ONE
of the essential, if often unstated, job requirements of an American
president is to provide stability, order and predictability in a world
that tends toward chaos, disarray and entropy. When our political
leaders ignore this — and certainly when they delight in disruption —
the consequences can be severe. Stability is easy to take for granted,
but impossible to live without.
Projecting
clear convictions is important for preventing adversaries from
misreading America’s intentions and will. Our allies also depend on our
predictability and reassuring steadiness. Their actions in trade and
economics, in alliances with other nations and in the military sphere
are often influenced by how much they believe they can rely on American
support.
Order
and stability in the executive branch are also linked to the health of
our system of government. Chaos in the West Wing can be crippling, as
White House aides — in a constant state of uncertainty, distrustful of
colleagues, fearful that they might be excoriated or fired — find it
nearly impossible to do their jobs. This emanates throughout the entire
federal government. Devoid of steadfast leadership, executive agencies
easily become dysfunctional themselves.
Worse
yet, if key pillars of our system, like our intelligence and law
enforcement agencies, are denigrated by the president, they can be
destabilized, and Americans’ trust in them can be undermined. Without a
reliable chief executive, Congress, an inherently unruly institution,
will also find it difficult to do its job, since our constitutional
system relies on its various branches to constantly engage with one
another in governing.
But
that’s hardly the whole of it. Particularly in this social media era, a
president who thrives on disruption and chaos is impossible to escape.
Every shocking statement and act is given intense coverage. As a result,
the president is omnipresent, the subject of endless coast-to-coast
conversations among family and friends, never far from our thoughts. As
Andrew Sullivan has observed,
“A free society means being free of those who rule over you — to do the
things you care about, your passions, your pastimes, your loves — to
exult in that blessed space where politics doesn’t intervene.”
A
presidency characterized by pandemonium invades and infects that space,
leaving people unsettled and on edge. And this, in turn, leads to
greater polarization, to feelings of alienation and anger, to unrest and
even to violence.
A
spirit of instability in government will cause Americans to lose
confidence in our public institutions. When citizens lose that basic
faith in their government, it leads to corrosive cynicism and the
acceptance of conspiracy theories. Movements and individuals once
considered fringe become mainstream, while previously responsible
figures decamp to the fever swamps. One result is that the informal and
unwritten rules of political and human interaction, which are at the
core of civilization, are undone. There is such a thing as democratic
etiquette; when it is lost, the common assumptions that allow for
compromise and progress erode.
In short, chaotic leadership can inflict real trauma on political and civic culture.
All
of which brings us to Donald Trump, arguably the most disruptive and
transgressive president in American history. He thrives on creating
turbulence in every conceivable sphere. The blast radius of his
tumultuous acts and chaotic temperament is vast.
Mr.
Trump acts as if order is easy to achieve and needs to be overturned
while disruption and disorder are what we need. But the opposite is
true. “Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour,” Edmund
Burke wrote, “than prudence, deliberation and foresight can build up in a
hundred years.”
Mr.
Trump and his supporters don’t seem to agree, or don’t seem to care.
And here’s the truly worrisome thing: The disruption is only going to
increase, both because he’s facing criticism that seems to trigger him
psychologically and because his theory of management involves the
cultivation of chaos. He has shown throughout his life a defiant refusal
to be disciplined. His disordered personality thrives on mayhem and
upheaval, on vicious personal attacks and ceaseless conflict. As we’re
seeing, his malignant character is emboldening some, while it’s causing
others — the Republican leadership comes to mind — to briefly speak out
(at best) before returning to silence and acquiescence. The effect on
the rest of us? We cannot help losing our capacity to be shocked and
alarmed.
We
have as president the closest thing to a nihilist in our history — a
man who believes in little or nothing, who has the impulse to burn down
rather than to build up. When the president eventually faces a genuine
crisis, his ignorance and inflammatory instincts will make everything
worse.
Republican
voters and politicians rallied around Mr. Trump in 2016, believing he
was anti-establishment when in fact he was anti-order. He turns out to
be an institutional arsonist. It is an irony of American history that
the Republican Party, which has historically valued order and
institutions, has become the conduit of chaos.
Peter Wehner, a senior
fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the previous
three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on July 4, 2017, on Page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Our Disrupted Republic. Today's Paper|Subscribe
Apparently there are still some that don't understand what the Green Party's purpose is. So let me explain.
There are two reasons, only two, that people run for federal office
under the Green Party. The first is personal ego and enrichment (and
free trips to Russia). The second is to help Republicans defeat
Democrats. That's it.
It never has anything to do with policy. Or with giving voters
another "choice". The Green Party isn't a political choice any more
than a lottery ticket is a retirement plan. And the people selling you
the Green Party know that, just like the ones selling you lottery
tickets do. Actually that's not fair to lottery tickets. Some people
have won the lottery. But in 20+ years of trying, no Green has come
anywhere close to winning a house or senate seat or a single electoral
vote. Blowing your money on lottery tickets is more rational than
blowing your vote on the Green Party.
With Jill Stein, if she actually believed any of her own bullshit,
she would be utterly devastated by the election. First, she gets about
1% of the vote. Second, the guy who wins proceeds to do the opposite of
everything in the Green Platform. The Greens like to bash Dems about
how bad the Dems did, but the Dems got 40 times as many votes in
November. Also the Dems hold infinitely more congressional seats than
the Green party ever has and ever will.
But, facing this epic defeat and humiliating showing, Stein is
(still) out bragging about the "critical role" she played. This is a
straightforward admission that her objective all along was not President
Stein, but President Trump, and that she feels her siphoning away votes
from Dems and convincing gullible alt-leftists that Trump was the
lesser evil was critical to Trump's victory.
She wanted Trump to win, she helped Trump win, and now she's happy about it. She's a Trump ally, period.
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams abruptly pleaded guilty
Thursday, nearly two weeks into a federal bribery trial that dragged
embarrassing details about his messy personal life and financial
struggles out into open court.
Williams will resign as the city’s top prosecutor as part of a deal
under which he pleaded guilty to one count related to accepting a bribe
from Bucks County businessman Mohammad Ali.
Asked by U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond whether he intended to
follow through with his resignation, Williams choked up and answered,
“humbly, sincerely and effective immediately.”
Diamond said he wanted Williams’ resignation letter couriered to Mayor Kenny’s office as soon as the hearing was over.
Williams remained somber looking throughout the guilty plea hearing.
“I’m just very sorry for all of this, your honor,” he said.
At a followup hearing to determine whether Williams should be jailed
immediately, defense attorney Thomas F. Burke argued the disgraced
prosecutor was not a flight risk.
“He has no means as the court can see to go anywhere. He has no
support. He’s deeply in debt and he doesn’t even have a car,” Burke
said.
Taking the witness stand to plead with a judge not to send him
directly to prison before sentencing, tears welled up in Williams’ eyes
while discussing his daughters.
He acknowledged he was broke, saying he had “probably about $150 to $200” in his bank account.
In addition to accepting that he could face a maximum 5 year term
when he is sentenced Oct. 24, Williams agreed to forfeit $64,878.22
While the 28 remaining counts against Williams were dismissed, he
“admits that he committed all of the conduct in those 29 counts,”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Zauzmer said.
“Williams took benefits repeatedly from Mr. Ali knowing that those
benefits were offered – at least in part – to influence him to take
official actions,” said Zauzmer.
Williams notified prosecutors he wanted to take the plea deal at 1 a.m.Thursday, said Zauzmer.
Sources close to the case say the deal is similar to one Williams was
offered – and turned down – one day before his indictment earlier this
year on 29 corruption-related counts including bribery, extortion and
honest services fraud.
Prior to his admission, prosecutors and Williams’ defense lawyers –
Thomas F. Burke and Trevan Borum – spent more than an hour huddled in
quiet conversation in the courtroom, while the district attorney was
nowhere to be seen.
His decision came after weeks of damaging testimony in which
government witnesses characterized him a shameless beggar who repeatedly
turned to the money of others to fund a lifestyle he couldn’t afford.
Two wealthy businessmen testified that they had showered the district
attorney with gifts of all-expenses-paid travel, luxury goods and even
cash in anticipation of the legal favors they might need from him.
And prosecutors had alleged that Williams delivered for them –
writing letters to throw his weight into their legal problems and
promising in one instance to intervene in a drug case brought by his
office.
Additionally, Williams was accused of misspending thousands of
dollars from his campaign fund on memberships to exclusive Philadelphia
social clubs, misusing city vehicles as if they were his own and
misappropriating money intended to fund his mother’s nursing home care.
Read a recap of Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams’ trial with our day-by-day updates and learn more with our explainer on everything you need to know about the case.
A Bare Majority of White Voters Are the Only Ones Happy With Trump
White Americans remain the only major demographic group in which the percentage of people who think Donald Trump is doing a good job outpaces the number who think he's doing poorly. That finding comes from Pew Research Center, which polled more than 2,500 adults around the U.S. between June 8-18. While African Americans and Latinos overwhelmingly…
Yes, SCREW YOU! F@CK YOU! And EVERYTHING ELSE YOU
I swear the next sob story I hear about some jackass who voted for
il douchebag whining and crying about how they feel betrayed by the
Clown Prince of Idiocracy I'm going find them and hurl a bushel full of
rotted apples at their stupid, whining, jerk face.
I have no sympathy, NONE, for the vast majority of the denizens of
the political wasteland who want us to feel their pain because their
fucking job went to Canada, or Mexico, or China, or was just fucking
closed so some vulture capitalist pig whom you admire so much for their
grit and monetary know-how can buy that new ivory covered back scratcher
(my obligatory Simpsonism)
Guess what, oh Servant of the Lord of the Dung, you got took and I don't give a damn.
You voted not just for the Grifter-in-Chief, but then you turned
around and voted for his Merry Band of Criminals. Yeah! I'm looking at
YOU Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. You who re-elected the odious
Republikkan senator from your state for some reason that only someone
with several advanced degrees in Behavioral Science focusing
specifically on the Stupid, the Lame, the Ignorant, the Bat Shit Moron
could possibly hope to comprehend.
Screw you, oh Joe Six-Pack and Sally Housecoat (Another Simpsonism)
who are getting on TV and singing your sad tale of how Carrier is
really, actually sending the jobs you held elsewhere... and YOU JUST
DON'T UNDERSTAND. I mean, "HE TOLD US THOSE JOBS WERE SAVED!"
So some (probably most) of you vague-witted harlequins happily
tossed away your vote on a man whose whole history has been one of, and
get this, 'NOT GIVING A FUCK ABOUT ANYONE BUT HIMSELF!' A simple ixquick
(shameless plug), google or whatever search engine you use, would have
shown you this.
But, Nooooooooooooo!!! Now, we're treated to seeing a half dozen of
you Swamp Creature rejects on TV telling us how betrayed you feel. The
funny part is... You really look surprised.
Weeeeeeeeellllllllll... screw you! Screw the person who was standing
to your left and to your right. Screw everyone who worked at Carrier
who voted for Trump.
My sympathies lie with those of you who didn't vote for the Swinish Lout that presently claims the title of President.
They deserve our sympathies.
But here's the thing, you won't see them on TV all glazy eyed, drooling, shaking their heads, saying, "I...I just don't get it."
That's probably why they don't get interviewed. They ought to send a
reporter to your town and do a segment on every Carrier employee who
voted Clinton beating the shit out of the Trump voters with padded
clubs.
But that would be too violent... maybe. And, if it were me who had
lost my job and they gave me a club, it'd take 15 people to pull me away
from you nit-witted trolls.
Moving on to another location in the Midwest, but still smack-dab in
the heart of Doofania (Phineas and Ferb), Fox6 and Money reports that
GE is closing their plant in Waukesha and move its 300-plus jobs to
Canada.
And yes... Yes... YEs... YES, the addlepated dwellers of Swale of
Stupid are SHOCKED! DISAPPOINTED! and SADDENED! this is happening.
I'm sure the DUH-nizens are all of those things and more.
Maybe... and just maybe now... YOU SHOULD HAVE F@CKING THOUGHT OF
THAT WHEN YOU NOT ONLY VOTED FOR THE ORANGE SWINE, BUT ALSO VOTED TO
RE-ELECT JOHNSON TO THE SENATE AND RYAN TO CONGRESS.
By a hefty margin of over 2:1 You Butt-Clowns voted for the poor
man's Mussolini. By over 2:1 you voted for the reject from the Movie
Leprechaun Paul Ryan (rejected because he was too sociopathic for the
part).
You want a good laugh. It's pathetic, but I laughed.
“Doesn’t he realize that we voted for him? He should have been there
and saw my wife crying. He should have been there,” Kenneth Olsen said
(of Ryan).
Poor... poor Kenneth Olsen. You voted for Truquemada and IT and now
you and your wife (who also likely voted for them) has a sad.
And why should Ryan show up? Do you have a hefty campaign donation
for him. Or, do you just want to sit there while he laughs at your
stupidity?
SCREW YOU!
Screw Bret Mattice, who voted for the first time...EVER! And guess
for whom the dimbulb voted? If you guessed the least qualified person on
the ballot, any ballot, in any country, at any time in history, you'd
be correct.
