Tag Archives: Republicans

I Couldn’t Have Said It Better Myself

As regular readers of this blog know, I don’t suffer what I consider foolishness (or worse) in silence. At times, as I survey the political landscape, words positively spew out. But every once in a while, I read something that captures my perspective so perfectly–that so eloquently captures my angst, anger and perspective– that it deserves copious quotation.

That’s the case with a recent essay from Lincoln Square, titled “The Complicity of the Gutless, Self-Gelding Beltway Barnacles.”

The tirade perfectly expresses my feelings about the non-“true believing” Republicans who have enabled America’s flight from democracy and rational government–the GOP elected officials like Indiana Senator Todd Young. No one sane expected anything better from the crazy “Christian” MAGA morons like our other Senator, but–as the author, a former Executive Director of the Michigan Republican Party writes–our current situation can be firmly laid at the feet of the quislings who know better.

Permit me to share some of his diatribe, with which I entirely agree.

This is a pox on every current or former Republican elected official, every D.C. policy wonk, every think-tank libertarian, every “principled” conservative, every consultant and operative, every comms flack who flinched at Trump in 2016, held their nose in 2020, and now in 2025 are all-in, pretending they never saw the flames. They saw the incompetence. The ignorance. The corruption. The racism. The appeals to violence. The fascist cosplay. They watched Trump mismanage a pandemic that killed a million Americans. They watched him try to shake down Ukraine. They watched the tear gas fly at Lafayette Square. They watched January 6th.

After Trump lost to Biden, he writes,

They let the tumor grow back. And now that he’s returned to power — with a vengeance, a vendetta list, a castrated Congress, and a perverted and retributive Justice Department in his pocket — they’ve decided to go along to get along. Because “we need to win,” because “it’s about judges,” because “Biden was too old,” because their taxes will be lower, because “Harris was too progressive,” because of some freshman DEI policy at Oberlin College or the University of Michigan…

There is no Trump 2.0 without these Vichy collaborators. He doesn’t have the IQ or impulse control to govern without them. They write the policies. They run the agencies. They polish the lies. MAGA isn’t a grassroots movement — it’s a fascist aesthetic wrapped around a cynical, calculating elite that knows exactly what it’s doing: Dismantling democracy for profit and power.

Look around. The Department of Justice is now a MAGA war room. News agencies are threatened with being frog-marched into courtrooms for asking the wrong questions. State National Guards have been federalized — and active duty Marines deployed — to occupy Los Angeles. And those “respectable” Republicans? The ones who were “uncomfortable” with Trump before? They’re writing op-eds praising his “leadership.” They’re spinning the gutting of civil liberties as “order.” They’re appeasing tyranny but collecting paychecks.

These aren’t rubes at a rally in Sheboygan or the MAGA meth chorus from Bumfuck County. These are the guys in the green rooms and boardrooms, at the Capitol Hill Club, in the donor retreats and Capitol cloakrooms. They know better. They knew better.

This piece isn’t about the true believers. It’s about the Quisling converts. The ones who once winced when Trump called the press “enemies of the people,” and would now cheer if he arrests them. The ones who once said, “This is not conservatism,” and now insist, “This is what the people want.”

If and when we emerge from this dark time, the most important question we’ll need to ask won’t involve the manifest pathologies of Trump. It won’t even focus on the intellectual and emotional deficits of the MAGA faithful–after all, numerous humans in every generation have joined cults, clung to their tribal affiliations and hated the “other.” What is new–or at least seems unprecedented to my inaccurate historical memory–is the wholesale defection of an entire cohort of public figures from anything resembling integrity.

There was, of course, the author’s absolutely accurate reference to quislings, the French who submitted during WWII, a term defined as a citizen or politician of an occupied country who collaborates with an enemy occupying force. It is a perfect description of today’s GOP lawmakers. If any reader is aware of a psychological profile of those collaborators, I hope you will point us to that scholarship in the comments.

As the author notes, “They were in the house. They saw the fire. And instead of helping us put it out, they grabbed a lawn chair and roasted hot dogs. ” What explains that reaction?

Comments

Democrats Govern; Republicans Rule

It’s so easy for sane Americans to focus on the horrible, terrible, cruel and unbelievably stupid things that MAGA Republicans are doing daily. A recent example is the devastation in Texas, where inadequate warnings in advance of the weather–a result partially attributable to massive employee cuts to the Weather Service– cost over 85 people their lives.

