combination of changes in party structure, campaign financing, and American business. As Paul Heideman shows in an eye-opening book that will be coming out (I think) next year with Verso, these hardcore right-wingers who tanked Trump’s plans for raising the debt limit are not just ideological purists and fanatics; the GOP has had those forever. The problem is that they’ve got independent sources of funding and huge levels of support in their districts. As one of them told the Times, “I love Donald Trump, but he didn’t vote me into office; my district did.” These representatives reflect a dramatic shift, which Heideman traces back to the 1980s and 1990s, in the way power in the party works, politicians get funding, and business has reverted to its historical mode of being politically powerful but internally disorganized—and thus unable to impose any discipline on the party from the outside, as it was once was able to.
That doesn’t make for power or coherence in the party, but just the opposite. Just as we saw powerlessness and incoherence in Trump’s first term, we’re seeing it now, even before his second term has begun. As I’ve been arguing since the election, the idea that any of this is going to get any easier come January is foolish. The GOP is going to have the tiniest majority in the House—smaller than the majority it will have in the Senate, which has hardly ever happened to a political party in recent American history—and that is going to put it, and Trump, in an even weaker position than he and it were when Trump and the party were voted into power in 2016.
Discover more from Corey Robin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-
Good argument, but I’m fearful depending for the survival of the nation, the fecklessness of the Republicans.
-
At last someone who actually has something sensible to say about the fascist cosplayers of our new century and their jostling for power and influence at the end of the Pax Americana. No surprise that it turns out to be Corey Robin, who’s long understood what makes the reactionary mobs of the past, present, and future tick better than just about anyone else around.
-
Agree about the power of the hard right in the party, but this post seems to leave out the sudden emergence of Musk as a new power center in the administration. Musk won this round; he wanted, and got, a funding bill stripped of provisions that increased oversight of investment in China (read: Tesla factories in China); these were limitations that Trump wanted. So Trump has to cool his heels in the face of all the jokes that he is President in Name Only and Musk’s butler, and has a major challenger within the executive branch (I guess that’s what Musk is?).
-
As Corey writes in one of these latest posts, Jamelle Bouie also has this insight (leading him elsewhere, however).
It is terribly important that this become conventional wisdom of some sort. Some elected Dems probably have an inkling about it too, but maybe it’s not yet decent to say it, after having so oversold Trump. But I hope it’s sinking in that they really don’t have much face to lose; that the alternative to a reckoning is not immediate extinction, but becoming a big, seemingly permanent, floating island of sea garbage. A bulk that simply exists. You know sometimes when you’re in the ocean, and you feel something fleetingly touch your hand or leg? It could be a hand or leg or fish. But then you see, no, it was just a bit of seaweed centrist Democrat that happened to touch your skin as it floated by. Nothing capable of having an intention.
There are more important things than Democrats, especially national ones. But a little clarity among them would make a difference in the next few years. And it would cost them nothing but a little vanity. Or a lot, depending on whose.
-
As a person who hates “hope” as a response to the coming cataclysm, I have to say that your analysis is the only hopeful read I have found on same. If progressives are smart (and I’d like to think we are) we may be able to use this dysfunction as a weapon against the Trump too-pernt-oh.
To know the reactionaries’ weakness is part of any defense against them.
Sign me up!
-
As of now, your argument about GOP dysfunction is correct but *only* when it comes to budgets. On all other issues, Trump will not face meaningful resistance to his plans (see for example, Senate Republicans deferring to Trump on his nominees).
So the question becomes: how important are budgets? Or more precisely, if Trump is thwarted on budgetary issues, can he still accumulate enough power in other ways? I don’t know the answer but that is the correct question. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that rather than repeating that Trump will be hemmed in on budgets.
-
I agree with much of what you say and I like the distinction you make between Trump’s personal failings and the weakness of the GOP. However in the past you’ve frequently cited presidential election results as proof of the GOP’s waning power (winning smaller vote shares each time/losing the popular vote) and I wonder then how Trump’s 2024 victory affects your thinking on that? He won a larger vote share this time AND the popular vote (though just barely), improving on his 2016 performance. And he did it this time by winning more minority and young voters (two groups that the GOP struggled with in the past).
-
Just a random thought about our current moment: Trump reminds me of George Wallace, who youngers may not know much about. Wallace started as a kind of racial ameliorist (esp for Alabama), and then became one of *the* faces of segregation and race-baiting, not to mention white working class resentment/reaction. He was a classic protest candidate running for pres. in 1968. He didn’t expect to win, and didn’t, but did get almost 10 million votes and made Nixon’s people nervous I’m sure.
Trump is also relatively indifferent ideologically (within the narrow US scope), and was also a classic protest candidate in 2016. But what a change in political climate since 1968! He probably also did not fully expect to win, esp. at the beginning. But unthinkable happened. And the other unthinkable candidate (Sanders, who *definitely* did not expect to beat HRC) almost won too.
The US system is so profoundly dysfunctional that it seems it must either grind itself up, like a powerful, malfunctioning machine, or start chipping away at real reforms. Or both I guess