Do us all a favor Bret Mattice, don't ever vote again... please
Oh... and screw you!
Then there's this primary school refuse, Joe Barlow. In an
interview, supporter of the Annoying Orange reject, Joe Barlow, said
this....
Note... pay careful attention to your jaw. It may drop so hard and
so fast you could hurt yourself. My suggestion is to tie it off like
Jacob Marley in a Christmas Carol
“I don’t believe there’s hope for our plant. My hope is, companies
like that, that offshore all the work, I hope he follows through on his
35% tax and punishes those businesses,”
You see that? "I hope he follows through on his 35%...blah." Yeah!
Yeah! Yeah! He hopes Trump follows through on a campaign promise.
Screw You Joe. You and your Trumpists screwed over your fellow
employees, the one's who didn't vote for the squalid-one. The one's who
didn't just say, "How fucking stupid a vote can I cast? Hmmmmm. I know.
I'll vote for all three. Because what could possibly go wrong?"
Here's the difference between you People Under the Stairs and say,
some out of work guy, who is surfing through garbage dumps hoping to
find enough scrap metal that he can sell to survive. I can almost
understand them. They had nothing to lose. But... you... you F@CKERS had
good paying jobs. At the time, your plant in Wisconsin was NOT... I
repeat NOT in danger of closing. In fact, it was his election and the
inane rantings of the Evil Elf about the Import-Export Bank that got it
closed and moved on to Canada.
You had money! You had a House! You had something! You pittered it away for some unknown reason.
Write a book titled. "How NOT to be a squirrel brained jack-ass!"
Tell us what you were thinking, so we know what NOT to do
To my niece in Minnesota (still in the Midwest) who voted for Trump,
for one reason and ONE REASON ONLY.... (dum... er... drum roll. I'm
sure you already know the answer) "I did it for the babies."
Yes! Yes! Yes, ladies and gentlemen... Abortion! Abortion was the reason why she voted for the Fake Tanned Ogre! Abortion!
Now... now... she's all concerned because his policies could hurt
the children. You know... the boys and girls that are NOT little growing
pieces of tissue, that if removed from the womb would die within a few
hours. Actual living, breathing HUMAN BEINGS.
SCREW YOU! Screw you and Your fucking Abortion fixation
Slogging back to Indiana and a revisit to dimwit Helen Beristain and her undocumented husband.
Ms. Helen Beristain actually thought her husband would not get deported.
Laugh along with me folks. She's as jaw dropping stupid as the guys in Wisconsin.
Ms. Helen Beristain somehow believed her husband would not be
deported because only the 'Bad Hombres' would go. She said (before her
husband was shipped off to Mexico) "I don't think ICE is out there to
detain anyone and break families, no,"
She was, of course, shocked that her husband was kicked out.
How does she feel now? Don't know. According to CNN, she won't answer calls from any news sources.
Screw You Ms Helen Beristain. And screw Granger, Indiana... the very
Republican Town of Granger, Indiana. The shocked citizenry of the town
who thought Roberto would not be sent back because he was a good person,
'A Good Hombre'. Screw You
I could go on. There are so many of these stories. The dumb twerp in
Florida who was afraid of losing his insurance, but felt it would be
best to vote for the groper because he was certain it would be best for
the whole country to do so, even if it hurt him.
Good job, Buttercup! You lost out. And... here's the part you somehow missed... They're SCREWING everyone over.
Oh.. unless you're a millionaire.
The oxygen thieves, the simpletons who voted for his Assness, or at
the very least, wouldn't vote for Clinton because somehow... someway...
there was 'NO ACTUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.'
HYSTERICAL isn't it? Because if she were president right now,
Gorsuch, or someone worse would be on the Court... I guess. Oh... and
we'd be looking at selling off National Park Land. And of course, we'd
have a President beholden to the closest thing to a real-life Ernst
Stavro Blofeld, in Putin. And, of course, she'd have insulted half the
leaders of our allies by whining about electoral votes and actual votes
and her inauguration attendance and some other rubbish. And lied about
taping conversations in the White House (or did trump lie?)
Screw You! Screw You! Screw You!
(And for the sake of transparency; 1. I voted for Sanders in the
primary. 2. I did belong to the Clinton Group on DU. 3 I belonged to
every Democratic President Group for 2016 on DU. 4. I voted for Clinton
in the GE. Just in case you're thinking, "I wonder who rpannier voted
for?")
Or the countless stupid people across the country, male and female,
white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, African American, western
Asian, Protestants, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (yeah, I'm perplexed by
that as well) who, for some inexplicable reason got up out of bed and
said to themselves, "I'm going to do the FUCKING STUPIDEST THING I WILL
EVER do in my entire lifetime."
They somehow found a polling station and voted for that thing that
sits in the White House, in a bathrobe, screaming at a television set
and finding new and different ways to enrich his family and friends,
while screwing over everyone else.
Well... Screw You (he says calmly). You're an idiot. I cannot fix
this problem. Most of my family cannot fix this problem. Many of my
friends cannot. They got out and voted. They didn't vote for the
orange-faced fake-haired charlatan.
****************
I am finished. I have said my piece. I am still not at piece with the low wattage loser in the WH.
And... one last thought....
Screw You if You voted for Trump
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of animosity Donald Trump has
shown towards President Obama. Now he is bitching about the former
President using the word "mean", as if there is a trademark on the word
and only Donald Trump can use it. Give me a flippin' break!
What has the Donald's dander in a tizzy is how dare American voters
elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, TWICE, who
served this country with a graceful dignity and eloquence of speech, all
the while he and Michelle endured vilification and obstruction from
Conservatives since day one of his term.
The STENCH of Donald Trump and his Administration will take years to
eradicate from the White House once he leaves office either in a
straight jacket or handcuffs.
Election Hackers Altered Voter Rolls, Stole Private Data, Officials Say
Massimo Calabresi - Jun 22, 2017
The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.
In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME. Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.
The fact that private data was stolen from states is separately providing investigators a previously unreported line of inquiry in the probes into Russian attempts to influence the election. In Illinois, more than 90% of the nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers, and a quarter contained the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, according to Ken Menzel, the General Counsel of the State Board of Elections.
Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the investigations tell TIME.
“If any campaign, Trump or otherwise, used inappropriate data the questions are, How did they get it? From whom? And with what level of knowledge?” the former top Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, Michael Bahar, tells TIME. “That is a crux of the investigation."
A unionized iron worker is taking on Paul Ryan in a 2018 showdown in
Wisconsin. Randy Bryce's every man charm has taken the political world by
storm, and could be the key to refreshing the Democratic Party. Ring of
Fire's Josh Gay discusses how.
Lehman's Hardware is a retail store located in Kidron, Ohio.
