In the event that Donald Trump loses to Kamala Harris in November’s US presidential election, that would cap off an impressive electoral losing streak for the Republican Party over the last few years.

Considering the latest CBS poll put Trump even with Vice President Harris in key battleground states, but with his Democratic challenger ahead by one point nationally, there is every chance that the Republicans could be heading for another defeat come election day, especially if Trump continues with his attacks on Harris’ race and gender instead of focusing on the bread and butter issues that made him win in 2016.

While the base of the Republican Party would be distraught by another electoral defeat, Republicans who enjoy winning should see this as an opportunity to finally get rid of Trump and return the party to winning ways. I recognise that the consensus is the Republican Party is the party of Trump. However, lose enough times and even your most ardent supporters would begrudgingly admit that it is time for a change in direction.  

The question is, what direction should the Republican party go in should the Trump era come to an end? If one looks at the recent trajectory in the discourse among certain GOP politicians over the last few years, there has been significant anti-interventionist rhetoric; while recently Senator Josh Hawley excoriated Boeing CEO David Calhoun for choosing profits over people.

This presents an opportunity for the Republican Party to advocate for a George HW Bush-style realist foreign policy, and a Dwight Eisenhower-style domestic economic policy. To be clear this is what I think the Republican Party should advocate for if Trump loses; not what I think they will end up advocating. I don’t know what a post-Trump Republican Party would look like.

If one looks at the war in Ukraine, under a realist foreign policy, war would have been prevented by maintaining Ukraine as a neutral, non-NATO state, keeping it as a bulwark against Russia for the rest of Europe, a much more preferential security situation than what there is now. As a result of this policy, a generation of Ukrainian men would still be alive today. 

Regarding the war in Gaza, there is no way the war would have been allowed to go on for as long as it has under a realist foreign policy. A ceasefire would have been foisted on Israel long ago to maintain good relations with the Muslim world, thus saving tens of thousands of Palestinian lives. It seems unthinkable that a Republican President would stand up to Israel in today’s political climate. However, the last time the US had a backbone in its relationship with Israel was, in fact, during the Presidency of George Bush Sr., as attested to by the late Christopher Hitchens.         

In terms of the US economy, the federal income tax rate on the highest earners, i.e. people who make over $609,350 per year, is currently 37%. While the 91% under Eisenhower would be too high today, an increase from today’s 37% to 45% would be fair, while at the same time supporting small businesses and holding big corporations to account as Senator Hawley did would be smart politics.

Since research has now shown that reducing the corporate income tax from 35% to 21% under President Trump has not benefitted workers but rather the wealthy, it should be proposed that the corporate income tax be raised from the flat 21% it currently is to a flat 30%. In fact, during Eisenhower’s presidency, the corporate tax rate ranged from 30% to 52 %. Given its popularity, social security should not be touched.

I understand that it might seem strange to read an article that calls for Republicans to propose raising taxes and not harming social security. However, right-wing Democrats, at least from an economic perspective, such as Joe Manchin, exist. Is it so outside the realm of possibility that, for today’s standards at least, an economically more left-leaning Republican (though socially more conservative) could rise up and be the standard bearer of the GOP?

In accordance with Eisenhower’s warning of the military industrial complex, the defence budget should be slashed by 20%, which would shrink it from $841 billion to $672 billion, more than enough to keep America safe, while saving $168 billion. It should be proposed that more non-military manufacturing jobs be created or brought back from overseas.

One would hope that should Trump lose in November the Republican Party would be able to partake in the kind of brave and innovative thinking that would make it electable once again – a country with only one electable political party is a recipe for disaster.

Mark Manduca has a Master’s Degree in Diplomatic Studies from the Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies.