Given that Donald Trump lost the recent Presidential election, why is it that congressmen continue to visit Mar-A-Lago? In what way is Donald Trump a power broker? What is it that congressmen seek from Donald Trump?
I realize that this is a forum for politics and that in itself is charged by its very nature. That being said, the superior answer will posit a plausible hypothesis with references for support. Questions that seek to clarify the subject matter are appreciated.
It's worth pointing out that Trump is not a 'leader' in the normal, political sense of the term, and his power doesn't lie in typical sociopolitical authority. Trump is (to borrow someone else's analogy) the Golden Idol that a certain segment of American society bows down to. They carry him before them as an icon and cry out that he is their leader, but Trump doesn't do the things we expect of a leader: set paths and agendas, create rules and order, provide structure, clarity, and direction. Trump effectively does nothing except rally his followers: stir them up and incite them to act out on their own (often problematic) impulses. Trump didn't start the movement, or organize it, or define it; he merely 'licensed his brand' to it, giving a diffuse and disorganized movement a banner to rally around. He seemingly has no interest in what they rally for so long as they rally around him, so he leaves it up to people in the movement to define what the movement is in his name.
All things considered, Trump isn't much different from Q, except that there is a flesh-and-blood person somewhere behind the iconography of Trump (a person we don't know much about, because he consistently hides himself behind media and legal facades), while there is no such specific person behind the iconography of Q (who as far as anyone can tell is simply made-up). But both icons serve the same purpose of being a rallying point around which groups can organize themselves. It doesn't really make sense to ask what power Trump has over the GOP, any more than it makes sense to ask what power any charismatic leader holds. The concept of a 'charismatic leader' is ultimately empty and oxymoronic. A charismatic leader is like a man on horseback who drops the reins and uses the spurs; the horse thinks it's being guided by the rider, the rider enjoys the thrill of charging pell-mell onward, but the rider isn't in control and the horse would behave the same for anyone who dropped the reins and used the spurs. It's a symbiotic, almost parasitic relationship.
The power Trump has (to follow this analogy) is merely the power to trample: to point his followers at someone and dig in the spurs, and let the sheer weight of all that unconstrained animal energy crush the target. It creates an odd and unhealthy dynamic:
This is why people like McCarthy and Graham spend so much time visiting and talking to Trump, while others avoid him and speak about him in hushed tones. The former want to establish themselves as intimates of Trump — in other words, as people who can present themselves as though they speak in Trump's voice — while the latter merely want to make it through to their next term without pain and complications.
As to the Trumpist base...I know I've been using a lot of religious ideation here (which shouldn't surprise people who look at the events of the last four years, but probably does), so apologies, but the base grants Trump this 'power to trample' because it wants salvation. The Right has been evolving into a 'grievance culture' since (at least) the '80s. It has developed a persistently angry sense of victimization — particularly among white Christian males — because it suffered a string of legal and political setbacks, with an associated implication of guilt and shame. Feminism pointed out the abuses that men have historically leveled against women; the civil rights movement highlighted the abuses whites have visited on blacks; the native American genocide, the failure of Christian theology to stand up against evolution, the comparative economic failure of rural blue-collar workers compared to urban and suburban white-collars, the destruction of the environment by selfish and gluttonous consumption... All this burden of shame was pushed onto the shoulders of a certain conservative segment of American society, but rather than face up to it they sought to negate it: to find someone who could save them from that pressure of guilt and shame. That's what Trump provided. He told them they were good people; he told them that the bad people were the ones making them feel such guilt; he told them they had nothing to feel shame over, because it was all lies by nasty people and a lying media, but he knew the truth and only he could save them (make them great again). They bought into it because they wanted to buy into it, because not buying into it meant they would have to accept the changing face of the US and the load of shame that accompanied it. But they would have bought it from anyone who offered it; Trump just cornered the market first. But like any other faith, once one has bought into the soteriology it is extremely difficult to leave, because the salvation of one's entire identity rides on it.
Donald Trump's influence on the Republican Party remains very strong because the vast majority of Republican-leaning voters remain convinced that Donald Trump did not lose the election. (For example, this report on a post January 6 poll had three quarters of Republican leaning voters not thinking Biden had won the election. Poll after poll have shown similar numbers.) Even Mitt Romney, a long-time opponent of Donald Trump, has said that Donald Trump currently is the presumptive Republican candidate for the 2024 election.