Originally specializing in products used by the Amish community, it has become known worldwide as a source for non-electric goods.
The 35,000 square foot facility bills itself as a "Low Tech Superstore" and a "Purveyor of Historical Technology," both of which are reflected in their motto, "Simple Products for a Simpler Life."
The quarter mile long structure is made up of the remnants of a log cabin and three pre-Civil War buildings, including a hand-hewn barn. It is also a popular tourist destination.
Lehman's also maintains a smaller, more traditional hardware store in Mount Hope, Ohio, where their Amish customers may shop with less interference from curious tourists. In addition to the two stores, there is also a catalog and online business.
It's because it was a heavily Republican district, and Republican
voters, just like the politicians they elect, always put party before
country. You couldn't get most southern Republicans to vote for any
Democrat over any Republican with a car battery and wet alligator clips.
They just don't fucking do it. You could run Josef Stalin, Pol Pot,
Genghis Khan, or a big old cow shit in the South and it would win
elections in a lot of districts. I'm not kidding. If you dressed
someone up in a cow shit costume and ran a campaign as "Vote Cow Shit in
2018. I Love Guns, Jesus, and Murka, and Fuck Democrats", then Cow Shit
would win elections all over the south in landslides. LANDSLIDES.
Look at my handle. Pun on yellow dog Democrat. You know the origin
of that, don't you? When the Democratic Party was conservative and
racist, you couldn't get a Republican elected in the South, ever. When
the parties traded places with respect to ideology, southern voters
flipped and now it's just the reverse. And it's much, much, much worse
with Fox News and right wing hate radio rationalizing all their dumbass
votes and the awful fucking bigotry.
It's the fucking South, y'all. When you have a region full of
people waving flags over a failed rebellion that got the region
shitstomped over 150 years ago, how the hell can you expect rational
behavior? I was born in Georgia. Raised in Tennessee. I know my
people, and they are fucked up. Clannish and fucked up. They're
wonderful people if they recognize you as their own, and are the worst
shitheads on earth if they don't. You don't need Russian intervention
or hacked voting machines in the South for even a mean, obnoxious,
self-righteous, bigoted, judgmental, out of touch asshole like Karen
Handel to win. All you have to do is put an (R) beside her name and
stand back. It's a goddamn miracle that Ossoff was within 20% in that
district.
So damn, just stop it with the voting machines bullshit. You want
to know the main reason we lost? Because of 40% voter turnout. If
Democrats and/or progressives - everyone here obviously excepted - would
get off their stupid asses and just go vote, we'd win a lot more
elections and even maybe pull an upset here and there. The higher the
turnout, the better Democrats do. I don't know what the solution to that
is. Sometimes I think we need to put a shock collar around every
progressive in the country and zap the fuck out of them until they go
goddamn VOTE. Fuck, I'm disgusted with tonight.
Republicans in Washington, D.C. might be cancelling their month-long
August vacation because they just haven’t accomplished enough of their
agenda. Keep in mind, that agenda involves doing away with safety
regulations, cutting taxes for millionaires, and taking healthcare away
from millions of American citizens. Ring of Fire’s Farron Cousins
discusses this.
A good-sized chunk of Representative Steve Scalise's congressional career has been devoted to making guns easier to get. Scalise, a Louisiana Republican who is the Majority Whip in the House of Representatives, was one of five victims
shot by James T. Hodgkinson in Alexandria, Virginia. The wannabe mass
murderer was carrying a semiautomatic rifle and a pistol. Hodgkinson was
gunned
down and killed by Capitol police, but he had apparently come to the
baseball field to specifically take out Republicans. A motivation beyond
a deranged vision of how to achieve progressive goals hasn't been
announced.
Scalise is proudly, even obnoxiously devoted to the Second Amendment. He
has an A+ rating from the NRA and a 100% pro-gun voting record, and he
has, on many occasions, spoken against any laws that might even
minimally effect the free acquisition of all kinds of guns, including
the kind of rifle used today on him.
On April 25, 2013, Scalise made a floor speech where
he used the Sandy Hook massacre of children to support the rights of
gun owners. "I think they counted over 40 different laws that were
broken by the Sandy Hook murderer," Scalise said. "Then somebody is
going to tell you that one more law, which makes it harder for
law-abiding citizens to get a gun, would have stopped him from doing
that." The congressman doesn't mention that a law banning assault
weapons would have actually slowed down Adam Lanza. And we're not even
allowed to discuss banning handguns anymore, which would have done a
great deal to stop the bloodshed.
Scalise co-sponsored a resolution that praised the Supreme Court for its Heller decision that eliminated limits on gun ownership in Washington, D.C. Prior to the decision, he had co-sponsored a bill that would have done the same thing, including repealing the ban on semiautomatic guns. And he co-wrote a 2015 letter
to the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
condemning a reclassification of a kind of bullet. In the letter, he
talks about the "the failed 'Assault Weapons Ban.'"
A more substantial action was that he voted to overturn
President Obama's rule that prevented people who had been determined to
be mentally ill from purchasing guns. I'd also bet that Scalise
supports laws that allow people arrested for domestic violence to retain
their guns. Hodgkinson had been charged several times for that kind of assault.
Look, this isn't a "blame the victim" type of thing. There is nothing
that Steve Scalise did today that brought on the shooting. And I hope he
and all the other victims recover fully. But if a pig is gonna build a
house out of straw, he shouldn't be too shocked when a wolf comes along
to blow it down. It'd be something like a miracle if this caused
Scalise to reconsider his blind devotion to the NRA and its perverse
version of the Second Amendment.
More likely, though, it will just make him and his firearms-mad
colleagues double-down and demand even more guns and fewer restrictions.
And they will blame Kathy Griffin, Shakespeare in the Park, Black Lives
Matter, angry liberals, and anyone and anything for this rather than
take a single second to look in the hospital mirror to ask what they
could do differently.
Like maybe stop talking romantically about using guns to solve problems.
I don't have much to add to the Comey hearing. It's become clear that depending on your political affiliation,
you either saw a former FBI director call Trump a liar and lay the
groundwork for an obstruction of justice case (while not so subtly
hinting that Attorney General Jeff Sessions can't be trusted) or you saw
some shit about Hillary Clinton's emails, and that's all that matters
to you.
The objective truth is that Democrats stayed focused on
the serious issue of Russian interference with American elections -
which could bite either party in the ass at any given moment - while
Republicans spent their time focusing on Hillary Clinton and the
occasional semantical argument about whether Trump directly
told Comey to stop the Russian investigation.
That's the plain and
simple reality of the situation, but good fucking luck explaining to
that a not insignificant portion of the population who doesn't even
think the Russian situation is real. (On the Right or Left.)
