Last week, The Cavalier Daily reported the College Republicans are weighing whether to endorse GOP nominee Donald Trump. Some school chapters have already decided, and the consequences of their actions should help guide the decision-making of the University’s chapter. The Harvard Republican Club recently received national attention after announcing in a public letter they would not endorse the GOP nominee for the first time since 1888; according to the club’s president, campus response was overwhelmingly positive, with freshmen students seeking to get involved with the club. The Yale chapter did choose to endorse Trump, which quickly led to the resignation of more than half the chapter’s executive board. I’m not a College Republican, but if the group wants some unsolicited advice from a potential member, here it is: Be like Harvard, not Yale.
There are too many principled objections to Trump’s brand of conservatism to include in a column, and it’d be pointless to re-litigate all his personal character flaws or conservative heresies here anyway. I’ve discussed them, the Harvard Republican Club has discussed them, National Review has discussed them, the Wall Street Journal has discussed them, George Will has discussed them — in short, Trump’s many defects aren’t state secrets. So instead of trying to shame them out of it, I ask the College Republicans to consider the practical effects of a Trump endorsement.
Last month during the Republican National Convention, conservative journalist Matthew Continetti tweeted: “Imagine you are an 18 year old watching Donald Trump being named the GOP nominee for president. Would you ever take this party seriously?” The implied answer is no, you wouldn’t. And if too many young adults behave as Continetti fearfully predicts, it could spell disaster for the GOP down the road. As noted by FiveThirtyEight, partisan loyalty forms around age 18. According to a McClatchy-Marist poll from early August, just 9 percent of 18-29 year olds would support Trump if the election were held today. The writing on the wall for the GOP is as gaudy and ominous as the giant gold-lettered “TRUMP” projected behind the Donald as he gave his acceptance speech. If partisan loyalty trends persist and individuals continue to vote throughout their life for the party they supported as young adults, the GOP’s electoral chances will only worsen as their elderly voters pass away and aren’t replaced with younger ones.
This coming demographic disaster necessitates a forward-thinking strategy on the part of young Republicans. With Trump performing so poorly among young and college-educated voters, it would be strategically insane for the College Republicans to endorse him when they presumably hope to broaden their appeal to University students, who are by default young and college-educated.
For an idea of what a forward-thinking strategy might require, look to the Senate races. Despite Trump currently trailing Clinton in Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is leading his Democratic challenger by 7 percentage points. He’s also over-performing Trump among Republican voters by 12 percentage points. His secret, according to the pollster YouGov: “Overall, 76 percent of voters say Grassley is a ‘different kind of Republican’ from the man at the top of the ticket.” If the College Republicans want to expand their appeal and influence on Grounds, casting themselves as different types of Republicans by repudiating Trump would go a long way.
This would come with tangible benefits to the organization and the Republican Party at large. The presidential race is likely lost, and even if it’s not, Virginia almost assuredly is. Breaking from Trump would allow the College Republicans to devote more energy to down-ballot races, which may be necessary since Trump’s abysmally low polling numbers could threaten the GOP’s control of the House.
More importantly, the College Republicans could emphasize their differences with Trump. They could appeal to students by contrasting Trump’s simplistic policy proposals of deportation, walls and trade barriers with different, detailed Republican visions — such as the House GOP’s “A Better Way,” or the “reform conservative” agenda spearheaded by conservative intellectuals. Time and money wasted on Trump’s campaign in a quixotic effort to turn Virginia red could be better spent hosting events with invited speakers who could persuade independents and students not yet sure of their political beliefs that Republicans — our presidential nominee notwithstanding — actually do have good ideas to solve America’s problems.
The College Republicans have an opportunity to demonstrate a different side of the party at a time when students are forming party loyalties that can last a lifetime. Hillary Clinton is the second-most hated nominee in history, running only behind Donald Trump. Young people might vote for her in droves to keep him out of the White House, but according to Gallup only 31 percent view Clinton favorably. In other words, their Democratic loyalties might not be cemented just yet. The College Republicans could choose to promote the more sensible and appealing people and policies the Republican Party and conservative movement have to offer, and hope to pry some reluctant Clinton voters free from the Democratic machine; or, they could rally around Trump and pour the concrete.
Matt Winesett is a Senior Associate Editor for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 4 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 5 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
