Evan Vucci/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump arrives to speak at a campaign rally in Ocala, Fla., Wednesday.

Why do establishment Republicans return to Trump?

Less than a week after several GOP officials called for Donald Trump to step down from the ticket, some have decided to back him again. What do they stand to gain?

After publicly repudiating Donald Trump, some Republicans have reclaimed their spots behind the candidate, saying they still plan to vote for him in spite of recent revelations. 

In an increasingly unconventional election year, partisanship hasn’t proved as strong of a tie as it once did. A quarter of elected Republican officials, along with a growing list of prominent conservatives – most recently commentator Glenn Back – have sided with the “Never Trump” movement. A few have even endorsed Hillary Clinton’s run for president.

The group of outspoken Republicans has cited the businessman’s brash rhetoric and unorthodox attacks on others as factors that make him unfit to serve as president. Dozens of party members who had previously pledged their support to Mr. Trump changed their tune after The Washington Post unearthed a decade-old recording in which he boasted of his aggressive and nonconsensual sexual conduct with women.

But as the dust settles, it seems that not everyone who decried the candidate’s remarks plans to follow through on denouncing him entirely. For some, speaking out against Trump may be about protecting their own image, but defaulting back to the party’s ticket allows them to maintain vital ties in Congress.

"They take risks either way. If they don’t say something, then they’re going to take heat," Donald Green, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Christian Science Monitor. But if they do call for Trump to step off the ticket, he continues, "they’re making a calculated gamble ... that he’ll be replaced by Pence, a more palatable conservative."

That’s the odd middle ground where several Republican officials and candidates find themselves this week.

“The comments made by Mr. Trump were disgusting and totally unacceptable under any circumstance,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R) of Nebraska tweeted on Saturday. “It would be wise for him to step aside and allow Mike Pence to serve as our party's nominee.”

But on Tuesday she backtracked, telling KILN radio in Nebraska that she will vote for Trump in November.

"He decided he would not step aside. I respect his decision," she said. "I support the Republican ticket and it's a Trump-Pence ticket." 

Sen. John Thune (R) of South Dakota faced a similar dilemma after calling for Trump to step down on Twitter. He, too, decided to remain among Trump’s voting bloc. Then Darryl Glenn, a Republican candidate running for a Colorado Senate seat, swayed his position similarly.

“America cannot have a man who speaks this way about women be the face of our country to the Free World,” Mr. Glenn said Friday, according to the Washington Post. Days later, he told Fox News that he supported Trump again, citing what he saw as a strong performance by the Republican in Sunday night’s debate.

“They called for Pence to take the top of the ticket,” Professor Green says. “They thought at the time that they could make a virtue out of upending Trump. Now that Trump has dug in, they’re kind of out on an island.”

The Republican party has splintered around the divisive candidate since he first began gaining traction among voters more than a year ago. Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, have rallied in a unified fashion around Mrs. Clinton for the most part. 

For Republicans who have given less-than-enthusiastic endorsements to Trump, or even shifted their stances, there’s an opportunity to stand in line with the post-2016 Republican party, whatever form it takes. If brazen Trump supporters make up the party’s majority, they can find favor in the crowd for supporting the candidate. But if the party takes a more moderate, traditionally conservative shape next year, they’ll be among those who condemned Trump’s racist and sexist rhetoric.  

Other defectors and non-endorsers, like New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte or Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey, are skirting the lines of party loyalty to save their own campaigns. In their battleground states, where attracting moderates remains a key campaign plan, Senator Ayotte has formally denounced Trump, while Senator Toomey has refused to come to a public conclusion.

“Fingers are up in the wind,” Green says. “People who are not up for re-election are trying to figure out which faction of the Republican party will have the upper hand after 2016.”

And then there's pressure from voters. As a candidate who has brought first-time and disenfranchised voters to the forefront in massive numbers, Trump has proven he can mobilize a passionate group of people. It's likely these Republicans may have to vie for their party's new factions if they want to keep voters happy.

"These people have a lot of constituents who are deeply offended by Trump’s behavior – hence the incentive to distance themselves from him," Larry Bartels, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University, tells the Monitor in an email. "They also have a lot of constituents who strongly support Trump and view defection as disloyalty. I would guess that the reversals were prompted by finding more (and more passionate) people in the second camp than they’d expected."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why do establishment Republicans return to Trump?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today