什麼是美國共和黨中的「建制派」？
新聞和知乎回答里不斷提到「建制派」這個概念，具體指的是？
當權派這個事，化妝裝的好，就叫"建制派"；搞壞了名聲，就叫"既得利益集團"
建制派就是本來干政治的國會議員們和州長們，現在留下來的就州長卡西奇，參議員盧比奧
非建制派就是不幹政治的：地產商川普，醫生卡森還有一個特殊情況Ted Cruz雖然是參議員，但是在華盛頓和所有人都處不來，是屬於絕不妥協的茶黨人，沒人為他背書，據美國媒體說建制派寧願跟川普合作都不願和他合作，所以也被劃為反建制了。註：後面已被打臉，大部分建制派選擇了ted 但是還是輸了
這個問題問得很好，但回答起來很不容易。這幾年共和黨草根對聯邦政府的不滿越來越強烈，The Establishment這個詞已經偏離其原意，成了一個攻擊對手的政治標籤。
狹義地說，The Establishment可以指共和黨高層大佬、全國委員會。他們掌握政黨系統，決定選舉章程，控制資金分配。
The Establishment最關心的是權力，眾議院能不能拿到多數，參議院能不能超過多數，能不能拿下白宮。
假如由黨員決定，那獲得黨內提名的多半是愛憎分明不忘本立場堅定鬥志強的右翼。但是如果該選區總體上並不偏右，The Establishment自然希望提名溫和派候選人，以獲得更大的勝選把握。體制通常會做背後工作，勸說退選，資金偏向支持，甚至改動選舉章程來達到目的。這種事做多了呢，草根的怨念就自然產生了。
所以立場溫和的政客很多時候被貼上建制派的標籤。其實另一個稱號，RINO（Republican In Name Only），更準確些。換成中國的政治術語就是：組織上入了黨，但思想上還沒入黨。
掌握權力後該如何使用呢？
共和黨選民當然希望把自己關心的保守派議題搞成法律。但是美國的政治結構決定了這不可能。除非能把絕對掌控國會和白宮，要想立法你必須得妥協，必須給民主黨做出讓步。久而久之保守派就覺得大虧。當初我們費心費力出人出錢把你選進國會，到真要用你時卻。把保守派的核心理念丟得乾乾淨淨，沒上床前甜言蜜語，幹完了拔吊無情。最典型的例子是當年老布希的"Read my lips: no new taxes"。
所以保守派把那些立場堅定決不妥協的政客視為自己人；而那些原意和民主黨談條件的，比如前眾議院議長Boehner，自然就要打成「建制派」。
其他的牽涉太多，我這裡就不進一步分說了。簡而言之，共和黨中的建制派原意是指共和黨中比較傳統的、溫和的保守派，他們長期在共和黨中掌握著較大的權力。出於政治上的考量，願意做出較多的妥協和讓步（和交易）來保持地位。被認為過多地丟失了保守派的政治理念。現在，建制派已經成為了一個嘲諷和攻擊對手為了贏得選舉不擇手段、放棄本黨派的觀點和原則的標籤。
不知道總結得對不對哈，我是一枚小小的搬運工。
來自wikipedia
The Republican establishment refers to the traditional, moderate-to-conservative members of the Republican Party of the United States. Members are known as establishment Republicans. Other synonymous or related terms include "political insiders" or the "political class." Opponents often use the term as apejorative. A related derogatory term is Republican In Name Only.
來自quora
An establishment republican is any republican who is stuck to the ways of doing this the way things have always been done to get votes. Today they disregard the constitution, except for the 2nd Amendment. If Obama came out pro gun, establishment republicans would go antigun.The biggest things are establishment republicans have sold out, and no longer a representative of the people. If you want to buy them they can be bought with a donation to their political campaign.Some examples are all but a few republican congressmen/senators, Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Fox Commentators for the most part, Bush, Romney, etc.==============這是兩個回答的分割線================It seems to be a Republican who actually attained some sort of power within the government and is therefore sullied by the fact that instead of hewing to his pure ideology he or she has had to become somewhat -- very little actually -- pragmatic when faced with solutions to the huge problems that this country is facing.
Eric Cantor will forever be the archetype of the establishment Republican.-- alongside Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and John McCain. Someone like the Sarah Palin, who has never completed a term in office and is therefore unsullied by the need to have made tough decisions is the anti-establishment Republican. If she were just a little bit crazier, she would qualify as a pure Tea Party Republican. And if she enjoyed the occasional brownie made of medicinal marijuana, she would be a libertarian Republican. At the very bottom of the Republican spectrum is the RINO. As far as I can figure, the typical RINO is someone like John Huntsman, who attracts interest from people who do not get all their news from Fox News Channel.Because they have never spent a day in any elective office, the purest non-establishment Republicans in America today are David Brat and Dr. Ben Carson. And you cant criticize purity.