What is frustrating is that it was so foreseeable: When the mindless, reckless cuts were being made, Scientific American ran a story headlined “How Trump’s National Weather Service Cuts Could Cost Lives,” warning that “staff cuts at the National Weather Service that have been made by the Trump administration are a danger to public safety as tornadoes, hurricanes and heat loom this spring and summer.”

The GOP has given rational Americans so many targets at both the state and federal levels that there is an understandable tendency to spend our time pointing and complaining. But as the new Chair of the Indiana Democratic Party has reminded us, complaining neglects the most important story, which is that–unlike the GOP– Democrats understand the obligations of governing, and we need to remind voters that all Americans, not just wealthy White ones, do better when Democrats are in charge.

I agree, so I wrote the following:

What happens when Americans elect Democrats? People do better.

When Democrats are in charge, states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington raise the minimum wage to $15/hour or higher.

Democrats in Blue states act to protect health coverage (Washington State even created a public health insurance option—the only one in the country) and pass laws requiring paid family and medical leave.

Blue states—including Oregon, California, Washington, Colorado and New York—make it easier to vote, expanding early voting and passing election reforms like automatic voter registration and same day registration.

Democrats support public education, and Blue states like New York, California and Oregon offer tuition-free college programs.

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is a good example of the difference between Democrats who govern for We the People and Republicans who govern for the donor class. This July, Illinois Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills to help high school students afford college. In January, Pritzker signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

And the Republicans?

In Red Indiana, they’ve kept the minimum wage at 7.25 since 2009, when they grudgingly had to raise it to match the federal rate.

In Red Indiana, Republicans are throwing people off Medicaid using stricter eligibility checks, work requirements, and enrollment caps, erecting barriers that hurt the most vulnerable populations. 

Red States have made it harder for their citizens to vote– cutting early voting, requiring specific government-issued IDs, and throwing out ballots with minor errors. Polls in Red Indiana and Kentucky close at 6– earlier than any other state—making it harder for working people to cast ballots.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers work to make citizens’ lives better and fairer, while Republicans wage culture wars and make it harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Indiana’s neighbor, Illinois, is just one example of the difference between government for We the People and government for the donor class. Just this month, Governor Pritzker signed the state’s Prescription Drug Affordability Act, limiting unfair pricing practices and supporting independent pharmacies, along with four bills designed to help high school students get into and afford to pay for college in Illinois. In January, he signed a bill forbidding payment of less than minimum wage to disabled workers.

There’s much more.

From education to gun safety, from climate and the environment, from education to worker protection, Democratic lawmakers in Blue America are working to protect the right to vote and the right to fair treatment. Meanwhile, Republicans in Red America are rolling back their citizens’ rights, making it harder to vote and harder for middle-class Americans to earn a decent living.

Which approach really makes America great?

Comments

The Institutional Party

I often quote Talking Points Memo, which is one of the most reliable–and intelligent–sources of political reporting on the web. A few days back, the site’s Morning Memo had a very good essay on our era of distrust, which it preceded with what I think was an absolutely perfect characterization of the deluge of diagnosis and advice in the wake of the election as “variously half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic or merely silly.”

I couldn’t agree more. We’ve been inundated with un-self-aware pontifications and nit-picking, which I’m sure soothed the angst of those issuing these pronouncements, but that generally were–as the essay accurately noted–half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic and (usually) silly.

The essay then turned to a subject that didn’t fall into any of those categories–widespread public distrust. (A subject I addressed in my 2009 book, “Distrust, American Style: Diversity and the Crisis of Public Confidence.”)

A key reason that many people are Democrats today is that they’re attached to a cluster of ideas like the rule of law, respect for and the employment of science and expertise, a free press and the protection of the range of institutions that guard civic life, quality of life and more. On the other side, say we have adherents of a revanchist, authoritarian politics which seeks break all those things and rule from the wreckage that destruction leaves in its path. So Democrats constantly find themselves defending institutions, or “the establishment,” or simply the status quo. Yet we live in an age of pervasive public distrust — distrust of institutions, leaders, expertise. And not all of this distrust is misplaced. Many institutions, professions, and power centers have failed to live up to their sides of the social contract.

In short, Democrats are by and large institutionalists in an age of mistrust. And that is challenging place to be.

It sure is. The essay pointed out that defending an institution shouldn’t include defending flawed examples of that institution. A free press, for example, is a vital institution in democratic systems. Democrats largely agree that it’s critical to support the press rather than tear it down. But that has often meant supporting and protecting flawed examples that routinely shortchange them on basic fairness. (The New York Times is a good example. Its coverage of Trump served to normalize a distinctly abnormal–and dangerous– candidate.)