While Trump did lose the 2020 election, he did manage to get more people to vote for him than has any previous Republican candidate, including himself in the 2016 election. (Trump received 11 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016.) Trump has attracted a huge number of previously disaffected right-leaning voters. That he also has turned off a huge number of previously disaffected left-leaning voters is perhaps irrelevant; those people might not vote in future elections. Trump's apparent ability to make those previously disaffected right-leaning voters be permanent voters is part of what makes people view him as a power broker.
Primaries, primaries, primaries.
While David's answer is correct, any Trump run in 2024 would also remobilize the never-Trumpers so the overall advantage is uncertain.
However the US POTUS, and Congress, elections require candidates to first get past the hurdle of the most partisan voters of their party, be it Dem or Rep.
Right now, most really, really, committed Republicans back Trump. Simple as that. That's what all those "90% still back Trump" polls say, even as, even in places like Fox News comments - scroll to end, see up/down votes by stance, Jan 5th, 2021, his diehard supporters get pushback when they try to spin his election ramblings.
Comes a primary, chances are, unless the Republican party takes a hard stance against, Trump supporters are either going to vote Trump or whoever is backed by Trump. Anyone not anointed by Trump, from today's political calculus, risks being ousted. That may change over time, but it is a very real risk today. More exactly, anyone who gets targeted by one of Trump's infantile "So-and-so is a very bad man. Sad." tweets, or whatever mechanism he'll use to replace it, will get piled on by the faithful. And Trump is so irascible and over-sensitive that anything can set him off. Hence all the ring-kissing to avoid getting on his bad side.
As suggested by Fizz, here's an example of Trump turning against a Republican he didn't like anymore, Jeff Sessions, his erstwhile Attorney General, who'd lost his favor. Or Mark Sanford, who criticized him (and who admittedly had other skeletons in his closet).*
A "hard stance against Trump", whether or not some Republicans would like it to happen, risks splitting the party and thus losing to the Dems. The Republican party seems roughly at 48% and can win, given electoral college and creative redistricting. It can't if 20% of its voters don't vote or back splinter candidates. Thus, a principled stance means losing at least one, possibly more, electoral cycles until the Trump voters cool off.
It's happened before. In 2016, anyone reasonably mainstream in the Rep party got primary-ditched early on and Ted Cruz, Mr. Abortion-is-wrong-in-case-of-rape was last man standing before Trump won.
Lest you see it as a Republican disease, from which the Democrats are immune, look at Sander's foray into the primaries twice, pulling the party leftwards, even as he's not even a Democrat.
Primaries motivate the uncompromising members of both parties. Right now, for Republicans, there is no one more uncompromising than a Trump who has lost. And his backers.
The one good thing in all this? January 6th, 2021 will forever be attack-ad-gold against Trump and his backers. By Democrats. By Republicans.
* And before you argue that he was just doing the principled thing with regards to Sanford, look how long it took him to ditch Roy Moore in Alabama.
Putting the answer jamesqf wrote in a comment into words. Trump has so much power over the Republican party because the Republican voter base loves him. Remember, ultimately in a democracy, it is what the voter base votes for that becomes reality. Regardless of whether a politician is currently elected or not, they (in principle) need to do what their voters want. Someone who runs on a pro-college platform for example cannot just switch to anti-college once elected.
(More accurately they can, but their reputations would be ruined and their voter base will not vote for them next time there's an election.)
Note this isn't a bug with democracy, but rather a feature. If the majority of the population is pro-college, then democracy means the country should also be pro-college. It's exactly what democracy should do. An individual politician can resist this temporarily, but they will be voted out, a pro-college politician will be elected, and the country will implement pro-college policies.
Currently, Trump is the most popular choice for Republican voters. A poll in February 2021 gave him a 54% vote share among Republican voters should a hypothetical 2024 presidential primary election be held now. Accordingly, he wields soft power over the Republican party, and his endorsement is very lucrative if one's aim is to get elected. This might change someday if the Republican voter base starts supporting someone else, but it's still the case today.
If you are asking why Republican voters continue to support Trump, that's a different question.
Because he represents more Anti-Left than supporting traditional Right policies.
I as a foreigner , have wondered this myself. Trump is very far from traditional right in terms of policies. Conservatism is usually divided into three items. Stability, religious morality, and conservative spending. He spent a lot more than many presidents and wasn't really religious/ morally suited at all and still kept a war going.