So here's veteran Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon, more famously known for being the creative force behind HBO's The Wire, along with writing Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. Long story short, Simon knows his shit, and his insights on the Comey hearing are worth reading.
Thread:
A year with some good detectives taught me that often WHAT ISN'T SAID
is the actual tell. And note what isn't discussed between....
...Trump
and Comey. At no point does Trump make any concerted effort to discern
whether or not Russia did in fact attempt to interfere...
...in
the election. Indeed, he notes that the claim has created a cloud over
his governance -- so he can scarcely say that it isn't...
...of
real concern to him; his concern is premised in this meeting. Yet, he
doesn't inquire as to what Comey and the FBI is yet discerning..
...about
Russia's role. He doesn't even do so as a means of disparaging the
claim. (i.e. "I'm sure you're finding out that there's nothing..
...to
the claims of Russian interference, right?" It. Doesn't. Come. Up. In
this regard, I am reminded of every innocent and guilty man...
...I
ever witnessed in an interrogation room. The innocent ask a multitude
of questions about what the detectives know, or why the cops...
...might
think X or Y or whether Z happened to the victim. The guilty forget to
inquire. They know. An old law school saw tells young...
...trial
lawyers to remind their clients to stay curious in front of a jury.
There's a famous tale of a murder case in which the body of...
...the
defendant's wife had not been recovered yet he was charged with the
killing. Defense attorney tells the jury in final argument...
..there's
been no crime and the supposed victim will walk through the courtroom
doors in 10 seconds. 30 seconds later the door remains...
...shut.
"Ok, she isn't coming today. But the point is all of you on jury
looked, and that my friends is reasonable doubt. You must acquit."
Jury
comes back in twenty minutes: Guilty. Attorney goes to the foreman: "I
thought I had you." Foreman: "You had me and ten others. But...
"...juror number 8 didn't look at the door, he looked at your client. And he didn't eye the door, he was examining his nails.
Even when he was completely alone with Comey, Trump didn't look at the door. He eyed his nails. It's an absolute tell.
Why?
Because Trump already knows that there is some fixed amount of Russian
interference on his behalf, and possibly, collusion as well.
And
now to pretend that won't be greeted with responses about Hillary
Clinton's emails or how I'm a neoliberal shill. What the hell is
happening out there?
1. Hey, there, Americans who voted for Donald Trump for president. I
just wanna offer a hearty "thanks" for putting Trump in office. I mean, I
thought things would be crazy, but, seriously, I never expected Trump
to exceed expectations so quickly. Are you having fun yet? Are you tired
of winning? Man, I sure am. I can't handle all this winning.
That's what it is, right? Trump's wins? Having the former director of the FBI testify
under oath that Trump is a debased, immoral lying liar who lies so much
that you gotta be ready for more lies? That's winning, no?
Having an attorney general who perjured himself repeatedly? Winning so hard that it hurts! And bonus winning: Trump never asked
Comey about Russian interference in American elections. That means
Trump knew the answer already. Or he didn't give a shit because it
benefited him.
Goddamn, I don't see how you Trump voters can stand all this fucking winning.
You can brag about all these wins, Trump voters. All nearly 63 million
of you, every single one a racist, moron, hypocrite, and/or liar. You
own this. How's that feel? Is any of this getting through the Breitbart
haze and Fox "news" mist? When tens of millions of people lose their
health insurance and thousands of people die, that's on you, you dumbass motherfuckers. When another banking crisis wipes out your meager retirement funds or makes you lose your home, that's also on you.
You did this to the nation. You decided that you'd rather tear the
country down because of some delusion that the rich man was gonna make
you rich, too. You decided to ignore every single person, even
Republicans, who told you that you were flushing the United States down
the shitter, and you sure showed us. Yeah, you did.
You need to choke on your votes. You need to feel ashamed. When this is
over, even if we have to wait until 2019, you need to beg for
forgiveness from those of us who knew better.
But you won't. At this point, you could walk into a room where your
mother has been raped and murdered, see Trump standing there with a
bloody knife and a dripping dick, and you’d still say, “Why do libtards
hate America?”
2. Let me put on my English professor hat for a moment here. Trump told
Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting
Flynn go.” Starting
with Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, to some on the right, this meant that
Trump was merely stating something that he was wishing might come true,
like Comey was a well he had tossed a penny into, with no real
expectation that it would.
And that might be right if Trump had told Comey, “I hope unicorns are
real.” But he didn’t. Instead, Trump asked everyone who was in the room
to leave him alone with Comey. And then he expressed this “hope.” If
you’re alone with your boss and your boss says, “I hope you can finish
those documents by morning,” there is an implicit “or else.”
To see this in any way other than as a command is to descend into
“depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is” levels of linguistic
fuckery. Fuck you, defenders of Trump. Everyone fucking knows what he
was saying. Let’s stop pretending that all of a sudden it’s an innocent,
earnest desire said theoretically, as if you have no control over it.
“I hope Grandma doesn’t have cancer” is a fuck of a lot different than
“I hope you don’t make me punch you.”
3. What Republicans are doing now is asking, “Who do you believe? The
President? Or your own lying ears?” Words don’t have meaning. To write
up a private meeting and then give those notes to the media is called
“leaking,” even though no classified information was involved.
“Vindication” apparently means “I don't fucking care what anyone says.”
4. A few things are clear. The President of the United States is a liar. It’s something that everyone around him has said about him. It’s something that he has said himself.
And if the president can’t be trusted, then why should anyone listen to
anything he says or promises? (See #1. Those fuckers will believe him
even when they're standing in their own radioactive shit in the middle
of a scorched wasteland.)
5. The vast majority of Americans who want Trump stopped,
who don’t believe in his agenda, who think something is incredibly
fucked here, are on their own. Democrats have virtually no power right
now. And the Republicans have no interest in holding him to account.
Nothing will happen unless Democrats take back at least the House in the
2018 midterm elections. Until then, we can look forward to nonstop
scandal and the cruel dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, two things
that will rapidly send the United States spiraling into chaos.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: What happens now is on
Republicans. Trump's attempt to influence the FBI investigation is way
worse, on so many levels, than a president lying under oath about
whether or not he got a blow job in the Oval Office. But that was enough
for Republicans to drag us through the Clinton impeachment, enough for
them to say that the rule of law must take precedent.
These hypocritical sows of the GOP, many of whom were there back in the
late 1990's, just roll around in their own mud and waste, telling the
rest of us to join them because they're not gonna stop.
When will the people of West Virginia and Pennsylvania, those
stalwart Trump voters who believe he’ll be bringing back coal jobs,
finally figure out they’ve been had?
