It's almost over, but this year's campaign has been exceptionally harsh, often inappropriate [1], and, at times, downright surreal [2]. As worrisome as the fighting between Democrats and Republicans has become, the real question that will remain after Election Day isn't "How do we heal the rift between Democrats and Republicans?" but rather "How do we heal the rift within the GOP?"

Can Republican Party leaders reright themselves? What's next for the GOP? And what does the Republican Party even stand for anymore?

Mitt Romney's loss of the 2012 election forced the GOP to do some serious self-reflection. Party leaders produced an autopsy [3] acknowledging that in order to stay strong and relevant, the Republican Party would have to expand its base, reach out to minorities and gays, and hold true to traditional conservative values with an emphasis on small government and less regulation. In order to actually win, it would have to move away from the idea that it was a party made up of white, privileged, racist people.

Traditional conservatives have long denied accusations of racism and xenophobia. Instead, they've touted "Reaganomics" and worn Abraham Lincoln's Republican identity as a badge of pride. But as the minority population (who typically vote Democratic) steadily increases, some Republicans have quietly courted a dark underside of the electorate in order to amass a large enough base to win: white nationalists. They might not agree with their views, but they've stoked the fires of racism and antigay sentiments and promoted feelings of otherness, if for no other reason than they needed the votes. This has made pivoting back to the compassionate conservatism of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush much easier said than done.

Of course, not every Republican agrees with this approach, which has caused some of the deep fractures threatening the GOP. "Wall Street Republicans" (fiscal conservatives with more liberal social views) now find themselves having to battle with both the more socially conservative religious right and the populist/libertarian ideals of the Tea Party. Even prior to Donald Trump's campaign, traditionally held Republican policy positions had been all but abandoned. The immigration policy of both Bushes would be derided by the current GOP [4] as amnesty, the anti-free-trade wave running through the Republican electorate would be unrecognizable to Republicans from as little as 10 years ago, and Obamacare — a plan modeled after Massachusetts health care reform under Mitt Romney — is a subject of revile among the majority of Republican leaders. Unifying and returning to the GOP of old was never going to be an easy task, and then came Trump.

Trump's nomination took an already fractured party and shattered it into something so broken that many of the party's staunchest leaders couldn't recognize it. Suddenly, the party that had openly admitted it needed to work on inclusiveness and focus on ideals like less regulation, small government, and family values had nominated a thrice-married former Democrat who espoused free trade as the downfall of the American economy and condoned the white nationalism the party had long denied existed. Even in the likely event that Trump loses, he still leaves behind a strong coalition of supporters that GOP leaders will have to contend with.

Traditional party leaders like Paul Ryan and Scott Walker have rejected some of Trump's rhetoric and tried to distance themselves from his campaign, but few have outright denounced him. Instead, they've made excuses for his racism, xenophobia, and misogyny for fear of losing the part of their base that so strongly believes in these ideals. Trump's campaign rallies spoke directly to a white nationalist sector of the American public and courted support from some of the most vile segments of society. Even in the event of a Trump loss, these people have been empowered and will not just go away. By standing by and not denouncing them sooner, the leaders of the party have backed themselves into the precarious position of having to denounce their ideals while staving off an uprising and losing their support.

Still, Trump's candidacy has forced some long-awaited introspection and brought the glaring need for change to the surface. This is thanks to the small but mighty outspoken voices like John McCain who have changed their minds and denounced Trump [5] and to the Republican electorate who has decried his rhetoric. Nominating a candidate who genuinely contradicts almost everything the party claims to stand for, and has no real interest in policy, procedures, or actual governance, might be exactly what the GOP needed. Hopefully, party leaders will use the difficult lessons of this campaign season as an impetus to coalesce around a revamped party platform, one that actually holds to the traditional ideals of "the party of Lincoln" without alienating minority populations or preying on the fears of the rural, uneducated white population.

In the likely event of a Trump loss, the party will have to face the fact that if it wants to survive as a major political force, this only option is to revert to the Republican Party of old. This is not to say they have to become agreeable doormats. In order to have a government that functions, we need two coherent parties, but opposition to Democratic legislation should be based on policy differences, not an oath or duty to be obstructionist for the sake of obstruction.

How the Republican Party will achieve these ends remains to be seen. Will Ryan be able to bring everyone back into the fold? Will Trump supporters be amenable to a policy-focused party? Or will they see a pivot back to true Republicanism as a betrayal? In 10 years, will there even be a GOP? Only one thing is certain: the Republican Party is on the precipice of change. As the demographics of the country continue to change, there is simply no way to effectively win elections without widening the current base of the party and nominating legitimate, more inclusive candidates.