American Election system has allowed for winner takes all and tribalism to take control to quickly judge the opposing side.
Americans (the left and right) have created religious leaders and this has lead to some odd tribalism . I think this stems from the election process where only popular candidates have been elected and middle agreeably politicians have been thrown away. The problem with this is you get extremes both sides and people will hold to 20% of their values being representative rather than admit they are wrong. This also leads to seeing the other side of having 80% opposing values and grouping people based on poor representation of those values. This is considering most people are probably very middle and there isn't representation for them.
Many Americans are tired of left policies and wanted to retaliate in some way and Trump is the embodiment of fighting the left. Many if were to chose a president which would hold certain values wouldn't vote for trump, but simply voting for Trump is one of spite against the left system.
I think ultimately people created fear of the opposing tribe and were tired of current policies and Trump was the spite that they wanted to send to the other tribe.
Much is due simply to him wanting to. Any ex-leader could pull the spotlight, but everyone else chooses not to for the good of the party.
Any President is automatically the head of the party. A popular former president still has a great deal of influence as far as endorsements. Even a former candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney matters as someone once chosen to lead the party. Most are aware of this and are careful. Obama didn't endorse anyone (for president). Clinton knew she'd have a strong shot at the 2020 nomination, but might be a weak candidate so early on ruled out a run to let in new blood. Likewise, Biden, as the former VP ("it's Obama's Dad!"), waited 3 extra months to enter the 2020 race after no-one had pulled ahead.
Over to Trump, he flipped parties, mostly Democratic, until 2010, and gladly breaks Reagan's 11th commandment "thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican". What does he care about seeing the Republican party be strong for generations to come, and so on? A normal distinguished former president supports rising stars, and gives them room to grow. Why would he do that? After the Tea Party (and the election of Trump) the Republican party is in a bit of a crisis, making it easier for him to keep attention, but otherwise he's not doing anything that any other ex-leader could do, but doesn't.
The answers were not too complicate to pin point. 1) The congressmen, who is interested in running in 2022, will not stay away from a person who can gather/draw both money and voters. 2) See response point 1. 3) See response point 1.
While Donald Trump has lost the election, but by no means it was a landslide defeat of him, nor the Republican Party. Actually the Republican has even gained a few seats in the House, while suffer marginal loss in the Senate. This indicates Donald Trump still has huge support from his primary base - the Republican voters, so he remains a formidable political force.
Another reason is his continued fighting for returning. Unlike typical former Presidents, whom have mostly kept a low profile, and stayed away from the general public, but it is not something expected out of Donald Trump. Image what he will do, if FB and Twitter decide to reinstall his account?
So for the better chance of winning, those congressmen must stay close to Mar-A-Logo, the non-official Republican power center. At least till 2022.
Report below at least support part of my response regarding "voters/votes".
(CNN) A lot of critics of former President Donald Trump want GOP senators to "show some spine." They think the big reason they have stayed with Trump through impeachment is because they're scared of him. There's good reason to be worried about going against Trump, given how popular he is among the Republican base. But I'd argue this explanation is at least somewhat incomplete. A lot of GOP senators may be willing to vote with Trump because they aren't against him. They, like their voters, may really like him and his policies or believe he didn't commit an impeachable offense. This theory is probably hard for a lot of Trump critics to take, but it does make sense. Trump retrospective approval ratings remain in the 80s with Republicans. A lot of Republican lawmakers are likely reflected in that high approval rating. ...
Either way, Republican senators realize that Trump remains a powerful force within the party. Trump's actually the favorite for the 2024 presidential nomination. He is easily leading all primary polls. As I previously noted, Trump is in the best position of any former one-term president in the polling era looking to reclaim his party's presidential nomination. There is little reason to believe Trump won't try to take advantage of these numbers. He loves the limelight and the adoring crowds. Soon enough, Trump will probably be on the campaign trail.
He has influence because the left keeps vilifying him. As long as they keep bringing him up, he is relevant. I’d say that at least half of his influence at the moment comes from his second impeachment. It will wain until NY inevitably finds something they can at least spin as a crime from his taxes, that will raise him back into relevancy yet again. Expect the same thing when/if they try to invoke the 14th accusing him of insurrection as some have called for.
In today’s world influence comes from one of two things, money and popularity. He has money, the attacks on him raise his popularity. Hell, it’s how he got elected in the first place, the more he survives being attacked, the more popular he becomes.
