The hosts of the podcast I’ve Had It — Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan — have shifted their focus. Rather than rehashing the last election, they’re probing the succession question: what happens if the next conservative leader combines spectacle with disciplined policy delivery? Their concern isn’t charm or theatricality by itself; it’s what happens when showmanship meets institutional know-how.
Why the worry
Welch and Sullivan point to two related problems. First, many campaign promises remain unfulfilled, leaving clear openings for someone who can promise to “fix” those shortfalls. Second, voters’ taste for high-drama politics has changed expectations. A future candidate who keeps the theater but tightens up the machinery—staffing, rule-making, legislative strategy—could turn fleeting attention into lasting power.
How that fusion works
The dynamic is straightforward: spectacle captures attention and mobilizes a base; disciplined execution converts attention into concrete policy. When a leader concentrates power around experienced policy teams, targeted communications, and procedural levers, the movement’s influence becomes harder to dislodge. In practice that means focused appointments, coordinated messaging, and relentless follow-through on timelines and legislation.
Pros and cons
There are real advantages to that model. A governance-first successor can deliver predictable policy results, stabilize relations with institutions, and make agenda-setting more efficient. But trade-offs are real: increased centralization can sideline dissent, erode checks and balances, and make controversial policies stickier. And a leader who occasionally doles out spectacle to keep supporters energized risks internal tension between performance and prudence.
Practical responses for opponents
The hosts urge opposition groups to adapt. Reactive outrage won’t be enough. Instead, build sustained coalitions, prioritize litigation and legislative counters, and track early signals — hiring choices, rule changes, and staffing patterns — that foreshadow a disciplined agenda. Early, targeted interventions can blunt momentum before it hardens into permanent structures.
The broader field: personalities versus managers
Across the party, two models compete: high-visibility personalities who feed media cycles, and managerial types who grind out institutional gains. History—and many political technologists—suggests execution often outlasts hype. That doesn’t mean theatrical leaders are powerless; it means hybrids that marry persona with operational competence will be particularly potent.
A cautionary exemplar
Welch and Sullivan singled out Vice President JD Vance as an archetype: younger, less flamboyant, more focused on policy mechanics. A candidate like that could move a conservative agenda with fewer public distractions and greater internal discipline. But the danger is obvious: amplified impact for controversial policies and less room for internal debate.
Signals to watch
If you want to know whether a movement is shifting from rhetoric to durable power, watch three things: appointments to key agencies and courts, rule changes in party structures, and the early legislative agenda. Those actions, more than soundbites, predict whether visibility will translate to long-term influence.
Institutional mechanics
Momentum isn’t accidental; it’s built on media reach, targeted fundraising, and candidate-selection mechanisms. Think tanks, staffing pipelines, legal teams and donor networks turn short-term energy into sustained capacity. When those pieces align, an actor’s influence can outlast a single cycle.
What stakeholders should do
For campaign operatives: invest in candidate development and data-driven field operations, and measure success by policy wins as well as polling spikes. For donors: fund infrastructure, not just ad buys. For civic groups and journalists: monitor staffing flows, rule changes, and funding patterns to provide early warning. For policy schools and trainers: teach both communications and the nuts-and-bolts of governance.
Why the worry
Welch and Sullivan point to two related problems. First, many campaign promises remain unfulfilled, leaving clear openings for someone who can promise to “fix” those shortfalls. Second, voters’ taste for high-drama politics has changed expectations. A future candidate who keeps the theater but tightens up the machinery—staffing, rule-making, legislative strategy—could turn fleeting attention into lasting power.0