The Grand “New” Party
First Episode Transcript
Devin: On January 20th, 2017, Donald Trump was inaugurated into his first term as president.
After being elected on a populist, America-first platform, Trump made good on many of
his campaign promises. Shifting the Republican Party towards an anti-elitist and anti-globalist culture, the party left behind decades of federalism, free trade, and pro-immigration policy that had shaped the GOP for years. For many kids of my generation, Trump's election was the first major event that triggered our political consciousness. Unaware of the Republican era of traditional conservatism, Republican icons like the Bush Presidents, John McCain and Mitt Romney, became forgotten figures in the minds of millions of young Americans. Resultingly, many young Americans have completely forgotten the old Republican Party, only aware of a new era of Trump's Republican agenda. I first realized the significance of this one summer on a visit back to my grandparents’ house in North Carolina. Going through a box of old family possessions, I found a pamphlet from the Federalist Society. With both my mother and father's members during their time in law school, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an American conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Flipping through the pamphlet, I read about its emphasis on a small, limited federal government centered around exercising restraint in regard to dealing with the states, a stark contrast to the Republican Party of today.
It was then that I realized that many young Americans of my generation have forgotten
the old Republican Party. Comparing the Republican Party's presidential nominations in John McCain and Donald Trump in 2008 and 2016, respectively, it's difficult not to see how the party has changed. Today, I'm joined by my father, Nathan Bush, who is currently employed at DLA
Piper’s Singapore office as an Asia practice head of competition in anti-trust and international
Trade. For over two decades, he has appeared before the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, Department of Commerce, and countless other U.S. government bodies while representing clients. Additionally, he has guided American and Chinese corporations through internal investigations, regulatory and criminal enforcement actions, compliance challenges, and disputes involving anti-trust, bribery, and corruption fraud and international trade issues throughout Asia. Additionally, he serves as a Governor of the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore. All right, Mr. Bush, welcome to the podcast.
So my first question is, what were the core values, policy priorities, and figures that
characterized the Republican Party in the year leading up to but before Trump's 2016 election?
Nathan: You were more likely to see an attention to discipline on spending and revenues. Number two, a more robust and realistic national security policy. Not necessarily one that was aggressive, but one that would be more willing to account for some of the unfortunate limitations on our power and potential for our power.
Devin: The discipline of spending Mr. Bush is referring to is the concept of fiscal conservatism. An historic pillar of the Republican party, fiscal conservatism is defined as the philosophy that emphasizes prudent fiscal management, limited government intervention in the economy, and a focus on reducing government spending and deficits. This philosophy can be characterized by Republican President Ronald Reagan’s policy efforts to combat stagflation by slashing both taxes and government spending with the exception of military spending, now popularly referred to as “Reaganomics”
Nathan: And number three, and this is something that's often lost, a judicial conservatism that
was not activist for conservative values, but was more attuned to the process. Much of the Scalia brand of judicial conservatism really flowed towards disciplining the political branches to make decisions and act clearly.
Devin: Interesting. And in what way do you think that Trump's ‘America First’ 2016 campaign impacted the character of the Republican Party, or perhaps shifted the policy priorities?
Nathan: One way to view the MAGA movement is a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. And the kind of issues that essentially the MAGA movement capitalized on were much more populist, rather than perhaps centrist, and there are often social issues that are very inflammatory and mobilizing from immigration to trade. Trade is an area where I spend a lot of time, and I could just say that there's a lot of counter-productivity.
Devin: So, how has an elite figure like Trump from the famous Trump name in that business,
How is he able to market himself as a populist man of the people to all these blue-collar
working-class Americans?
Nathan: Well, one thing to be aware of if you look at Trump's pre-political public life, has been his incarnation as an entertainer, which is effectively, as a pejorative, Trump
is to hardcore finance and business what wrestling is to professional athletics. You know, WWE to UFC.
Devin: Inheriting a real estate empire from his father, much of Donald Trump’s personal success has come in the form of building his own brand. Publishing The Art of the Deal in 1987, producing 10 seasons of The Apprentice in the 2000s, and stamping his Trump name on a everything from his steaks to his luxury skyscrapers, he made the Trump name synonymous with wealth around the world.
Nathan: His brilliance as an entertainer and the theatrics that he cultivated literally on a TV show, ironically, he was given the lane to plant himself in the minds of average American voters and viewers as “this is what a rich boss looks.”
Devin: Before even campaigning.
Nathan: Before even campaigning.
Devin: And once he was elected, what were the key policies that he enacted or, you know, prior policy priorities that really marked a shift away from other Republican presidencies like George W. Bush?
Nathan: So, I grew up in the Republican Party of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, and the even periods of maximal independence, there was always a greater respect for allies as friends: a respect for the international institutions that the U.S. had invested in building it. That respect for, well, frankly, the respect for everyone and the civility in international discourse has really been lacking. And the willingness to prioritize the needs and values of allies on a dynamic rolling basis has been lacking.
Devin: So that America first campaign has kind of closed us off from international organizations and the thoughts of allies?
