There’s no word limit on the debate prompted by a title like the one I’ve given here, but unfortunately there is a word limit for Letters to the Editor at The New York Times. So I’d like to add some nuance to the letter I wrote that will appear in tomorrow’s paper. Here it is, via the Times:

“While the candidates certainly made clear their opposition to Donald Trump’s appalling plan to bar Muslims, none came even close to offering an appropriate level of condemnation. Three of the leading candidates — Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush — were given an opportunity to deride Mr. Trump’s proposal, but Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio qualified their opposition by saying they “understood” where Mr. Trump was coming from. The only thing more shocking than a leading presidential candidate proposing to bar an entire religious group is a major political party failing to push back with force. It’s about time the Republican Party recognizes that Mr. Trump is no radical — he is very much the face of the party.”

The point here is timely––at the Republican debate, the candidates’ qualified opposition to Trump’s proposal failed to live up to its egregiousness––but it’s not fully fleshed out. Here are a few more points:

Trump’s proposal is radical, but only if you define “radical” by one specific standard.

If you define “radical” as something that has never been done before, then Trump’s plan meets the test. I can not think of any other candidate for President ever proposing that we bar an entire religious group from the country.

But try any other standard, and the plan doesn’t seem so radical anymore. We can go by the “is it out of step with the party’s leadership” standard and observe that, while the Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and leading Republican presidential candidates publicly oppose Trump’s plan, all of them have qualified their remarks, either by saying he or she “understands” the motivation behind the plan or by refusing to say he or she would not support Trump if he is nominated.

Similarly, if you go by the “is the plan out of step with the party’s supporters” standard, then it is certainly not radical at all. One poll showed that 59% of Republicans support the proposal, and Trump’s lead in the polls has not wavered at all since the remarks.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to detach Donald Trump from the Republican party.

It’s convenient for Republicans to say “Trump doesn’t represent conservative values” and go on to argue that the Republican party should not have to associate itself with Trump’s radicalizism. But how many debates do we have to watch with Trump standing center-stage for people to realize this is the Repubican party? And if the party’s leaders at the highest ranks are unwilling to toss Trump to the side and disassociate with him, why shouldn’t Republicans have to answer for him?

Unfortunately, candidates do not exist on their own in American politics. If you’re a Republican, Trump is running on your party’s platform, attacking your other candidates for President, and is the leading choice to become your party’s leader. Trump’s baggage is increasingly becoming that of the Republican party’s, and there’s going to have to come a time when Republican’s see that as an obligation to push back.

Jeb Bush shouldn’t get a free pass.

Orginally, my letter quoted Jeb Bush as well, but because he has been more outspoken than the other candidates in pushing back at Trump, espcially during the debate, I decided not to call him out directly. (Also, his stance is less relevant, because he is barely garnering any support from the Republican electorate.)

But in a post-debate interview, Bush offered the same qualifier that Cruz and Rubio did. “Look, I can see why people would support that idea on the surface,” he said. That hardly reaches the level of condemnation most reasonable people would say Trump’s plan deserves.

For now, Trump is the face of the party.

Short of the party’s leadership, electorate, or leading presidential candidates disassociating unequivocally with Trump’s remarks, there’s no other conclusion to draw: Donald Trump is the face of the Republican party.