History suggests it's
unrealistic to expect people to change their minds quickly. This is a
pattern that has held for centuries. In the 1600's the Salem witch trials
dragged on for eight long months before townsfolk finally began to
realize that they had been caught up in an irrational frenzy. More
recently, Americans proved during Watergate that they are reluctant to
turn on a president they have just elected despite mounds of evidence
incriminating him in scandalous practices. The Watergate burglary took
place on June 17, 1972. But it wasn't until April 30, 1973 – eleven
months later – that his popularity finally fell below 50 percent. This
was long after the Watergate burglars had been tried and convicted and
the FBI had confirmed news reports that the Republicans had played dirty
tricks on the Democrats during the campaign. Leaked testimony had even
showed that former Attorney General John Mitchell knew about the
break-in in advance. But not until Nixon fired White House Counsel John
Dean and White House aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman resigned
did a majority turn against the president. And even at that point
Nixon's poll numbers stood higher than Trump's. Nixon: 48 percent;
Trump: 42 percent.
It's not just conservative voters who are
reluctant to change their minds. So are liberals. After news reports
surfaced in the 1970s proving that John Kennedy was a serial philanderer
millions of his supporters refused to acknowledge it. A poll in 2013
show a majority of Americans still think of him as a good family man.
Thus
far not even many leading Democrats have been willing to come out in
favor of Trump's impeachment. Cory Booker, the liberal senator from New
Jersey, said this past week it's simply too soon. And if a guy like
Booker is not yet prepared to come straight out for impeachment, why
should we think Trump voters would be willing to? It is only just in the
last few weeks that polls show that a plurality of voters now favor
Trump's impeachment. (Twelve percent of self-identified Trump voters
share this view, which is remarkable.)
It's no mystery why people
are reluctant to change their minds. Social scientists have produced
hundreds of studies that explain the phenomenon. Rank partisanship is
only part of the answer. Mainly it’s that people don't like to admit
they were wrong, which is what they would be doing if they concede that
Trump is not up to the job. When Trump voters hear news that puts their
leader in an unfavorable light they experience cognitive dissonance. The
natural reaction to this is to deny the legitimacy of the source of the
news that they find upsetting. This is what explains the harsh attacks
on the liberal media. Those stories are literally making Trump voters
feel bad. As the Emory University social scientist Drew Westen
has demonstrated, people hearing information contrary to their beliefs
will cease giving it credence. This is not a decision we make at the
conscious level. Our brain makes it for us automatically.
So what
leads people to finally change their minds? One of the most convincing
explanations is provided by the Theory of Affective Intelligence. This
mouthful of a name refers to the tendency of people experiencing
cognitive dissonance to feel anxiety when they do so. As social
scientist George Marcus has explained, when the burden of hanging onto
an existing opinion becomes greater than the cost of changing it, we
begin to reconsider our commitments. What's the trigger? Anxiety. When
there's a mismatch between our views of the way the world works and
reality we grow anxious. This provokes us to make a fresh evaluation.
What
this research suggests is that we probably have a ways to go before
Trump voters are going to switch their opinions. While some are
evidently feeling buyers' remorse, a majority aren't. They're just not
anxious enough yet. Liberals need not worry. The very same headlines
that are giving them an upset stomach are making it more and more likely
Trump voters are also experiencing discomfort. What might push them
over the edge? One possibility would be a decision to follow through on
his threat to end subsidies to insurance companies under Obamacare,
leading to the collapse of the system, and the loss of coverage for
millions of Trump voters. That’s become more and more likely since the
Senate is apparently unable to pass the repeal and replace measure Trump
has been counting on. So liberals just have to wait and watch. Will
the story unfold like Watergate? Every day the answer increasingly
seems yes.
An optimist would argue that social media will
help push people to change their minds faster now than in the past. But
social media could also have the opposite effect. People living in a
bubble who get their media from biased sources online may be less likely
to encounter the contrary views that stimulate reflection than was
common, say, in the Nixon years when virtually all Americans watched the
mainstream network news shows. Eventually, one supposes, people will
catch on no matter how they consume news. Of late even Fox News viewers
have heard enough disturbing stories about Trump to begin to reconsider
their commitment to him. That is undoubtedly one reason why Nate
Silver found that so many Trump voters are reluctant to count themselves
among the strongest supporters.
Inside
Russia Today’s American headquarters in Washington, across from the
receptionist’s desk stamped by a lime green “RT” banner, an ad starring
Ed Schultz and Larry King plays on a large screen TV.
Schultz and
King, whom he dwarfs, stand opposite one another, marveling at the
success of the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, which they
both agree is astounding. “Follow the 2016 campaign right here on RT
America!” Schultz says. King points at the camera and delivers the
network’s slogan, “And question more.”
Founded 11 years ago
Thursday in September of 2005, Russia Today is a Moscow-based,
English-language news outlet which is funded by the Kremlin and serves
to promote Russian state propaganda, like stories about the West
collapsing and the CIA being to blame for the downing of Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, which according to RT, Russia did not
invade.
In 2010, RT branched out to the United States, launching RT America. In a 2014 BuzzFeed investigation,
Rosie Gray reported former RT America employees describing “an
atmosphere of censorship and pressure” at the network—like orders to
report on Germany as a “failed state” despite any evidence that the
country fits the criteria.
One RT anchor, Liz Wahl, protested by
quitting live on air. She later described
herself as “Putin’s pawn.” Casual viewing of the network shows a focus
on negative stories about the U.S., from claims that American Olympians
received special treatment which allowed them to take drugs to outward
mocking of the Democrats’ presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, despite
claiming non-partisanship.
Nevertheless, the network today
broadcasts shows hosted by Schultz, a former sportscaster turned
right-wing radio host turned liberal bullhorn; King, the longtime host
of Larry King Live; and Jesse Ventura, the former wrestler and governor of Minnesota who promotes 9/11 truther conspiracies, among a handful of other less notable names.
Ventura makes sense in a way—RT is a network, after all, with an Illuminati correspondent. Schultz and King, however, are head scratchers.
Both
men left their major American networks—Schultz, when his MSNBC show was
canceled in July 2015; King, when he retired from CNN in 2010—amid
sinking ratings and dwindling popularity.
But that hardly makes them
unique in television, where hosts can come and go with the seasons.
Neither
was persona non grata in the U.S. media when they decided to work for
what amounts to an arm of the Russian government, legitimizing the
network with their presence—King, due to his long history as a reliable
and trustworthy interviewer, and Schultz, for his reputation as an
emotional, liberal populist who says what’s on his mind.
