They did. But really, the whole Republican model needs to refocus on evidence rather than theories. In my view, it was the fact that the so-called Republican establishment has veered away from the scientific model that opened up the space for Trump. They were ripe for the picking by a con man: one set of fictional ideas is as good as another.
The post-Trump party needs to lose a bunch of the basic tenets which are proving so damaging to themselves and the country: they should clarify the distinction between hostility to government and limited/efficient government and definitively choose the latter; they should get out of the obstruction business and allow that compromise is the constitutional design; they should go back to school on economics - supply side generates deficits and doesn't deliver the growth to make up for them; they should rethink what to do about the vulnerable; they should side with small business rather than plutocracy ... these sorts of things.
It's perfectly honourable to be cautious about change and to count your pennies. Go back to the traditional Conservative premises. Counsel gradual structural evolution. Oppose grand plans. But also be sceptical of fixed ideological principles. Base theories on evidence. Adapt as necessary. Push the Democrats away from the centre. Don't be petty.
And also, learn from the Trump movement and try to solve the problems those people are talking about. For me, they are an inequality problem. Maybe trade deals should be drawn up with more provisions to protect the middle class.
It can be done. And it would make a brilliant and constructive argument across the great divide.
| 