Content area
Full Text
Politics
Articles
Leading scholars of American politics argue that political party insiders, defined quite broadly, exert considerable influence over the presidential nomination process. Starting with what they call the "invisible primaries" and continuing to actual primary nominating contests where votes are cast and delegates are selected, "candidates put themselves forward, but the party coalition chooses among them, now as in the past" (Cohen et al. 2008, 11).
Meticulously researched and persuasively presented, the party decides theory of presidential nominations quickly became gospel for Americanists and the lens through which the popular media handicapped and interpreted the presidential primaries and caucuses. But in 2016, confronted with an historically unprecedented number of major candidates for the Republican nomination for president,1party insiders failed to anoint a standard bearer.
Who decides when the party elites don't? This year, it was America's authoritarian voters. And their candidate of choice, Donald Trump, is anathema to party leaders.
On June 16, 2015, the day Donald Trump announced his campaign for president, three Republican Party insider favorites, former Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Scott Walker, and Senator Marco Rubio, led the Republican presidential field.2The invisible primary predicted by the party decides theory appeared in full tilt, with party insiders seemingly in control of the process while Trump's candidacy was simply an unwelcome diversion. One month and two days later, polling showed Trump leading Bush, Walker's support stagnating, and Rubio fading.3To the dismay, then alarm, and finally the horror of the Republican Party establishment, Trump led the RealClearPolitics poll-of-polls average thereafter and, after the New Hampshire primary, the delegate count as well.4
I argue that Trump's rise is in part the result of authoritarian voters' response to his unvarnished, us-versus-them rhetoric. Beginning with his June announcement speech, Trump's message and manner was an unapologetic siren call to American authoritarians. He warned that our "enemies are getting stronger and stronger ... and we, as a country, are getting weaker." He identified and targeted "others" who threaten and take advantage of us at every turn. And he denigrated his opponents as weaklings, calling for "a truly great leader" with the strength to make America great again.5The leader, whose strength and savvy could protect us from them was, of...