來自about.news
What does it mean to be part of "The Establishment" nowadays? While the old definition (below) used to be relatively simple to define, the terminology has lost most meeting.
Those considered part of the establishment are growing rapidly as it now includes just about anyone who has every held political office.
The anti-establishment side now includes non-conservative radical populists like Donald Trump, and anyone else whos primary goal is to take down the Republican Party.
Today, the phrase "the establishment" is used in a more mocking tone just based on the pure number of people who are accused of being part of it.
=========這是新舊定義的分割線=============
Old Definition (Back when it meant something):
The Republican establishment, or more commonly among conservatives just 「the establishment,」 refers to the permanent political class and structure that makes up the Republican Party. The establishment tends to control the rules of the party system, party elections, and funding disbursements.
The establishment is typically viewed as more elitist, politically moderate, and out-of-touch with conservative voters.
建制派有以下幾個部分組成
共和黨高層大佬，全國委員會。國會議員，參眾議院。以及其背後的金主和利益集團還有利益集團僱傭的說客。州長普遍意義上來說不屬於建制派。
但是媽寶布希屬於利益集團的一分子，所以他也還是建制派。所以Kasich這個老王八其實根本不能算建制派。
Kasich有哪些特點呢？高層授意他競選州長，他不選。fundraising not very impressive，籌款能力不是很強。換言之，沒有金主支持老王八，對比一下克魯茲就高下立見了。最後就是老王八的招牌行為，平衡預算，老王八Kasich從最初當選參議員開始想著法子減少政府支出，他這20多年來可把共和黨議員們得罪慘了。所以Kasich不聽高層，不能被收買，跟議員不和，他哪裡是建制派了。
反過來Cruz，有大金主，緊抱高層，跟議員不和，但是他哪裡反建制派了？建制派就類似於500強（jia）的意思，其實就是指政治精英階層，哪個台上的政客都可以是，也都可以不是。桑德斯還被希拉里指責是建制派，我還以為自己耳朵出問題了~~
當權派
觀點： 建制派establishment是個非常操蛋的譯法。是特色沒文化之劣等翻譯們照搬香港洋涇浜詞生搬硬造的惡例。正確譯法是當權派。 看看川普是在什麼情況下使用的： 舉例：①川普葛底斯堡講話：Change has to come from outside this broken system. The fact that the Washington establishment has tried so hard to stop our campaign is only more proof that our campaign represents the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime,」 he continued. 「變革必須來自這個崩塌的系統的外部，而我的競選能夠代表這種一生難得的變革。華盛頓的當權派對我的競選的瘋狂抵制就是明證。 ②川普就職演說：For too long, a small group in our nations capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed.The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country.長久以來華盛頓的一小群人攫取了利益果實，代價卻由人民承受。華盛頓欣欣向榮，人民卻沒享到財富。政客們塞滿了腰包，工作機會卻越來越少，無數工廠關門。當權派保護的是他們自己，而不是我們國家的公民。 很明顯，川普指的The establishment，是美國當局在台上的官僚集團，包括政府、議會（民主黨、共和黨都有）和其他掌權政界人士。（如果非要譯成 建制派，是詞不達意）
我感覺所有的答案都沒有簡單明了說出來建制派的概念。個人理解建制派等於當權派，民主黨建制派就是民主黨當權派，共和黨建制派就是共和黨當權派，香港建制派就是香港的當權派。
叫當權派或者叫既得利益集團容易引起不好的聯想。就和私企叫民企，失業叫下崗一樣。
謝邀！建制派是個貶義詞。共和黨建制派不是一個政治派別，而是一個利益集團。建制派也不是鐵板一塊，他們在國會與地方政治中具有一定實力，有自己的既得利益，常跨黨派與民主党進行合作，因而招致純正保守派（茶黨）的不滿。反建制派等於茶黨，因此T Cruz和M Rubio都屬於反建制派，Rubio雖然經常騎牆和建制派合作，但由於其茶黨起家，並非建制派利益集團的。D Trump不是反建制派，而是民主黨自由派的失意分子（blue dog）與白粹。
據我所知D. Trump，R. Cruz，B. Carson是非建制派候選人，M. Rubio，J. Kasich是建制派候選人，我也不知道為什麼這麼劃分，是不是共和黨高層認可的就是建制派，其他人不是？
為什麼有一群人在說到處扯謊的特朗普？他是在假裝反建制政治。
真正把這件事當理念的是伯尼桑德斯。
其實應該翻譯成"當權派"
推薦閱讀：
