Felon, former president and presidential candidate Donald Trump has dominated — devoured, actually — the Republican Party. Virtually every elected official bends to his will to endorse him or follow his edicts; the party has jettisoned any consistent policy principles in favor of blind obedience to his impulses. And nearly all Republicans who have crossed him have been either defeated or compelled to retire.
Sign up for Shifts, an illustrated newsletter series about the future of work
Still, over the years when Never Trumpers were asked whether they still belonged to the GOP, they would often respond: “Yes, I’m not willing to concede the party to Trump.” They imagined the “battle for the soul of the Republican Party” was ongoing. That has become a harder belief to sustain as any sliver of opposition has melted away.
Former congresswoman Liz Cheney’s response on “Meet the Press” Sunday to the question as to whether she is a Republican was therefore telling. “I’m a conservative. I’m not a member of this — I do not consider myself a member of Donald Trump’s Republican Party.” Cheney did not quite shut the door on remaining in the party, but she did acknowledge that so long as it is “Trump’s Republican Party” there is no place for conservatives of good conscience.
Unless Trump loses so decisively as to trigger a mass renunciation of his movement (highly unlikely), Cheney and similar Republicans’ futures will likely be outside the MAGA-corrupted Republican Party. Republicans who have opposed Trump, and gone the extra mile to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, have several alternatives after the election.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
First, they could occupy the right flank of the Democratic Party, as the Democratic Leadership Council did in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ultimately lifting Bill Clinton to the presidency. Although they could continue to disagree on several key policy issues (e.g., abortion), they would aim to guide the party toward the center, advocating fiscal discipline and resisting radical left voices on issues such as policing and Israel.
There are some obvious drawbacks to this approach. Although conservative Republicans turned Democrats might make it to the general election in some solid red states and districts, their chances of winning primary races elsewhere are low. (Although in places such as California they might well make the top two in so-called jungle primaries.) Aside from the ideological clashes and low prospects for electoral wins, this option would leave the country still with a single pro-democracy, normal party.
A second option would be a third party (perhaps the “Rule of Law Party" or the “Lincoln Party”). It might begin in state and congressional elections, gaining steam to compete in statewide and presidential contests.
The drawbacks to third parties are well known. Voters resist “throwing away” their votes on parties without a track record of wins, and ballot qualification requirements can be hard to surmount. Moreover, the potential to split the non-MAGA vote and actually help the MAGA GOP is real. The utter failure in this cycle of the No Labels effort — if you’ve already forgotten about it, that’s understandable — underscores the difficulties.
Now, in places where Democrats have no chance, it might make sense for them to stand down, letting an alternative conservative party run. The Senate race in Nebraska featuring independent Dan Osburn will be telling. Although he’s not representing a third party, his win could indicate an opening for an organized center-right party to run in Democrat-averse districts.
A third option — a fusion party — may prove the most intriguing. In 2022, I wrote about such an effort in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District by a new Moderate Party. I shared at the time:
This option is not altogether satisfactory either. Politicians such as Cheney aim not merely to influence those who hold power but also to win office and govern themselves. Without their own candidates and party, positions that neither major party advances (e.g., free trade, fiscal restraint, limited executive power) would simply go by the wayside.
In an ideal world from Cheney’s perspective, devastating MAGA losses in another election cycle or two would wipe it out and leave the remnants of the party for her to sweep up and reconstitute into a viable, pro-democracy party. But given polarization and heavy gerrymandering, wipeout elections might be a thing of the past. That means even after a Trump defeat, the MAGA GOP might be here to stay. Cheney and others will therefore need to experiment — perhaps combining one or more of the options outlined above.
First and foremost, however, for the good of Cheney’s country, her former party and her ideals, Trump must go down, decisively, to defeat. Only then can something new emerge.
Sign up for Shifts, an illustrated newsletter series about the future of work
Still, over the years when Never Trumpers were asked whether they still belonged to the GOP, they would often respond: “Yes, I’m not willing to concede the party to Trump.” They imagined the “battle for the soul of the Republican Party” was ongoing. That has become a harder belief to sustain as any sliver of opposition has melted away.
Former congresswoman Liz Cheney’s response on “Meet the Press” Sunday to the question as to whether she is a Republican was therefore telling. “I’m a conservative. I’m not a member of this — I do not consider myself a member of Donald Trump’s Republican Party.” Cheney did not quite shut the door on remaining in the party, but she did acknowledge that so long as it is “Trump’s Republican Party” there is no place for conservatives of good conscience.
Unless Trump loses so decisively as to trigger a mass renunciation of his movement (highly unlikely), Cheney and similar Republicans’ futures will likely be outside the MAGA-corrupted Republican Party. Republicans who have opposed Trump, and gone the extra mile to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, have several alternatives after the election.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
First, they could occupy the right flank of the Democratic Party, as the Democratic Leadership Council did in the late 1980s and early 1990s, ultimately lifting Bill Clinton to the presidency. Although they could continue to disagree on several key policy issues (e.g., abortion), they would aim to guide the party toward the center, advocating fiscal discipline and resisting radical left voices on issues such as policing and Israel.
There are some obvious drawbacks to this approach. Although conservative Republicans turned Democrats might make it to the general election in some solid red states and districts, their chances of winning primary races elsewhere are low. (Although in places such as California they might well make the top two in so-called jungle primaries.) Aside from the ideological clashes and low prospects for electoral wins, this option would leave the country still with a single pro-democracy, normal party.
A second option would be a third party (perhaps the “Rule of Law Party" or the “Lincoln Party”). It might begin in state and congressional elections, gaining steam to compete in statewide and presidential contests.
The drawbacks to third parties are well known. Voters resist “throwing away” their votes on parties without a track record of wins, and ballot qualification requirements can be hard to surmount. Moreover, the potential to split the non-MAGA vote and actually help the MAGA GOP is real. The utter failure in this cycle of the No Labels effort — if you’ve already forgotten about it, that’s understandable — underscores the difficulties.
Now, in places where Democrats have no chance, it might make sense for them to stand down, letting an alternative conservative party run. The Senate race in Nebraska featuring independent Dan Osburn will be telling. Although he’s not representing a third party, his win could indicate an opening for an organized center-right party to run in Democrat-averse districts.
A third option — a fusion party — may prove the most intriguing. In 2022, I wrote about such an effort in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District by a new Moderate Party. I shared at the time:
Like this and fusion parties in New York (e.g., the Conservative Party, the Working Families Party), a new center-right party could endorse candidates from either of the two major parties who best match its ideological criteria, thereby enticing both parties to adhere to those principles. Not unlike Cheney’s and Adam Kinzinger’s endorsements of Harris and of former Texas Democratic representative Colin Allred (running to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz) in this election, a formal fusion party could weigh in on a list of races around the country.
This option is not altogether satisfactory either. Politicians such as Cheney aim not merely to influence those who hold power but also to win office and govern themselves. Without their own candidates and party, positions that neither major party advances (e.g., free trade, fiscal restraint, limited executive power) would simply go by the wayside.
In an ideal world from Cheney’s perspective, devastating MAGA losses in another election cycle or two would wipe it out and leave the remnants of the party for her to sweep up and reconstitute into a viable, pro-democracy party. But given polarization and heavy gerrymandering, wipeout elections might be a thing of the past. That means even after a Trump defeat, the MAGA GOP might be here to stay. Cheney and others will therefore need to experiment — perhaps combining one or more of the options outlined above.
First and foremost, however, for the good of Cheney’s country, her former party and her ideals, Trump must go down, decisively, to defeat. Only then can something new emerge.
