[Special Feature on US Presidential Election: Visible Commentary] ② Domestic Politics Outlook: “Reasons Why the Republican Party Will Remain Advantageous in Four Years”

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-o1UQ4h2-o

Video Script

Election Results and the Future Prospects of the Republican Party

Now, let's move on to the prospects. This was an election to hold the Democratic Party accountable, but the election to hold them accountable ends here. With the change in administration, how can the next four years be organized? First, the election results are a complex interplay of factors such as inflation, race, and culture. Many people will only remember Trump's landslide victory next month. Therefore, when considering the future of the Republican Party, it is inevitable that the Republican Party will establish itself as Trump's party, not just for Trump's four years, but beyond. If Trump had lost, there would likely have been fierce debates within the Republican Party regarding his direction, but since that did not happen, figures like Nikki Haley have lost their footing. Furthermore, when a Republican president takes office, it becomes very difficult for the Republican Party in Congress to oppose or debate the president's policies. Conversely, this presents an opportunity to see how the Democratic Party will respond. When Trump proposes something, there will be divisions within the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party's Reflection and Opportunity for Redefinition

How will these divisions manifest? Already, two House members have voiced opposition to the transgender issue from within the Democratic Party. Suzie Castro and a Democratic representative from New York have publicly stated such views. Now, perhaps because they have won, the Republican Party will likely unite further and continue as Trump's party, while the Democratic Party, having lost, will reflect and introspect. Under President Trump, regarding foreign and security policy, debates on issues like Israel and Ukraine, which could not have occurred under Biden, will now take place within the Democratic Party, thus presenting an opportunity.

I believe the part you just mentioned is precisely what I am most looking forward to. Party alignment seems to have become a necessity rather than a choice. This is an opportunity for the Democratic Party to redefine itself, and how they develop these discussions will be crucial. The next one to two years, especially leading up to the midterm elections, will be particularly important. I was particularly shocked by the Latino vote; their minds changed by 14% compared to two years ago. So, how will they win back their support, or how will they embrace other demographics? In a BBC interview, a Latino voter stated that regardless of democracy, things were much better four years ago, that immigration must be stopped, and even though they themselves immigrated, they believe it cannot continue and that the Mexican border must be secured. It seems many people hold such views.

From the Democratic Party's perspective, it seems they are facing a critical juncture. One of the demographic groups they supported has completely shifted to the Republican Party, creating significant concerns about their next steps. On the other hand, if the election had been closer, this wave of change might not have been so strong. However, due to this overwhelming defeat, voices of self-reflection are emerging within the Democratic Party, and I cautiously hope this will be an opportunity to shed their outdated ways.

There's a common saying in American politics that a party must lose three consecutive presidential elections to undergo a transformation. A prime example is the Democratic Party, which, after losing in 1980, 1984, and 1988, reoriented itself and gave rise to the New Democrats. However, it is said that the new candidates emerging at such times, in the case of the Democratic Party, inevitably lean right, becoming business-friendly and reducing welfare programs. Therefore, three consecutive presidential defeats are considered necessary, but this happened quickly. The Republican Party lost twice before Trump emerged.

The Restructuring of the Republican Party and the Absence of Alternatives in the Democratic Party

After Trump, we must consider the adage again: this is ultimately a product of polarization, and the Democratic Party has become a progressive party. In the past, there was the Blue-Collar Coalition and the New New Democracy. In the current polarized environment, it remains uncertain whether the Democratic Party can appeal to the center, around 20%, or if further defeats are necessary. We will have to wait and see. I also consider party alignment very important, but the direction seems reversed. To put it in Gary Schmitt's terms, there was an existing order of neoliberalism, a grand order. However, with the rise of the Tea Party and then MAGA, the Republican Party has disrupted that existing establishment. They have, in a sense, presented a new consensus: we will pursue protectionism, reject neoliberalism and globalization. In foreign policy, they have presented a package, including confronting neoconservatism. However, the Democratic Party lacks such a cohesive platform. For example, JD Vance...

As JD Vance continuously emphasizes, the Democrats are all complicit. They followed the existing liberalism, but the current Democratic establishment blocked the populist leadership represented by Sanders. They blocked it and are continuing on the same path. Yet, they criticized Trump supporters in 2016, calling Hillary a 'deplorable' and Biden 'garbage' this time. Therefore, at this stage of realignment, the core of the Democratic Party is still the white working class, and they are consistently being given clear reasons to leave. They are suffering from economic polarization due to neoliberalism, and a recent paper indicated that counties with high military casualties are becoming more radicalized on the right. They are literally enraged, both economically and by war, leading to a rightward shift. Yet, the Democrats remain stuck in their ways, calling them 'business diplomats.' The Democratic Party needs to provide an answer to this. Not liberalism, not interventionism abroad, but a third alternative. To offer this, the establishment must be broken, but there is no alternative force visible to break it. The Republican Party, on the other hand, had the DNA to return to its roots.

