Among the two thousand or so subscribers to this blog I suspect there are both Republicans and Democrats. Perhaps you have wondered what might be my party affiliation. The answer is that I have none. I have at different times in my life registered for both major Parties and have voted for nominees in those Parties and the Independent Party. So, you may ask, why have I singled out Donald Trump in my title when I usually critique politicians without mentioning their names? The answer is that I am not going to single out Mr. Trump. Instead, my intent is to try to explain his phenomenon: what some might call the Trump bump in the polls.

This blog addresses something that is so obvious that it goes unspoken in political discussions and in the broadcast media. The issue of Trump’s “success” in the polls has little to do with Trump. As a candidate for President, he exudes the same passion for America—or, at least, for his understanding and vision of America—that you might expect of any candidate. That passion is only exceeded by his passion for himself. But, then, ego has never been missing in political candidates. No, Trump’s “success” does not reflect on his qualities as a candidate, but on the mindset of his supporters. And here is where I see the problem.

History has welcomed demagogues at opportune times to call the masses to reform, self-sacrifice, a radical movement, or even revolution. The masses, however, only respond when properly prepared for the demagogue’s message. Our current President is a prime example. Seven years ago, Americans voted for a gifted speaker who promised to change the course of the previous Administration in terms of both domestic and foreign policies. The electorate was not only war weary, but caught up in the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. His campaign was perfectly poised to win, even though his opponents had more experience in politics and in government. But once in office he was begrudged his victory and faced more political opposition than any President in recent memory. And there is the root of the problem.

At the outset of the Obama Presidency, the Republicans in Congress decided to make him a one term President. Nothing he proposed would be approved by Republicans, not even if he championed their policies. For example, they disregarded his support for the Heritage Foundation’s proposal for health care reform, for ‘sequester’ as a means of controlling Federal spending, for most aspects of the Patriot Act, for military action against Gaddafi, for his extensive use of drones against terrorists in non-enemy countries, for a rise in oil production on lands that fell under Federal jurisdiction, and for doubling down on Bush’s sanctions against Iran. Even though all but the first two actions were initiated during the Bush Presidency, Republicans were against them. The ‘sequester’ and mandated health care through exchanges were Republican proposals. Yet they impertinently strung these proposals around the President’s neck like millstones. The Affordable Care Act they termed a “job killer,” even ‘Hitlerist’ in its impact. His military support for NATO’s bombing of Libya they derided as “leading from behind.” In addition, every executive order undertaken by this Presidency was met with the Hitler attribution. This former Constitutional law professor was being accused of violating the Constitution on enumerable occasions. He was called a friend to terrorist, likely a closeted Muslim (a misattributed and nonsensical insult). Republicans painted him as an apologist for radical Islamic fundamentalists because he appeared far too conciliatory to Muslims as a whole. The legitimacy of his Presidency was called into question on several occasions: his citizenship by birthright was repeatedly questioned; his executive orders easing the burden on migrants have given rise to talk of impeachment. The impeachment question is particularly ironic since two previous Republican Presidents issued similar executive orders without protests. And his Republican predecessor had gone well past President Obama’s executive orders when he proposed immigration reform legislation that included a path to citizenship.

The Republican Party, even when it was in the minority, refused to be the loyal opposition in favor of being solely THE opposition. Later, after winning a majority in both houses of Congress, they were emboldened to snub the President even on matters of national security. When the President asked for their concurrence in bombing Syria over its use of chemical weapons, the Party united in doing nothing, never even bringing a motion of support to the floor for debate. Since February of this year, the President has repeatedly asked for war powers authorization to unite the country in America’s ongoing campaign against Daesh. The Republican majority has declined to support the war, while continually criticizing the President for not having a strategy to defeat Daesh. When asked for specific recommendations, Republican and some Democratic members of Congress have proposed measures already being taken or being actively considered by the Administration. My point is that the seven yearlong harangue and non-support of this President has created an atmosphere of distrust and dissatisfaction that has given rise to the Trump ascendancy in the Republican electorate. The San Bernardino terrorist attack has only added fuel to this demagogue’s fiery rhetoric. The Republican Party has long been preparing its constituency for this moment. The fact that the Party is now splintered into two opposing factions is self-explanatory. It is now reaping the result of the seeds it has sowed. In place of the pragmatism and business acumen of the past, the Party must now address in its body politic the discordant voices of xenophobia, incipient fascism, war mongering, support for torture, and even a proposal to “eliminate terrorist family members.” Perhaps saddest of all: the time to recover a broken Party may have already passed.

The emergence of the Trump bump may be a new phenomenon, but it actually began seven years ago. When the Republican Party decided to be naysayers in government, they created a vacuum in Congress and polarized Americans. Developing good policy became secondary to political gamesmanship. A portion of their constituency apparently could not see through their game face: they had successfully created the illusion of a liberal President violating First and Second Amendment rights, using his executive authority like a dictator, exposing America to terrorism, opening American borders to foreigners, and effectively destroying the American way of life. That illusion tilled the field for the demagogue that many Republicans now rue. He speaks to a base constituency that apparently comprises a quarter to a third of the Republican Party. And that constituency wants to establish fortress America, bar access to all migrants or refugees, and assuage fear by converting the U. S. into a police state within and an uncompromising and unrestrained military force without. More than the voice of conservatism may have been lost to Republicans. The Grand Ole Party may have opened the door for a type of radicalism far more dangerous than what we witnessed in the Japanese internments during World War II or the McCarthy communist purge of the 1950s.

The Republican Party has won the Presidency without winning the popular vote. Now they have won control of Congress without winning the popular vote. It is time for the Party to reform itself from within. Begin winning a majority of the electorate with policies that serve the public good instead of winning electoral seats with legal maneuvers, gerrymandering, rabblerousing, and saber-rattling. The country needs true conservatives to balance its innate liberalism. Remember America was founded by a revolution and is a secular democratic state governed by law instead of an oligarchy, aristocracy, organized religion, or dictator. Liberalism is built into our constitution. True conservatism protects that constitution against the potential excesses of liberalism. We need a respected Republican Party that holds America to its founding principles and protects its liberal origins. The current Party does neither.