When it comes to the establishment press, I think Democrats need to get used to running against the press. I don’t mean that simply because it’s good politics, though it probably is in many cases. I mean it because in many cases the way establishment press covers political news is very much part of the problem. You can criticize and yes even bash bad news coverage without in any way questioning the centrality of press freedom. A lot of people really seem to think they’re the same thing. They’re not. It’s stupid and wildly counterproductive to think otherwise.

But often it’s not as simple as that. The country needs an at least relatively disinterested Department of Justice. It needs scientists and clinicians studying and safeguarding public health. It needs a robust press and all the other infrastructure of civil society that together make up the soft tissue of civic freedom. If one side is saying “Burn it down!” and another is saying “We’re rootin’ tootin’ mad and we have many questions!” well then it’s definitely going to get burned to the ground because there’s no one taking up the defense. So often it’s not that simple.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that different institutions require different approaches. The essay references the people who lament every latest Supreme Court travesty because it reduces faith or trust in the Court. But–as most observers have come to recognize– the current Court is thoroughly corrupt. “Respect for the Court’s decisions and the Court itself is a problem to be solved, not a rampart or castle wall to be reinforced.”

Being the party of institutions in an age of distrust is an inherent challenge. It’s at the heart of why Democrats often think and talk in ways that don’t connect, break through to big chunks of the electorate. Democrats aren’t going to stop being the party of institutions because they want the rule of law; they want elections where votes are counted; they want real medicine over quacks. This is the foolery of those people whose response to the election is to fire Democrats’ voters. That’s not how anything works. But being a party of institutions and expertise in era of pervasive distrust is, again, an inherent challenge. You don’t surmount that challenge without giving the issue some real time and thought.

Yep.

Comments

A Perceptive Anallysis

When I began this blog 15+ years ago, it was with the intention of exploring issues of public policy–delving into the details of American policy debates, and providing illustrations of one of my repeated mantras, “it’s more complicated than that.”

I really, really want to return to those discussions, but they’ve been eclipsed by an election that threatens to substitute a theocratic/autocratic administration for a system that–despite all of its flaws–has steadily moved us toward a more humane and inclusive society.

Rather than delving into the pros and cons of a universal basic income, or the age at which citizens should be able to access social security, or similar issues, we are faced with an angry, fearful cult determined to withhold any and all social or democratic benefits from nonWhite, nonChristian Americans–including even the acknowledgment that they are Americans. It is not hyperbole, unfortunately, to say that November’s election will determine whether the American experiment will continue.

Because that statement isn’t hyperbole, the hysteria of Democrats is understandable. But “understandable” doesn’t mean that the hourly assault of text messages and emails begging for money isn’t incredibly annoying. It doesn’t excuse the desperation and exaggeration accentuated by the weird typefaces and pulsating underlinings.

I don’t get messages from the GOP, so I am unable to compare the tone of their solicitations to those I do receive, but recently, Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo considered the differences–differences which, in his analysis, mirror differences in Democratic and Republican psychology.

He considered what’s behind “Democrats’ tendency to freak out, even in the face of the most limited kinds of disappointing news in polls or other markers of campaign performance?”

Democrats are almost always worried they’re going to lose the race while Republicans are all but certain they’re going to win. This is a consistent pattern more or less unconnected to the objective indicators. The same reality is embedded in campaign fundraising emails. Most Democratic ones could be summarized as “all hope is lost; send money for us to have any chance” while most Republican ones are essentially “send more money for us to destroy the bad people.” We see it in campaign tactics. It’s pretty common, especially at the presidential level, for Republican campaigns to claim they’re headed for a runaway victory as a way to overawe and demoralize their Democratic opponents. Again, it would simply never work for Democrats to try the same for reasons that are probably obvious.

Marshall concedes that this year has given Democrats rational reasons for concern. The stakes of this election are higher than they have been in decades.

Trump already showed us who he was as President and the current version of the man is more focused on vengeance and more prepared, largely through a more built-up cadre of lieutenants, to exact that revenge. There’s also the unforgettable fact that Donald Trump has twice over-performed the polls. Why would we think it couldn’t happen again? But with all of this, over the last four or five days a very fractional shift in campaign polls convinced a lot of Democrats that Kamala Harris had botched her campaign and was headed toward defeat. By way of comparison, consider that the Trump campaign spent almost the entirety of the 2020 race behind by between five and ten points and it never seemed to occur to Republicans that they’d lose. 2016 was at least a bit similar. There’s clearly a difference between these two groups.

Marshall points to research showing that over the past several years, authoritarian Americans have migrated into the Republican Party, while most non-authoritarian folks became Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents. Today, one party is primarily centered on power and certainty, while the other is centered on process and doubt.

