Trump Reportedly Wants to Create a New Political Party. Should He?

PJ Media ^ | 01/21/2021 | Matt Margolis

[SeekAndFind]

President Trump wants to create a new political party after leaving office, says the Wall Street Journal. According to the report, “President Trump has talked in recent days with associates about forming a new political party, according to people familiar with the matter, an effort to exert continued influence after he leaves the White House.”

According to sources, President Trump says he would want to call his new political party the “Patriot Party,” but the White House refused to comment.

It is not known just how serious Trump is about starting a new political party. As the WSJ notes, to do so “would require a significant investment of time and resources,” and third parties “have typically failed to draw enough support to play a major role in national elections.” But President Trump is perhaps the most uniquely positioned person to do such a thing, as he has a huge base of supporters, many of whom were not heavily involved in the Republican Party.

Aside from the question of whether or not he can or will start a new political party, the real issue here, I think, is whether he should.

I’ve seen many Republican friends express disappointment with the GOP in recent weeks for their failure to fight for President Trump and his priorities, as well as their criticism of Trump in the wake of the Capitol riots following the false narrative that he incited an insurrection. In fact, Republican wobbliness preceded President Trump’s term in the White House. The corrupt Obama-Biden administration spent eight years violating the Constitution without significant pushback from the Republican Party. Aside from the refusal to give Merrick Garland a hearing upon his nomination to the Supreme Court, the GOP was an ineffective check on the abuses of the Obama-Biden administration,

[oldbrowser]

This is how Soros got them in, this is how we get them out.

[Sans-Culotte]

NO. We either capture the GOP, or we lose totally.

If the GOP is actually on board with impeaching/convicting Trump, then "winning" with the GOP is the same as losing. What if Trump had won, and was then thrown out by the 'rats and the GOP quislings?

And the Teddy Roosevelt example is a poor one. TR was an egotist and wanted the GOP to become more "progressive". It was a destructive act which sabotaged his own party and President Taft.

[HamiltonJay]

If votes matter. He could pull it off...

However it appears votes don’t matter.

[nick0786bazpur]

Time to go slow and steady...

[Boogieman]

“Eventually over time, the new party would grow...”

In a way, it’s already grown even before a new party has officially been founded. Those millions of new GOP voters that Trump brought in are not GOP loyalists; most of them have never voted Republican before in their entire lives. I’m pretty sure they account for more votes than the fossils who would stay with the GOP no matter what.

[nathanbedford]

Whether the play is to reform or repudiate the Republican Party, whatever is done must be done quickly.

The institutional forces arrayed against conservatism today are so daunting that either path holds dubious promise but there is no better time than now to take the chance. We hold no part of the government, indeed we hold virtually no institution across the country apart from some hapless statehouses and practically no civilian institution.

Our weakness, however, can be seen as our strength. For decades we have held our noses and voted for Rinos out of fear of Democrat dominance. Well, now that dominance is now fully upon us with a vengeance and we have much less to lose by culling the heard.

If we wait the weight of institutions arrayed against us will prevail and we will lose more than a chance to reform our political party, we will lose our liberty to aggressive progressives and very likely our country to the Chinese.

The practical path and therefore the preferred path would be to reform the Republican Party. I fear that is but an illusory hope because the establishment is broad and deep and very strong. As you point out, splinter parties are really suicide excursions because of the winner take all nature of our political architecture. Yet it succeeded against the Whigs but there they had the supreme moral cause: anti-slavery

To repudiate the Republican Party and form a new one, whether under Trump or without him, is a very chancy, expensive and long-term proposition. Nevertheless, that seems to be the sentiment on this board with which I reluctantly agree. The hope of reform seems to be illusory, witness the ruse written by Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal appearing today.

. There are risks to either path but one must be chosen.

[Arlis]

Total truth in this post.

Problem is, true conservatives are not political animals, and the GOP is ruled and controlled by political animals like McConnell.

