Gerald Seib made a curious claim in his preview of the next set of Republican debates:

Mr. Trump is so unorthodox that maintaining his hold would defy both political history in general and Republican history in particular. It isn’t just his outsider status; he is skeptical of free trade and immigration, opposed to intervening in Syria and against making serious changes in entitlement programs. If that now is a winning policy mix, the Republican Party has indeed undergone a dramatic change [bold mine-DL].

I call this claim curious because the positions Trump has taken during the campaign are all either broadly popular or have a substantial following in the GOP, and all of this should be very well-known at this point. Republicans are slightly more skeptical of the value of trade agreements than Democrats, and voters are generally much more skeptical about trade agreements than party elites. According to that Pew survey, half of all Republicans nationally believe that trade agreements cause job losses and lower wages, and 35% of Republicans say that trade agreements have been bad overall for the U.S. Republican opposition to any attempt to liberalize immigration policy is hardly a secret. As for entitlement reform, this is a perfect example of something that pundits and editorial writers are enamored with that most voters in both parties vehemently oppose.

On Syria, Americans of all political backgrounds were overwhelmingly against intervening there in 2013, and if anyone bothered to ask the question today I imagine that much of this opposition would still be there. A survey earlier this year found that Americans preferred not to take sides in the civil war or wanted the U.S. to support the Syrian government rather than back anti-regime rebels. It also found that a plurality of Americans wished that the U.S. had never become involved. Only one-third of Republicans believed that the U.S. should have been more involved earlier on. As far as a “no-fly zone” in Syria is concerned, surveys in the past have found some support for this option, but that is almost certainly because respondents didn’t understand what a “no-fly zone” entailed. When asked if the U.S. should bomb Syrian air defenses, only 22% said yes three years ago, and I doubt the number is much higher today. In light of Russian involvement in Syria, it might very well be lower.

I point all this out to say that it shouldn’t be surprising that this combination of views has a significant level of support inside the GOP. It doesn’t conform to the WSJ‘s version of what Republicans are supposed to believe, but that is a measure of how far removed they are from the Republican rank-and-file. That doesn’t prove that the GOP has “undergone a dramatic change,” but shows instead that a significant bloc of Republican voters has long rejected the party leadership’s priorities.