“Endorsements
from prominent people can bring legitimacy to unknown brands,” Nicco
Mele, the director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and
Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said. “That’s true of
tennis shoes and that’s true of media properties.” Hiring King and
Schultz, Mele said, grants RT America a “patina of respectability”
although, unlike Al Jazeera English, which was initially feared to be an
extension of the Qatari government, RT America has not made it a point
to build a robust newsroom or pursue shoe-leather reporting. As for
concerns about RT, Mele said, “I don’t feel like it’s been overstated.”
Amid
Trump’s decision to appear on King’s program last week—which was
criticized by, among others, President Obama—the hosts’ strange
association with the Russian government has come into focus just as
concerns about Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election have reached a
fever pitch.
RT America, with its corn fed media personalities serving to soften the blow of blatantly
anti-American Russian propaganda, now looks like proof of those
concerns, available for viewing 24 hours a day on a cable channel near
you.
And the question remains, why would any American work there if they could avoid it?
“Desperation,”
Jeff Jarvis, a professor at the City University of New York’s Graduate
School of Journalism, said. “To go on RT is—to me—primarily just a
desperate move to have a camera in front of you with willful disregard
for who’s putting that camera there.”
Schultz had initially been eager to do an interview about his role at RT and provide his own answer to that question.
He
scheduled the conversation to take place immediately at his office near
the White House after receiving the request on Tuesday afternoon.
“Your
story just got better,” he wrote in an email. “Obama just called out
Trump for doing an interview on RT. The Russian propaganda channel. We
are not propaganda. Yes, I will speak with you.”
But then something changed abruptly.
“I guess I cant do the interview, [sic]” he wrote, just 12 minutes later.
The
receptionist said he was at his usual post on the 7th floor, but he
refused to come down. “I’m sorry for this… I’m just aware of how unfair
the DB has been to RT,” he said, perhaps referring to the sometimes-stormy history between the two organizations. “I’m not willing to take that chance.
Thanks Ed.”
When
Schultz was on MSNBC, he was an enthusiastic critic of Trump, whom he
lanced as a “racist,” and Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he
derisively labeled “Putie.” But since joining RT in January, The News With Ed Schultz host has been neutered.
He’s an anchor now, he stresses, not a pundit. But, as Michael Crowley noted for Politico Magazine,
his shows often focus on U.S. missteps at home and abroad, from
oversized budgets to failing policies in the Middle East. Trump, rather
than being called out, is instead given an exceedingly fair shake,
characterized as someone who’s “tapped into anger among working people.”
It’s Putin-approved programming, in other words.
Obama,
speaking in Philadelphia on Tuesday, said Trump, “just last week went
on Russian state television to talk down our military and to curry favor
with Vladimir Putin. He loves this guy!”
Trump
has repeatedly praised Putin and even parroted the Kremlin talking
point that Russia did not seize Crimea, and the Russian conspiracy
theory that Obama founded ISIS. Thousands of Twitter accounts, known for
pushing demonstrably-fake Russian news stories, are also reliably on
the #TrumpTrain.
When his campaign was run by Paul Manafort, a lobbyist who worked for
Russian oligarchs (among other unsavory characters), they took the
unprecedented step of softening the Republican Party platform’s language regarding how farthe United States would go in defending Ukraine against Russian incursion.
And
Russia has appeared to exert influence over the democratic process in
other ways. The hack of the Democratic National Committee is widely considered, within the U.S. intelligence community, to have been the work of the Russian government. Further, Wikileaks, which is suspected
of having ties to Russia, has been working overtime on behalf of Trump,
taunting the release of materials that would be damaging to Clinton’s
campaign and even, on Twitter (before deleting it), taking a poll of
which illness people thought Clinton was suffering from.
A
spokesperson for Trump attempted to quell concerns about his RT
appearance—during which he criticized the American media and said claims
that the Russians were meddling in the election were probably just
Democratic talking points—by making the dubious claim that Trump simply
didn’t know the show was for Russian state television, but thought it
was for King’s podcast. Then Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway,
said the appearance was just a “favor” to his longtime friend, whose
CNN show he frequented.
King could not be reached for an interview
as of press time, but in response to questions about his association
with RT, he’s often claimed that he is not employed by the network and
they simply license his material. That doesn’t explain why King stars in
at least two ads for the network, where he says the network’s slogan.
King’s publicist was unaware of the ads when asked about them.
One
former RT America anchor, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said
King’s claim of independence from RT is suspicious, given his chummy
relationship with the Russian news director.
When the former
anchor was at RT, King taped his show “a few doors down” from the news
director’s office. “They meet and they talk,” the former anchor said. In
King’s interview with Trump, King asked questions that were, in the
former anchor’s telling, “questions that I would’ve been asked to ask if
I was interviewing a congressman or something like that.”
Before
King came onboard, the former anchor remembered, “It was kind of like a
rumor he was coming on and we were all like, ‘What? Why would Larry King
come here?’ It makes no sense.”
The former anchor said, “The Russian news director, I remember he was really, really excited to get him on board.”
For RT, King’s decision to associate with the network was “like Christmas.”
“A
big part of the strategy is to use American voices to spread these
pro-Kremlin messages or point out U.S. hypocrisy,” the former anchor
said. “So, if you have someone like Larry King do that, it really adds
legitimacy… The whole thing with RT is kind of, like, using U.S.
officials and U.S. media figures.”
Still, Trump’s greatest
defender was not a member of his campaign staff or an outside surrogate.
It was his onetime enemy, Schultz.
“It should be pointed out that
the Clinton campaign has refused interviews on RT America,” Schultz
said in a homemade video he posted online. “This is manufactured news by
the Clinton campaign to vilify Donald Trump and connect him to Vladimir
Putin, and that’s their strategy to win the election.”
He added,
“It is so sad and so small and so elementary and I think it’s hurting
Hillary Clinton, which I think is even more than sad.”
Meanwhile,
Schultz was deciding whether or not to change his mind about canceling
our interview.
“Let me think on it,” he said. “I don’t need the story. I
do this job because I love it, not to be the focus of some story.”
He then told me he could be found at the White House, where liberal activists were protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline.
He
stood on the grass outside the protest in a pinstripe suit and royal
blue shirt, talking on the phone.
He is a tall and broad figure, with
rust-colored hair and small blue eyes that fight against his fleshy
eyelids to make contact with the world.
“I’m sorry that it kinda
worked out that way,” he said about the inconvenience. He claimed it was
his decision to cancel the interview, not RT’s. “I have to respect the
people I’m working for,” he said.
He stared off at the protest, a troubled look on his face. “Our world is fucked up, isn’t it?” he asked.