Nathan: He, you know, it's evident that in early actions taken in office in this administration, targeting foreign aid, targeting U.S. aid, pulling us out of the World Health Organization, these all play well as theatrics to its constituency. But the message it sends to the rest of the world is we're disengaging and prioritizing ourselves, America first. And when you tell others we don't have your back, it forces them to not only invest in their own defense, it also allows them to reconsider whether or not they really want to walk down the same path that you do. And that damage to the international system is, there's not going to be a way to reverse it.
Devin: So, as we head into his next term now in 2024, do you see any evidence of possibly a reversion to traditional values or this more of the same or stray further away from other Republican party once was?
Nathan: It's a difficult thing to track out because so many traditional conservatives who remain politically active have had to make their peace with the takeover of the party. You'll see issues on which more traditional Republicans take a stand, flag their misgivings, get outvoted, or eventually cave. One of the problems given the transactional style of the Trump leadership team is if you cross him on a small issue of principle, you may find yourself primaried, you may find yourself cut out of future omnibus bargains, and that has a way of creating discipline in the party.
Devin: As the ideological makeup of the Republican party shifts, it is clear that those individuals that continue to hold its traditional values become estranged from the party they once identified with. With the majority of old-school Republicans either abandoning ship or sitting complacently as MAGA ceases their party, the forgotten values of the GOP drift further and further away from the political psyche of America. Whether these values will return or not, only time will tell.
Second Episode Transcript
Devin: Welcome back to the second iteration of a two-part series in which we delve into the takeover and restructuring of the Republican party by Trump’s MAGA campaign. In the last episode, you heard from Mr. Bush as he broke down how Trump’s “America First” campaign reshaped the party’s priorities with a more populist approach, his ability to appeal to working-class voters despite his elite status, the shift in the U.S. foreign policy under his leadership, and the long-term impact of his influence on the party as it heads into 2024. However, much has occurred in the month of February between that episode and this one, and I believe it is in the best interest of you, the listener, to be informed. Less than 40 days into his second term as President, Trump has slashed DEI initiatives nationally, withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, established the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, led by Elon Musk that has fired countless government employees, eliminated over 90% of USAID contracts, and fired high-ranking military officials including the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first Female Chief of Naval Operations, the first Female Commandant of the Coast Guard, as well as the JAGs or military lawyers responsible with ensuring the military does not violate the UCMJ or International Law of Armed Conflict. Now, let’s get into the interview.
Today, I’m joined by Melindah Bush. Mrs. Bush is the first ethnic Malay woman to graduate from Harvard Law School, and she currently works as a Compliance Consultant at Holland & Marie here in Singapore. Before law school, she worked for the Senate Budget Committee in D.C. At Harvard, she was a member of the previously mentioned Federalist Society. Upon graduation, she completed her Judicial Clerkship in the 6th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals under Judge Richard F. Suhrheinrich. She was an associate at Kaye Scholer in D.C. for four years, during which time she worked on countless cases regarding Civil Rights litigation. Additionally, she has held positions in legal academia at Tsinghua University, Temple University, and the National University of Singapore. Mrs. Bush, welcome to the show.
Mindy: Thanks.
Devin: Firstly, I'd like to ask you a little bit about the Republican Party before Trump. What were the core values, policy priorities, and figures that characterized the Republican Party?
Mindy: So, I'm an immigrant to America. I had grown up in Canada and Malaysia, so my definition of what is conservative is very different from perhaps the American definition of conservative because it came from a more global perspective. But I came to America in the 80s, and my first memory of American politics was in Oregon, when we had just arrived to live for the first time, and I remember hearing on the news that President Reagan had been shot.
Devin: Mere months into his first-term as predisdent, Ronald Reagan was shot in an attempted assasination in Washington D.C. The nation held their breath as their new leader’s fate was unknown. Astonishingly, he survived and made a speedy recovery. This solidified Reagan’s image on a mythical scale. The Hollywood actor and strong leader that was fighting back the Soviets and apparently invincible.
I remember my father talking about the President and how he was strong, and he was standing up against the Communists in the Soviet Union, and that the West needed to have a strong leader to protect Western values, and I remember thinking that's what Republicans do. And I kind of identified very quickly with Reagan Republicans because he was a sign of strength at a time of, you know, scary upheaval, but this is, you know, there was an arms race. We were being told in school that there could be a nuclear war.
Devin: So you talk about how Reagan's campaign was, he was a strong figure that almost gave you guys comfort at the time, you know, during a time of danger and uncertainty. You know, in 2016, it was a time of great uncertainty as well, and Trump came on as a strong man. How was his America first campaign, you know, MAGA movement? How was that different from Reagan?