Not wanting to be negative, but political machines are ruled by political animals for they are of the same nature, the same essence. Political animals care more about power and control than they do about TRUTH. The ends justifies the means and the means IS ALWAYS COMPROMISE.

So I see no way those who will not compromise on TRUTH can take control of a group ruled by power and compromise. We can influence, yes - as the Tea Party did.

But we can never rule or control, for we are not of the same essence as those who rule - and who will always rule - a political party.

Please - anyone show me that I’m wrong.

[Boogieman]

“The only way to get back to a winning stance (IMHO) is to first primary every RINO and then defeat all the Republican leftovers that sided with the Dems and blocked President Trump’s initiatives at every turn.”

In other words, “keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing for two decades that has completely failed and brought us to this precipice”.

Good plan.

[CodeToad]

“3rd parties ALWAYS ALWAYS lead to the worst Demonrat party winning.”

Historically, but we’re talking of the GOP ceasing to have support, making it the third party. Frankly, it already is. The GOP takes in our votes then fails to represent us. No need to continue that practice.

[frog in a pot]

Tea Party didn’t have a leader to galvanize around.

Exactly!

The only issue IMO is what is the most sensible way to disassociate from the R party. In that regard, it is certainly best to separate smoothly and politely if not cordially (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

The "Patriot" party steals a march on the anti-MAGA's and sounds great and I would get the hell rid of the color "red' foisted on us by the lib MSM, done no doubt at the behest of the socialists in the Dem party.

I would however negotiate, if necessary, to keep the slogan, "The Party of Lincoln."

[Cboldt]

I see it like threats of violence. Everything should be on the table. If you proimise to NEVER put up a fight, no matter what; and you actually act that way, you will lose, 100% of the time. Same with “walk away.” It has to be a REAL threat, not an idle one.

I agree that it’s perhaps easier to convert the GOP, but it may be impossible.

[ridesthemiles]

YES

[Afterguard]

Okie dokie. You can take the lead then.

[ridesthemiles]

Tea Party fiasco was BEFORE 80 million votes election was stolen from Trump.

[Cboldt]

-- If the Senate does vote to convict him, and bar him from returning as president, expect him to announce the new party ASAP. --

Not necessarily. If the GOp does bar Trump from office, that bar will come from identifiable people. It'll be easier to take over the GOP when it is near death, than when it is strong.

Watching how Trump hadnles all the slings and arrows so far, while he may take some of it personally, he does not act out of pique. He wants the same thing we do, honest government.

[Article10]

Regardless if there’s a new party or we supposedly “capture” the republicant party.. its the money and lobbyists that matter.. DC is just too corrupt . Trump was a bandaid on a severed artery.

By pass and impose..

Focus should be on State Capitols and repealing the 17th Amendment via constitutional convention.

The rest will sort out when the check and balance on the Senate is restored.

[Arlis]

Interesting point here: Even we here at FR look to be divided fairly evenly between those who say NO to a new party and those who say YES to a new party.

That alone is to me a clear indication that a new party cannot succeed.

I’ll also note that I’ve seen nothing DIVIDE conservatives more than what has happened since Nov. 3rd, 2020. Our enemy has been very successful in dividing us since the election, proving there is no way we can unite under a new name.

BTW, I’ve never registered as a Republican - always independent. I cannot identify with a group that almost half the time represents the opposite of what I believe. Though I have worked locally for conservative Republican candidates.

[Karl Spooner]

Only if he is not allowed to pick his advisors, cabinet members, and the heads of the abc agencies. Robert Barns on Trump

[dfwgator]

Point being, there has to be a leader in the process.

Conservatives generally do not like to be ‘led’, that’s going to have to change if we are going to get anywhere.

You don’t have to like Trump to understand that he is The Man, nobody else is even close to being in the position that he is in, even if it’s as Kingmaker.

[theoilpainter]

A bad idea. Why split the conservative vote? There is nothing to be gained.
While I voted for Trump twice, and gave him money, I would not support his new party as its presence would only guarantee liberal dominance.