Why the GOP should nominate Trump in a brokered conventionThe Republican establishment has been punched in the face by Donald Trump (and Ted Cruz). He’s embraced white-identity politics (alienating and scapegoating women and minorities), an association the party wanted to distance itself from, and he’s taken a populist approach to government rather than a traditionally conservative one. The party would like anything other than to be labeled the “party of Trump.”
But if we assume the polls are an accurate indicator of public support (which they may not necessarily be), Republican disenchantment is at a high, and a brokered convention certainly seems a possibility. It is a very plausible scenario that Trump, Cruz and an establishment alternative (Bush, Rubio, Kasich or Christie) may lead the party in July with the three highest delegate shares (with none having enough delegates to secure the nomination outright). In that case, I believe the party should nominate Trump. (I believe they definitely should not and will not nominate Cruz if given the choice.)
But why should the Republican establishment not save face and select an “establishment” candidate if given the opportunity in a brokered convention? Because if the party nominates an establishment alternative, they run the unlikely risk of Donald Trump mounting an independent campaign, but even more so, they run the very real risk of losing to Hillary Clinton and validating the frustrations and the anger of the disenchanted Republicans who are desperate for a party shake-up.
On the other hand, if the party nominates Donald Trump, they will likely be able to consolidate the support of the radical, anti-establishment wing (supporters of Trump and Cruz) with that of the loyal Republicans who would much rather see a Trump presidency than another Clinton one.
For some, party loyalty will have its limits, but believe me, as it becomes more widely accepted as a possibility, we’re sure to see more and more Republicans (especially the donor class) reconciling themselves to the idea of Trump as their nominee, because a Trump nomination really leaves only two possibilities: he wins or he loses.
Speaker Paul Ryan will control the direction of the Republican Party no matter what happens in 2016. Should Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the general election, Ryan will get to choose whether to continue the unflinchingly oppositional and uncompromising approach the House has taken toward Barack Obama’s presidency, or (what I tend to believe is more likely) to provide a moderate, conservative reform agenda through compromise. With the latter approach, Ryan will essentially be afforded the opportunity to turn to the anti-establishment wing of his party and say, “Well, you had your chance, and you lost.”
On the other hand, should Trump win (which would be terrifying), Ryan will at least get to choose whether to allow the most radical extremes in his party to fulfill Trump’s every desire, or (what I tend to believe is more likely) to propose a Republican agenda that, while conservative, would be far less extreme than Trump’s outlandish propositions. Sure The Donald’s mouth might not be controllable, but what lands on his desk would be, and President Trump wouldn’t veto Republican legislation. (The tyranny of Trump would effectively be limited to his executive power, which is less dangerous than most people imagine.)
Anything could happen between now and July, but if no candidate wins the nomination outright, Trump maintains a sizable share of support, and if the GOP race comes down to a brokered convention, rather than nominating an establishment candidate, the Republican Party should nominate Donald J. Trump. At least that way, they can either join him in his “winning,” or they can force him and the ideas he espouses out of the party as “losers.”
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/01/21/why-the-gop-should-nominate-trump-in-a-brokered-convention/