Mindy: Reagan and Trump were sort of, they were both portraying themselves as strong men, but Reagan's strength was through inspiration and unity. First of all, he had a good sense of humor, he was very telegenic, but also not as threatening, and his speeches like when he was in, you know, Germany, and he stood at the Berlin Wall, and he said Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall, it was stirring, it was inspirational. You know, he was very grandfatherly. Someone you would respect, someone you would say “ yes, sir” to, someone you aspired to be like, and someone you just really could respect. Trump's 2016 strong man was more of a bully. He wasn't there to protect you. He was there to say, we're the cool kids, and everybody else are the uncool kids, and let's just beat them up. That's not what Reagan did. Reagan was, you know, very suave, very respectful. Whereas Trump's strong man was humiliating and, you know, frightening, and the only thing Trump seemed to inspire in his speeches were fear, whereas Reagan's speeches inspired unity and patriotism. I marched in support of America. I waved the flag so proud that I felt so inspired by him. It's like the difference between a coach who say “this is it, guys, let's do this. Let's get the ball and cross the finish line” versus a guy who says “let's just beat everybody up and let's cheat and do all these other things, and everybody else are losers, and we're the cool kids.”
Devin: I'd like to move on to talking a little bit more about Trump's policies, especially specifically in his 2016 presidency. Now, you mentioned that Reagan's policies, you know, although not perfect, you know, they were, well, you say, you know, had good intentions and had a good impact in some cases. How were Trump's policies between 2016 and 2020, how were they different from previous Republican policies or initiatives?
Mindy: Yeah. So, well, talking about all of their policies, all the policies of the Republicans tend to be very pro-business and federalists, in particular, federalists, the federalist ideology is much more of a judicial ideology. It's about limiting judicial power and activism in deference to the democratic process. tFederalists say it should be the legislative and it should be the legislative branch within the state, whereas activists and more leftists would say it should be an activist judicial branch and it should be more centralized and have nationwide policies.
Devin: The restraint Ms. Bush is referring to here is the concept of Judicial restraint. In the U.S. federal government, the courts of the judicial branch has the freedom to exercise judicial restraint or judicial activism in separate cases. As the Judicial branch is the least democratic of the three branches being the only unelected branch, it can be frowned upon for a court to make constant legal decisions over smaller courts and indiviudals. Historically, Republicans and Federalists share this belief that the courts should exercise restraint and not pass down legal decisions unless absolutely necessary.
Mindy: I would say that all of the Republicans, in my lifetime so far, have always espoused smaller government, less activist judges because they're not democratic, we can’t control them as much. So those philosophies have been rather consistent from Reagan onward. I would say that Reagan's trickle-down economic policies and some of his foreign policies veered far more into the deficit spending. But his argument for deficit spending was, you know, peace through strength. We were spending way more money than we ever had. But part of it was in his mind, we were in the middle of a war. We were in a cold war with the Soviet Union where we were told we are 40 seconds and at one point 16 seconds from annihilation. So it was imperative that, yes, we're going to go into debt, but this is going to save the world in the end.
Devin: I'd like to move forward into, as you know, we're about 40 days into Trump's second presidency now in 2025. One of the major changes that he's made is he's slashed a lot of USAID for it. He slashed 90% of USAID contracts. Is that something that is new or that you would have surprised you to see from the Republican party in years past?
Or is that consistent with Republican ideology?
Mindy: I would say where we are 40 days in, before you start talking about federalism and Republicanism, I would say the primary concern, everyone on both sides of the aisle seems to have right now, and my primary concern, is just basic checks and balances. How the government should work. So checks and balances is one, and then the second is conflict of interest and transparency, you know, the whole corruption index. We have never had a king. It's always been gauche to even think about a king! And you go back to George Washington himself, the great savior of the United States, our first general, who our founding fathers wanted to make him like a king. It was he who decided to walk away from the power of a king and say two terms is enough. So the idea of kingdomship, the idea of aristocracy, the idea of any of this monarchy kind of thing. It has been completely un-American from the founding of the nation, and no president has ever tried to, you know, even suggest that until now. And so the biggest problem now isn't, are you a federalist or an anti-federalist? Are you Republican or Democrat? The question now is far more like, are you a monarchist or are you a Democrat in a small D sense? Like, do you believe in democracy? And where are the checks and balances? And who is making the decisions? Do the judges have any role, or is everything by, you know, presidential edict, i.e. an executive order, which is now, you know, arguably, according to Trump, not subject to review by the judges or the legislature, that he can undo spending, uh, that the legislature does.
Devin: As of March 20th, 2025, President Trump has signed 89 executive orders: the official orders by which the President runs the executive branch. Since these orders must be followed, given they are constitutional, a president that signs many executive orders can be worrisome for those concerned with the Democratic process in the federal government due to its lack of checks.
Devin: Looking forward to the rest of Trump's 24th presidency. What do you see the Republican party looking like in the future? Do you see a reversion to traditional values? Do you see perhaps a further straight towards the MAGA mentality? What do you see?
Mindy: I think in politics in every country, at least in most countries where people have power to have a say, there are these patterns. And I describe it as a pendulum that swings from left to right. The pendulum will swing all the way to the left when people are upset with republican values. And that's how we get Obama, you know, landslide. That's how we get Clinton in a landslide. It's a rejection of Republican policies. And then something bad will happen there. And we will swing to the right. And I have faith that we will swing back. We are swinging to authoritarianism right now. And I have faith in the American system that, eventually, the checks and balances will reassert themselves. And that our pendulum will swing back to where the Constitution wants us to be.