A Senior Republican Speaks : 2

An inside look at the state of the GOP under Trump, and policy towards Ukraine, NATO and China

Hi Everyone,

I’m back with the second installment of one of the most popular posts I have ever done: A Senior Republican Speaks About the GOP and Ukraine. For those of you who did not see the first one, here is a link.

Just as a reminder, this person has a deep and long-lasting knowledge of the GOP. Here was their description at the start of the first piece. However, needless to say, they want to keep anonymity.

1) Why would you say you are someone with a deep knowledge of the Republican Party today?
I’ve been involved in Republican politics for over 45 years and have developed deep personal relationships with each of the last six Republican Presidents. I maintain personal and professional connections to many of the current Republican leaders in the party, the Congress and a broad spectrum of policy makers. I know where the party has been, where it is today and where it is going tomorrow.

I will do what I did last time. The interview I consider so important that I will leave it open to everyone for free, however there will be a special comment section at the end for subscribers which has a few special reflections.

So, here goes.

What is he thinking?

1. Why do you think Trump won in the end?

Trump won because he was able to unite every group of aggrieved citizens in the country including groups you never would have expected to agree on anything or that seemingly have little in common politically: Pro-Israel New York Jews/Michigan Muslims, Young Black urban men/white suburban women. Trump became a vessel for every American with a complaint and brought them to his side. In addition, Trump held the Republican base together and the based showed up in droves.

The Democrats, on the other hand, committed political malpractice by closing the election on issues that were not Americans’ top priorities (regardless of what the polls said) or were distractions from the real issues. Elections are won and lost on the economy (almost every election), war and peace (eg 1944/1968) and, to a lesser extent, perception of safety (eg 2004). The Democrats failed on all of these accounts. They never adequately addressed working class fears of soaring inflation, they never recognized the economic competition that mass migration presented to working class minorities and they failed to address suburban mothers’ fear of crime stemming from the migration crisis. When they did talk about issues, Democrats focused on issues of transgender equality - not a winner with female median voters - and abortion. In particular, abortion is a losing general election issue and the side that focuses on abortion to close an election is losing. Abortion animates the respective bases of the major parties but it does not move the median voter. Every sentence uttered by a candidate about abortion in a general election is one less sentenced focused on the economy. Just stop talking about it when the primaries are over.

The Democrats also nominated a candidate in Kamala Harris who was inexperienced in winning close general elections.  One major drawback of being a California, statewide elected Democrat is that you rarely if ever have had a competitive general election. Because California is a massive and heavily Democratic state, as long as you win the Democratic nomination, odds are you will easily win the general. Kamala Harris had zero practice winning a truly contested general election and even her Democratic primary campaign in 2020 failed to net her a statewide win.  She just was not a good closer.

2. Was there anything that the Democrats or Harris could have done differently to change the result?

The Democrats should have run an open primary from the beginning. Hiding Biden’s increasing frailty was the fatal decision. By the time the Democrats turned to Harris they were desperate and overlooked her flaws in hopes that anyone other than Biden could beat Trump. Also, Democrats ignored the obvious problem that her coronation would look like a party boss driven inside job. Note to parties: voters don’t like to have their voice taken away - that’s not how democracy works. At a time when elites seemed to be ignoring the problems of the working class, an elite driven nomination process was a bad look.

In terms of Harris, she was in a difficult position. She had to organize and run a campaign in 100 days and carry the baggage of the Biden administration. A very tall order. She should have relentlessly attacked economic problems such as inflation, moderated herself by dismissing calls from the far left to tax capital gains and found a “Sister Soulja” moment on immigration. Tough to do in 100 days on the fly, but that was the hand she was dealt.

3. What does Trump's victory mean for the future of the GOP

This is Trump’s party now. JD Vance will be the nominee in 2028 and the party will become more ultra MAGA. This means tariffs, selective government intervention in the economy and isolationism abroad. Eventually the maga coalition will fray (as all coalitions do) but it in may take a decade or two to wash out.

4. When you look at the group around Trump, who would you say are the most influential people?

Elon, Elon and Elon.  Musk, at the moment, is the most influential advisor to Trump. I don’t think that necessarily lasts as both Trump and Musk are the biggest alphas on the continent. At some point (and this may be the worst hot take of the year), they will have an irreconcilable conflict I suspect.  Also very important in Trump’s orbit is Don Jr.  Some other influential voices are Matt Gaetz, RFK Jr, Tucker Carlson and some lesser known people such as Susie Wiles and Boris Epshteyn.

5. Are there any people around Trump who are really committed to Ukrainian victory?

There are a few but Ukrainian victory seems to be a litmus test for Trump foreign policy. I don’t want to expose anyone who is working to defeat Russia and may be influential around Trump. I want those few believers to remain influential with Trump.

6. What do you think the odds are that US aid to Ukraine will continue after January 20, 2025?

The odds are high that Trump will reduce USA aid to Ukraine. Trump believes that he can force Russia and Ukraine into a peace. He will claim credit for averting World War III and overturning Biden’s disastrous policy. He will sell it to Americans as bringing dollars home to spend on USA priorities such as closing the southern border.  Ukraine is in a difficult spot.

7. Do you think there is a real chance that Trump will try to weaken NATO?

I truly hope that Trump doesn’t weaken NATO. At the very least, I hope Trump sees the utility of NATO as an organization whose members will buy more USA made weapons  systems - whatever it takes to keep the alliance going for another four years. My fear is that Trump views NATO as a bother at best and at worst entangles the USA in European issues and antagonizes Russia.

8. How serious do you believe Trump will be in confronting China?

Trump will use strong rhetoric to confront China and he will toughen policies on Chinese activities in the USA - student visas, Chinese police stations in American cities, Chinese agents, etc. But, Trump will also look to do a big deal with China. Luckily, China’s number 1 concern is Taiwanese independence. That is Trump’s 30th concern. That leaves room to cut a deal on economic issues that Trump knows would be beneficial to the USA economy. And China also needs a deal with the USA as the Chinese economy is faltering. Don’t be surprised if Trump works something out with China in the 1st year of his second term.

What Does this All Mean?

When I was exchanging messages with this person after these responses came in, a very interesting point was made about where we stand. When discussing the internal Trump discussion about Ukraine, They said: