While interested in protecting business various U.S. Presidents since F.D.R. have kept a wary eye on the worker who pose a huge problem for New Republicans. While the Democrats flirted with technocrats and recently established business the New Republicans did an end around and made various proposals with a blue collar bent. The elitism of the Democrats held through the years of Bill for Bill but began to crumble on the State level. And then the unthinkable happened (at least for the Democrats) as Hillary did not have the charisma to hold the Democrat Party coalition that was there for Bill and then Obama. The blue collar worker that first peeled off to support Ronald Reagan became disenfranchised enough by the Democrat leadership to give the other side a chance.
Will the New Republicans hold their coalition together? Results will tell and the first indications are not encouraging. Supporting the rejection of a law to soon go into effect requiring more low salaried employees to receive overtime wages will not be received well by the coalition as will the repeal of safety laws for cost that will only lead to a disaster the New Republicans will have difficulty spinning.
Now that the Republicans have the support of blue collar workers they need to produce to keep it. Blaming the other side will only carry them so far.
“The most significant implication of the party’s self-misunderstanding was a misimpression of the nature of its grassroots voters. Republican politicians thought of the base of the party as a steadfastly conservative voting bloc that would rebel against any departures from the GOP’s longstanding agenda and would be dissatisfied with party leaders to the extent they were not sufficiently aggressive in its pursuit. The war between the Tea Party and the establishment in the Obama years was fought on this premise. But Donald Trump’s campaign, even before he won the election, demonstrated that this understanding of the Right’s grassroots—the understanding on which the work of various tea-party activist groups, the House Freedom Caucus, and Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign, as well as the responses to these from establishment Republicans, were based—was in error in some important ways, and in any case is no longer operative. Trump showed that much of the base of the party was driven far more by resentment of elitist arrogance, by a rejection of globalism, and by economic and cultural insecurity than by a commitment to conservative economic or political principles. And he thereby also made the base of the party even more traditionally populist. This is surely part of the reason why most members of the House Freedom Caucus and many prominent conservative talk-radio hosts didn’t stand athwart Trump’s candidacy in the primaries, even though he showed contempt for much of what they have always championed. Trump demonstrated that the people they claimed to represent were not quite who they had imagined they were. He made this explicit soon after clinching the nomination. “This is called the Republican party, it’s not called the Conservative party,” Trump said in an interview in May. It was an extraordinary thing for a Republican presidential contender to say. And it was also true and important, and recognizing it would be a very good thing for both Republicans and conservatives. For conservatives, in particular, ceasing to imagine that we own the Republican coalition, and therefore ceasing to expect it to simply follow our lead, would be a spur to sharpen, strengthen, and modernize our ideas so that they are more attractive and a better fit to contemporary problems.” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442238/republican-party-after-trump-new-coalition-will-be-more-populist-nationalist