One of the things that prevented an anti-Trump alternative from rising either inside or outside the GOP is the fact that the easiest way to defeat Trump would have been taking on some of his issues–on trade, immigration, entitlements, and so forth. But taking on these issues might have involved compromising and moving on from some of the current conventional verities of the Beltway. It would not necessarily involved abandoning all the tenets of movement conservatism, but it would have required some imagination and a willingness to address some populist concerns. Thus, paralysis took the place of a proactive policy evolution.

Some perhaps hope that Donald Trump is simply a sui generis, black-swan phenomenon; in that case, conservatism could switch back to its regular programming after a Trump defeat in November (if, that is, Clinton does win in November). However, there is no reason to believe that the populist forces that elevated Trump will simply disappear on November 9. And it would be a grievous mistake indeed to think that the proper response to Trump’s rise is more of the same (perhaps with an extra pinch of transnationalism and more identity-politics pandering). A broader paralysis on policy has hampered the GOP’s quest for a governing presidential majority and threatens the prospects of limited-government conservatism in the 21st century.