The ignored question: What does the future Republican Party look like?

It has been more than two weeks since Donald Trump shocked the world to become the next President of the United States. To this day, the political world remains in turmoil. 

Protesters continue to storm the streets, pundits still attempting to decipher the results, all while Donald Trump is just under two months away from officially taking office. This month, the Republican Party shockingly gained control of the federal government, yet so many questions remain.

{mosads}During President Obama’s tenure, the GOP gained 12 Governorships, 69 House seats, over 900 State Legislative seats, and 13 Senate seats. This while only four states are controlled completely by Democrats. Contrarily, the Republican Party possess 25 states where the House, Senate, and Governorships are all controlled by Republicans.

With these gains which have been amassed since 2010 Tea Party wave, it may appear that the RNC is at a rather desirable position moving forward. Although they certainly are better off than the DNC, there is a multitude of undiscussed issues swirling about the future of the Party. For now, the focus appears to be on what policies will be signed into law by the Trump Administration. Clearly this is logical for now, yet beyond the immediate future, clarity is desperately lacking.

For starters, the Republican Party is at a turning point. For years, the Party has been built upon the principles of limited government, individualism, and free market Capitalism. But with Trump’s election proving he is undeniably the face of the Party, these central principles may very well come into question. 

Must the GOP now respond to the will of the voters and become hostile towards free trade?

Must the Republican Party adapt to support portions of Obamacare and the Paris climate agreement?

In April of 2015 I was optimistic that the Republican Party was about to make a dramatic change. My preferred candidate, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul appeared to have a real shot to win the nomination and to transform Conservatism. 

It appeared that the current Republican Party was set to be replaced by a more liberty minded one. A Party skeptical of regime change, dedicated to meaningfully reforming the criminal justice system, passionately defending the entire Bill of Rights, and one willing to take the message of economic freedom to the inner cities. 

Certainly, had Senator Paul been the Party’s nominee I would have expected the platform to adjust to reflect these fundamental beliefs.

But the question raised by President-elect Trump are much more complex to decipher. As we begin to observe which policies will be instituted, for better or worse, the chances are high that many policies do not reflect the Conservative values of the Republican Party. Conversely, Paul’s liberty minded proposals were absolutely consistent with the focus of the Republican Party, as they put a strong emphasis of limited government and reaffirming the Constitutional boundaries of the federal government. 

Although Trump is now a Republican President, it would difficult to argue that many of his plans can coexist with the principles present in the platform.

In the end, the key question at hand is not about the official platform of the Republican Party. Rather, the question is of what the future of the Party is going to look like. 

In preparation for an expected “inevitable” victory of Hillary Clinton, many had began to prepare for Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Marco Rubio, or others to take reign against Clinton four years from now. Regardless of the questions surrounding the Trump Administration, one thing is clear, Donald Trump is here to stay. 

In facing this reality, even many of his most vocal intra-party critics have come to his backing, such as Governors Nikki Haley and Mitt Romney who are likely to see nominations to prominent posts.

My hope moving forward, is the Republican Party works with Trump to assure the principles of limited government, respect for the Constitution, and individual responsibility are all respected.

At the end of the day, one person cannot change what the Party stands for in its entirety. Sure, Trump ran as the Republican Nominee, but his campaign was build on populism and economic nationalism, not on classical Republican values.

If the GOP hopes to build common sense support from the younger generation, then adaptations must be made to assure the Party’s message is consistent. Despite the profound successes electorally of the last six years, the Republican Party is at an unspoken identity crisis.

If it is handled well, then even more drastic gains are not only possible, but should be expected. The GOP needs to assure it remains a staunch defender of the Constitution and Conservatism. Should these not be respected, it could be problematic to witness the clashing of Trump and the Party over the next four or eight years.

This situation certainly could be worse. It is painfully obvious the Democratic Party is in utter disarray, with no solution in site. 

Rather than regroup and look to plan for the 2018 midterms, many rank and file Clinton supporters have been protesting in the streets and holding out that there will somehow be nearly forty faithless electors who withhold their support for the candidate which they are pledged to support. 

Although this is technically possible, this obscure hope is probably less likely than the odds President Obama completes a third term in the White House.

It would be easy to overlook the looming identity crisis for the Republican Party and simply celebrate the victories up and down the ticket this year, but these issues must not be ignored.

Pressing for consistency is the key moving forward, while also assuring major voting blocks of the base of the Party are not ignored. Balancing out these interests will not be easy but are necessary.

The Republicans have a chance of a lifetime moving forward, can they capitalize?

Jake Leahy is a Turning Point USA Ambassador, Illinois political activist, and political pundit.

The views expressed by Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.