On a recent podcast with Andrew Sullivan, writer Kevin Williamson warned against the modern pitfalls of populism. “I don’t trust Americans with freedom as much as I used to,” Williamson admitted. “I don’t assume that they will do good things with it, but I trust them even less with political power than I used to. So, I don’t really want a stronger government.”
Williamson’s skepticism feels particularly cogent today. Following another disastrous proclamation that the conflict with Iran has ended and the controversial U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump’s approval rating sits at a dismal 37%. With Vice President JD Vance drawing a mere 41% approval, a critical question looms: What is the future of the Republican Party?
As a mildly libertarian swing voter, I am not Trump’s core base. Yet, visiting family in the Midwest reminded me that even those who still back the current administration need a political home. While Democrats face their own soul-searching — seemingly culminating in underwhelming alternatives such as Graham Platner — the GOP’s impending reckoning is more immediate. As a marginal voter who helps determine elections — the exact type of person “politicians pander to in speeches,” as King of the Hill famously put it — I believe now is the time to ask what a post-Trump Republican Party looks like.
Moving forward, the GOP will likely fracture into two distinct, viable coalitions, and it almost feels like we are going backward in time, before Trump took the Republican Party over, a simpler time in March 2016.
The first is the MAGA-infused libertarian populism with origins in the original Tea Party, currently exemplified by lawmakers such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), former Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO). This cohort was initially drawn to Trump’s promises of limiting foreign military interventions and shrinking the federal bureaucracy. However, with two years of sweeping tariffs, failed foreign policy maneuvers, and a Congress that only manages to pass bloated annual omnibus bills, these voters are growing weary. While this faction is occasionally prone to conspiratorial thinking, its core desire is a genuinely restrained state. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) remains the ideal leader to guide them. He masterfully balances a deep distrust of Washington with the anti-establishment fervor this base craves.
The second coalition represents a different strain of conservatism — one I used to dismiss, but now view with more nuance. I am increasingly open to the idea that the final bulkhead against socialism might actually require targeted government involvement in the economy through sound industrial policy and economic nationalism, rather than a volatile trade agenda driven by executive whim.
Williamson traced the roots of this group back to the aftermath of 9/11, which brought voters into the party primarily for culture-war and national security reasons. These were not traditional Republicans. They often held working-class views on the welfare state and regulation. As Williamson noted, they were essentially “Donald Trump-type people, except they weren’t very, very wealthy and they weren’t psychotic.”
NEW YORK RACES TO WATCH: WHICH BATTLES COULD SHAPE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY’S FUTURE?
This movement lacks a rigid ideology because daily politics isn’t its primary focus. Instead, it is defined by a blend of economic nationalism, a strong national defense guided by realism rather than internationalism, and a proclivity to get caught up in culture war issues that may or may not be relevant to their daily lives. Because the second Trump administration has proven so reckless, this faction must distance itself from Trump, Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to survive long-term. Viable leaders for this group include figures such as former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Anthony Scaramucci. Both agreed enough with Trump’s core message to work for him, but possessed the backbone to break away. This positions them perfectly to offer “Trumpism-lite” without the toxic baggage of the current administration. Furthermore, a leader who projects a blunt, Tony Soprano-esque demeanor might just restore an appearance of strength on the global stage.
Ideological debates are standard fare in American political history. With a challenging midterm election on the horizon, the GOP has a necessary opportunity to redefine itself. For the rest of us, watching this internal struggle unfold will determine the future of the American electorate.
Patrick McFarland is a client partnerships representative at Quorum.