The Republican Party, during its realignment, drew upon the DNA of Western isolationism, a component of the Republican Party in the 1940s and 50s, or even the 1920s, and reoriented it in the Trumpian style. So, from the Democratic Party's perspective, do they have another DNA to return to? It's debatable. The identity politics and big government of the FDR New Deal era led to the Reagan era, so they should return to that foundation. However, looking at it, most of what Trump and the Republican Party are saying now aligns with that. Does the Democratic Party's history contain the DNA to recover? That requires further thought. Professor Seo Jeong's points are extremely interesting and engaging. Regarding the next four years and the midterm elections, although not successful,

The Possibility of the Democratic Party Shifting Rightward and Policy Realignment

I anticipate a rightward shift for the Democratic Party. Whether a significant realignment will occur is uncertain. I see it this way: there will be a left-leaning option, like Bernie Sanders. The rightward shift, concerning the New Deal you mentioned, was a right-leaning choice that completely abandoned racial and identity politics. It embraced the Southern Democrats and maintained a strong coalition before the Civil Rights Act of 1968. I believe that is the rightward shift. Specifically, abandoning racial correctness, moving towards a conservative discourse centered on family, and simultaneously adopting policies of economic protectionism and active trade and industrial policies. This would incorporate a significant portion of what Trump advocated. As mentioned earlier,

the Latino vote, which will be decisive in the South, will be crucial. How can they be attracted through economic policies? In the past, there have been successful House members who focused on conservative but family-centered support policies. However, I do not see this as a driving force capable of breaking and transforming the establishment you mentioned. Nevertheless, there will be a toning down of issues like abortion and women's rights, which the Democratic Party has traditionally supported. Consider the way the Democratic Party has consistently supported raising young girls. The working-class voters in the Midwest, who viewed excessive government spending on welfare policies as burdensome, would publicly reduce such spending and limit budgets to childcare within married families, thus re-adopting a very conservative ideology. By prioritizing such policies, they might regain the moderate votes of workers, the middle class, and those below them. This rightward shift is likely to occur. Then, the campaigns like Harris's,

would shift towards a model not eligible for public assistance. People who advocate for excluding such individuals will survive in the public sphere and gain more influence in the midterm elections and the next presidential election, potentially leading the Democratic Party to evolve in a way that resembles the Republican Party. Whether this can be considered evolution is uncertain, but I cautiously make this prediction. However, in my opinion, since the Reagan era, i.e., after 1980, whenever the Democratic Party has held power in American politics, it has been due to the Republican Party's mistakes, without exception. Bill Clinton in '92 benefited from the economic downturn in '91 and adopted a speech that echoed the Republicans. Obama took power due to the failures of the Iraq War and the approaching financial crisis under the younger Bush. Biden's victory came with the onset of the pandemic. From a historical perspective, Democratic presidents living in the Reagan era, candidates seeking power, have not found it by changing parties, offering alternatives, or forming new coalitions, but rather by capitalizing on the mistakes of Republican presidents. In this era, where Americans are living through the Reagan era and do not want government intervention, this might be the only way for the Democratic Party to regain power. Therefore, they can only wait for the Republican Party to make mistakes or create opportunities.

The Possibility of the Democratic Party Regaining Power in the Trump Era

The problem with Trump's emergence this time is that it's simply populism. He promises to give the people everything they want. Therefore, the opportunities and possibilities for the Democratic Party to regain power have significantly diminished compared to the past. It is very difficult for the Democratic Party, which has always been a party that believes in government intervention and redistribution, to abandon identity politics and the big tent coalition that has sustained it. Therefore, I am somewhat pessimistic. The Republican Party's mistakes go beyond leadership building; we are overestimating the variable of Trump as an uncertainty. Yes, populists

Uncertainty in Alliance Relations under the Trump Administration

may promise to do everything the people want, but whether they can actually deliver is another question. The intention seems to be to compensate through alliances, but this assumes the alliances are capable. However, the allies have experienced Trump once, and Biden has made efforts to build networks and establish complex relationships. Therefore, theoretically, even if Trump's rhetoric escalates, if these complex relationships are maintained through solidarity, they might be able to overcome it. If Trump were truly able to manipulate these allies at will, he could fail, but perhaps we haven't considered this possibility. From the perspective of American voters, it doesn't really matter whether allies share the burden or not. However, if they don't get what they want, dissatisfaction will likely increase. Burden-sharing means allies pay, not that American voters share the cost. But what I think is that, while it might be an ideal scenario, if allies pursue their own interests effectively,