As he says, people don’t gravitate toward certain ideologies over others based on rational analysis.

They appeal or don’t appeal to people with certain mindsets which are based on experience, upbringing, certain kinds of acculturation… It’s no surprise that the kind of electoral/political sorting we’re describing would create one community with an overflow of these tendencies just as Republicans have an overflow of focus on power, certainty and even violence.

The next time I get one of those text messages proclaiming that “everything is lost”–or at least, will be lost unless I immediately remit ten dollars to candidate A or organization B–I need to remember Marshall’s analysis. 

I can also remind myself that, in only a few more days, depending on voter turnout, I can either return to policy discussions…or proceed to document the effort to end the American experiment.

Comments

Will Endorsements Matter?

In traditional election cycles, endorsements–generally issued by newspapers–rarely moved votes. The endorsements this year are very different, but whether they will change any votes is unclear. Trump’s MAGA base is firmly insulated from reality–they seem to occupy a different country, where up is down and wet is dry. It isn’t just accusations about immigrants eating dogs and cats–they believe Trump’s claims that crime is up and the economy is tanking, despite the fact that data shows crime plummeting and the American economy flourishing. They might just as well be on another planet.

Because Trump voters occupy an alternate reality, the avalanche of endorsements of Harris/Walz probably won’t pry MAGA votes away. But we can hope that the unprecedented nature of those endorsements will generate registrations and turnout by rational folks who might not otherwise go to the polls. (That certainly is the hoped-for result of celebrity endorsements from super-stars like Taylor Swift.)

What has set this year’s endorsements apart isn’t just the unprecedented number of them, but the political identities and bona fides of the endorsers. (Example: Evangelicals for Harris–really!) Recently, four hundred economists endorsed Harris, warning that the election “is a choice between inequity, economic injustice, and uncertainty with Donald Trump or prosperity, opportunity, and stability with Kamala Harris, a choice between the past and the future.” The other day, seven hundred national security figures announced their endorsement of the Democratic ticket. They were later joined by General Stanley McChrystal.

The sheer number of Republican endorsers–not just the “Never Trumpers”– is staggering.

It isn’t simply high visibility people like Liz and Dick Cheney. Every day we encounter headlines like “State Republican party chairs endorse Kamala Harris for president.” In addition to the Republicans who spoke at the Democratic convention, a group of more than 200 who worked for former Presidents George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Sen. Mitt Romney and the late Sen. John McCain signed onto a letter supporting the Democratic nominee.

A recently launched “Republicans for Harris” is steadily growing.

Perhaps the most striking of all was a New York Times recent compilation of opinions of Donald J. Trump from “those who know him best”–members of Trump’s own administration, and “friends” who’ve known him for many years. As the introduction to those quotations put it,

Dozens of people who know him well, including the 91 listed here, have raised alarms about his character and fitness for office — his family and friends, world leaders and business associates, his fellow conservatives and his political appointees — even though they had nothing to gain from doing so. Some have even spoken out at the expense of their own careers or political interests.

The New York Times editorial board has made its case that Mr. Trump is unfit to lead. But the strongest case against him may come from his own people. For those Americans who are still tempted to return him to the presidency or to not vote in November, it is worth considering the assessment of Mr. Trump by those who have seen him up close.

Those opinions followed, and they are scathing. I encourage you to click through and read them.

The sheer number of economic, military and governmental experts–both Republicans and Democrats–who are warning against another Trump administration ought to be dispositive, but it clearly isn’t making inroads into MAGA fidelity, and I think there are two main reasons.

The first–and most frequently noted–is the similarity of MAGA Republicanism to a cult. In large part, MAGA folks have drunk the Kool-Aid. For whatever reason, some people are susceptible to the Jim Jones and Donald Trumps of the world, and fact-based arguments are irrelevant to them. Their devotion to the cult leader fills some sort of psychic need that the rest of us don’t share and can’t understand.

The second reason is less well understood, but I think it’s important.

Much has been made of the growing division between educated and uneducated voters. Education is absolutely not the same thing as intelligence, but folks who never learned how government works, or what the Constitution requires, are much more likely to believe, for example, that the government can simply round up and deport millions of immigrants (not to mention failing to understand the effect that would have on America’s economy if it were possible). They believe Trump when he says other countries will pay for his proposed tariffs–despite the fact that anyone who took Econ 101 knows tariffs are a tax on Americans. Etc.

The first group will simply ignore facts. The second rejects expertise as offensive elitism.

The reality-based community needs to turn out in force.

Comments