The Old Republican Party is Dead

This past Tuesday, May 5th, Indiana held its primary elections.  Those who went to bed early woke up to find that Trump endorsed candidates had swept at the ballot box with five out of seven challengers beating incumbent state senators.  Outside of that, one state senator who voted against redistricting lost to a non-Trump backed candidate while a Trump backed candidate won a three way primary.  The President had a good night this week and one that will play a key role in shaping future policy in the state.

This marks a continued trend, though, of Trump backed candidates winning across the country as he has had a high success rate with his endorsement over the past decade.  After all, his candidates have won 90% of primaries and more than a majority in the general elections of both midterms and Presidential election years.  Sure, one could say this doesn’t matter as much since much of his domestic agenda has stalled in Congress and many of his backed candidates could have won anyway.  However, those points are irrelevant as Trump is reshaping the Republican party with his endorsed candidates getting elected, which means the party will be the vehicle for his platform going forward long after he’s out of the White House while the old party fades away.

Now Trump’s not purely the reason that a lot of incumbents are finding themselves facing early retirement.  The truth is that most of them are just old and out of touch with where the times are.  Several of them were in politics for decades and times have changed.  Finding themselves out of touch, it was only a matter of time before they found themselves either leaving gracefully or being pulled out of their offices.

Indiana is a reflection of that better than any state as most of the redistricting opponents have been there for decades.  Both Sens. Jim Buck and Greg Walker originally intended to retire this year, which probably made sense since the latter was in the state senate for about two decades and the former was in the state legislature for three.  Sen. Travis Holdman, who claimed his district opposed redistricting efforts, has been a state senator since 2008 and was also removed.  Meanwhile, the only two non-redistricting senators that survived the primary, Sens. Greg Goode and Spencer Deery, only became senators within the last five years.  So a lot of the election was a replacement of the old guard.

That’s generally happening across the U.S. political spectrum as a whole.  Various Trump critics/opponents that had positions in the GOP like Robert Mueller, Dick Cheney, and John McCain have all passed away.  Others, like Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and John Kasich have all retired.  In reality, a lot of Trump critics were the ones from the yesteryears of either the Bush or Clinton administrations, and they’re finding themselves removed because they’re simply too old.  So a lot of what’s happening under Trump is just the natural transition of the old guard leaving.

Unfortunately for NeverTrumpers, the fact that incumbents are leaving or being aged out doesn’t mean that this isn’t beneficial to the President.  Far from it as he is the one replacing them.  As mentioned earlier, many of his candidates are winning primaries, and, even if they don’t win the general election, having so many successful candidates win nominations means that the party will be taken over by people open to the President’s agenda.

After all, elections have consequences and they can cause ripple effects.  In Indiana, there’s already calls to replace the Senate Pro Tempore from his position.  Also, new discussions on redistricting once he’s gone are coming up, which means Trump could get his new districts in the state of Indiana.  Unsurprisingly, the states of Florida, Tennessee, and more seem to have gotten the message and are now approving new districts.  We’ll see if they survive potential court challenges, but this will set precedents for redistricting that will outlast the President.  So his influence will be far reaching because it will set a precedent for future politicians or legal precedent for rejecting such legislation.

That is reflected in the makeup of the national party as well.  Already, the future candidates for President and thus leadership of the party include members of his administration like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance so the 2028 nominee will likely be a continuation of the Trump era.  Their candidacies are also worth noting because many former critics of his administration like them and Lindsey Graham are now strong supporters of his Presidency.  Meanwhile, former supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Kent that have turned hardcore critics are no longer in office anymore and can only complain about him to the media and on podcasts.  Also, certain politicians like Sen. Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie are still in office (at the time of writing this post), but they’re simply individuals that don’t seem to be influencing future nominees for office (yet).  So in the long run, it looks like Trump is going to influence the party for a while as his candidates win.

So, now that Donald Trump is taking over the Republican party, what does that mean for the future of the average voter?  Will the Republican become the shining example of patriotic nationalism dedicated to bringing about an almost religious love of the United States?  Will many NeverTrumpers make peace with the Democrats and mount a counter offensive, relegating the Republican party to a junior party nationally?

Well, that’s a question for another day, but some of the implications might be discussed in a future blogpost.

Is Marco Rubio Running the White House?

The headline is extremely clickbaity, but it’s a question that might be worth asking.  Since being confirmed as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio has been heavily involved in some of the most important international political events of the still developing 21st century, and his influence only seems to be expanding with each passing day as more situations globally keep developing.  It might be worth investigating how much influence he has, then, and how his role continues to develop.