I don't think it will go as Trump wishes. Is there a guarantee that the internal factions of the Republican Party will not reflect and therefore succeed? With an unpredictable president like Trump, and figures like Vice President JD Vance who seem similar yet very different, and the younger New Right forces beneath them, disagreements are likely to arise in the process of dealing with these numerous policy proposals. Furthermore, all media outlets have reported that Trump has a unique personality that makes him irreplaceable. He is forgiven even when his words and actions don't align, a trait that someone like JD Vance, who is intelligent, also possesses.

The reason Vance was more divisive this time was that he was too 'impeccable,' meaning that even with a weak platform, he would certainly implement it, leading to the perception that he couldn't be supported. If forces like JD Vance gain significant power, they will also be 'impeccable.' If their platforms are acceptable, they must be implemented properly. Why is there dissatisfaction with the results? Perhaps embracing those who 'betrayed' him, like Nikki Haley, would allow the Republican Party to endure, but four years seems too short for that. Trump may have suffered significantly. In any case, I don't think the Republican Party's future can be viewed with such optimism. It's possible. For example, Sean could have a moderate approach while Rusty could be very radical. The New York Times headline was very interesting: Trump voters don't believe Trump. They don't support him. They think, 'Surely Trump wouldn't do that.' This characteristic is unimaginable in any other political figure.

Expectations and evaluation standards for JD Vance will be much higher. In such a scenario, another realignment might occur, or the Republican Party might face setbacks. However, it's difficult for allies, and given that the Bush Sr. administration lost the Iraq War, Trump is unlikely to repeat that. The economic crisis that plagued the US previously was COVID-19. It was the inability to govern during COVID-19 that led to the shift in votes. I hope such a crisis doesn't happen again. Decades will be needed for the demographic shifts to cause political disruption. Pursuing pure ideology

Potential for Ideological Conflict within the Republican Party

results in many overlaps with Trump's policies. Populists, in particular, have many overlaps. For example, on economic matters, Trump has distinctly abandoned neoliberalism and rejected free trade, which is a typical Reagan paradigm. It's a plutocratic style. However, figures like JD Vance and Josh Hawley strongly oppose this, advocating for breaking up Big Tech monopolies and emphasizing social welfare for workers. There will clearly be friction in these areas. Another area is family and gender. Trump's sexism, scandals, and promiscuity are well-known. However, the sexism of JD Vance and Holly is very deep. They invoke Homer's Iliad and Odyssey and the biblical story of David, arguing that this is identity and that by fostering masculinity, men will once again become the pillars of society. This is pro-worker, not in the sense of bringing home a paycheck from the factory to feed the wife and

children, but in rebuilding a beautiful American history. Trump, however, seems to have no thought about this. Will the truly devout populists clash with Trump's somewhat deceptive nature? JD Vance is intelligent, so he might compromise and yield. He might concede and win over female voters. In return, Big Tech becomes a significant topic for populism. This could be a concept where they disregard Big Tech in places like California or Massachusetts and focus on the Electoral College. How this politician, JD Vance, will realistically change in the future is uncertain. I have two questions: First, will the seeds of internal conflict within the Republican Party manifest within four years? Given Trump's victory, can JD Vance truly assert himself so prominently? Second, there is no Vice President. In that regard, I am pessimistic about how this content will play out over the next four years. Therefore, very much so.

Prospects for Trump's Leadership and Succession

It will likely proceed with Trump at the center. Trump changing his mind is another variable. As I mentioned, he became the frontrunner by securing the Vice President's endorsement. However, the dilemma is that he must remain subservient for four years, suppress his own voice, and avoid allowing anyone to become a successor who could challenge him. What struck me profoundly this time was the moment during Trump's victory speech when he expressed gratitude and mentioned his trust in JD Vance as Vice President. His eyebrows shot up and then lowered. I keenly observed that. It seemed to convey a 'we'll see' expression. When discussing Trump, people often talk about legacy-making, usually in foreign policy. However, if he had internal ambitions, he would need to pursue retribution, embrace leadership, and ensure JD Vance's role would extend his legacy. But it seems unlikely, according to your thoughts. However, wouldn't he himself believe he has already established a legacy? It's over.

Having won so overwhelmingly and made a comeback, if he then decides to run again and says, 'No, this is just the beginning,' wouldn't that be considered a lack of strategy?