So to start off with, a little background on Marco Rubio.  Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rubio would go on to serve on the Senate Committee on Intelligence (where he was the acting chair and then ranking member) and the Committee on Foreign Relations.  He also served on the Committee on Appropriations, which, while not directly dealing with foreign affairs, does have full jurisdiction over all discretionary spending and military spending constitutes 56% of the federal discretionary budget.  So he was very heavily influential in government legislative committees that focused on foreign and military affairs.

Of note, he had a particularly prominent history of supporting military intervention in foreign affairs.  In the senate, he supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, supported giving ammunition to Syrian rebels during the civil war under Bashar al-Assad, pushed against establishing diplomatic ties with Cuba during the Obama administration, called for revolution in Venezuela and met with an opposition leader that was accused of attempting a coup by the Maduro government, supported increased military ties with China’s neighbors (and enemies), etc.  Of note, during the 2016 presidential primaries, he was the candidate who called for use of military force third most out of all of them according to the CATO institute (Trump was dead in the center between most calls and least calls).  So he has a history of wanting to use military force to accomplish America’s foreign policy objectives.

This is noticeable because since he’s become Secretary of State and National Security Advisor (the first to hold both positions at the same time since Henry Kissinger back in the 70s), the Trump administration has taken a noticeably more hawkish tone since its first term.  Similarly, many of Rubio’s policy agendas when he was in the senate have been coming to fruition.  During his tenure as Secretary of State, the US has captured now former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, placed an oil embargo on Cuba while talking about regime change, and placed steeper tariffs on China while pushing stronger military relations with Japan.  In addition, the US has pushed to take Greenland and has created the largest military buildup in the middle east around since the Iraq War due to a growing possibility of war with Iran (a country which Senator Rubio supported sanctions on).  So it seems like much of Rubio’s agenda in the senate is being reflected by the Trump administration.

Now, one could argue that Trump possibly changed his mind during his four years out of the office.  Besides, many of these countries are ones he clashed with during his first term as President.  After all, he did take out the leader of Iran’s Quds force, struck Syria, and recognized Venezuela’s opposition leader as the real head of the country’s government during his first term.  He’s also been a long term critic of China so being strong against them isn’t all that surprising.  Therefore, Trump’s actions are not definitive proof that Rubio is in complete control of the US’s foreign policy.

However, the fact that Rubio is getting most of his foreign policy agenda as a senator made a priority by the current administration does show the impact and influence he is having.  Likewise, he has publicly disagreed with his boss, noticeably when he downplayed military options to take Greenland when Trump refused to rule that out and took a more collaborative tone towards working with Europe than did JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference.  The fact that he is able to push back on those with higher authority than himself when disagreement has led to firing of officials in the past shows that Rubio may be in a safe position.

Similarly, there have been reports about Trump’s dependence on those closest to him.  There was a saying that during Trump’s first term, the last person he spoke with was usually the one he agreed with at the time.  Keeping in mind that Trump had never been elected before, it’s not surprising that he wanted to take advice from people with more experience than himself in the governmental field.  However, Rubio was not a direct member of Trump’s administration during his first term so that means he has a lot more opportunity to influence the President.

The final point to consider is the weakness of Trump’s ability to accomplish his domestic agenda.  Noticeably, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has struggled to get legislation passed, making an inactivity record, which makes it hard to pass domestic policy since most of that is in the hands of the legislature.  Similarly, a lot of the early policies of the Trump administration was supported by investigations from the Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative championed by Elon Musk.  However, Musk is no longer part of the administration so that initiative seems no longer to be front and center in Trump’s administration.  Increasingly, Trump’s agenda is moving away from what requires congress’s help and is becoming more focused on how he can assert himself internationally.  That means that much of the Trump administration’s second term will be defined by Marco Rubio.

In fairness, there’s a saying that leadership is about getting the right people in the right positions.  If Rubio is directing the White House’s current agendas, then that isn’t a statement of weakness on the President since his goal is to lead the executive branch and make sure the right people are doing the job he requires of them.  However, this blog post should show how much influence Secretary of State Marco Rubio has and how much he can shape the direction of the president.  So it is likely he might be the one actually determining US policy, at least internationally, going forward.  Regardless, whatever his influence, a biography on him will likely be a fascinating read, and a must for anyone who wants to understand US foreign policy in the 21st century.