He said he’d recently taken a “chance” by talking to TheWashington Post,
but was unhappy with the attention in the end—though he wouldn’t
divulge why, or if it had led to trouble at RT. “I’m just at a point in
time in my career where I just, I don’t need any publicity,” he said. “I
do this job ’cause I love it. I’ve never really figured out why the
media covers the media, you know? I’m a reporter just like you are.”
Just
then a protester approached with a stack of signs and asked if Schultz
would like one. “No, thank you, sir,” Schultz said. The protester looked
at him skeptically. “Your days of signs are over?” he asked. Schultz
laughed through a frown. “No, it’s not over,” he said.
Asked if it
bothered him when he was criticized for working for what almost
everyone outside of the Russian government believes is a propaganda
network, Schultz said, “Well, it doesn’t bother me because I know it’s
not the truth, you know? There’s so much in the media that’s not the
truth. You know, so I go with what I know and I go with my instincts and
I go with the facts.”
Schultz emphasized that he’s now “in a
totally different role than what I was doing at MSNBC. I was doing an
opinion show. I’m a nightly news anchor now, I don’t—if you watch my
show, at 8 o’clock—I don’t give opinions.” Although, he was eager to
give his critical opinion of Clinton after Trump’s RT interview proved
controversial.
Still, Schultz called the alleged change “rather
refreshing,” and said the reason he didn’t seek out a job on another
American network was because he wanted to do something different and he
didn’t want to rival MSNBC, where he said he still has a lot of friends.
“I feel very comfortable about being fair to Trump,” he said, “I think I’ve been very fair to him.”
Reminded
how much he used to hate Trump, Schultz said, “Um, well, then I guess
that kind of shows my opinions aren’t getting in the way, right?”
Suddenly, a look of concern spread across Schultz’s face.
He
never wanted to be interviewed, he said, and despite giving a reporter
his location and answering questions for several minutes, he didn’t want
to be quoted. He grew incensed and accusatory, but then seemed to try
to calm himself by saying he was comfortable with everything he had said
on the record.
He said he didn’t want to answer any more questions, but then he ran after me, in a state of total panic.
“I’m asking you professionally to not write anything about me,” he said.
Informed
that I couldn’t promise that, since I was there talking to him to
report a story partially about him—something he knew—his face turned
red.
He moved closer and stared into my eyes, and then he screamed
at me, divulging something personal and wholly unrelated to both RT and
the conflict at hand.
“This is a hit job, I know it is!” he screamed again.
Later,
in an email, he said, “I’m on record asking you not to do s story on
me. I did not know I was being recorded. I don’t want any coverage . I’m
professionally asking you to not write about me.
Thank you Ed [sic].”
A few hours later, he called my phone and hung up.
The most important thing we have learned this year is that when
the Republican Party was hijacked by a dangerous fascist who
threatens to destroy the institutions that make America great and
free, most Republicans up and down the organizational chart stood
behind him and insisted he ought to be president.
Some did this because they are fools who do not understand why
Trump is dangerous.
Some did it because they were naïve enough to believe he could be
controlled and manipulated into implementing a normal Republican
agenda.
Of course, there were the minority of Republicans who did what
was right and withheld their support from Trump: people like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, Sen. Ben Sasse
of Nebraska, and Hewlett-Packard CEO and megadonor Meg Whitman,
with her calling Trump "a threat to the survival of the
republic."
I want to focus on a fourth group: Republican politicians who
understand exactly how dangerous Donald Trump is but who have
chosen to support him anyway for reasons of strategy, careerism,
or cowardice.
Cowards and scoundrels
I am talking, for example, about Sen. Marco Rubio, who in the
primary called Trump an "erratic individual" who must not be
trusted with nuclear weapons — and then endorsed him for
president.
I am talking about Sen. Ted Cruz, who called Trump a
"pathological liar" and "utterly amoral" — and then endorsed him for president, even though
Trump never apologized for threatening to "spill the beans" on
Cruz's wife and suggesting Cruz's father was involved in the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Most of all, I'm talking about House Speaker Paul Ryan, a man whose
pained, blue eyes suggest he desperately wants to cry for help.
He's a man who runs around the country pathetically trying to
pretend that Trump does not exist and that the key issue is his
congressional caucus' "Better Way" agenda. And he's a man who, of
his own free will, seeks to help Donald Trump become president.
These men are not fools like Ben Carson.
US Sen. Marco Rubio of
Florida.Thomson
Reuters
To borrow a phrase from Rubio, they know exactly what they are
doing: They are taking an action that risks the destruction of
the American republic to advance their personal interests.
They know what Whitman knows about the risks Trump poses to
America. Rubio himself warned specifically of the risk of Trump
starting a nuclear war! But they do not care.
I can conclude from the available evidence only that they love
their careers more than they love America. And they are why I
quit the Republican Party this week.
Why I was a Republican
I'm not a conservative. I know a lot of you already thought my
Republican affiliation was a trolling exercise, and honestly, my
registration change
was probably overdue.
I became a Republican as a teenager because of my upbringing in
Massachusetts, a state where the GOP has produced five good
governors in my lifetime, from Bill Weld (now the Libertarian
Party's vice-presidential nominee) to Charlie Baker. I worked for
Mitt Romney when he ran for governor, and while I did not like
his presidential campaigns, I think he has a record in
Massachusetts he can be proud of.
All four living current and former Republican governors of
Massachusetts oppose Trump.
I stayed a Republican because of my background working in state
and local government finance, a policy area where a
well-functioning Republican Party can bring important restraint.
I have voted Republican, for example, in each of the past three
New York City mayoral races.
I don't think it was ridiculous to be in a party that I disagreed
with on a lot of national issues. Change is made through party
coalitions, and I thought the Republican Party was where I was
more likely to be able to improve ideas at the margin in the long
run. Being a member of a party does not obligate you to vote for
its bad candidates in the meantime.
But what this election has made clear is that policy is not the
most important problem with the Republican Party.
Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska
at the CPAC conference for conservatives in
March.REUTERS/Gary
Cameron
The GOP was vulnerable to hacking
The Republican Party had a fundamental vulnerability: Because of
the
fact-free environment so many of its voters live in, and
because of the
anti-Democrat hysteria that had been willfully whipped up by
so many of its politicians, it was possible for the party to be
taken over by a fascist promising revenge.
And because there are only two major parties in the United
States, and either of the parties' nominees can become president,
such vulnerability in the Republican Party constitutes
vulnerability in our democracy.
I can't be a part of an organization that creates that kind of
risk.
What parties are for
My editor asked why I became a Democrat instead of an
independent. I did that because I believe political parties are
key vehicles for policy making, and choosing not to join one is
choosing to give up influence.
I agree with Sasse, the senator from Nebraska, that parties exist
in service of policy ends and that loyalty to the party
should be contingent on whether loyalty serves those ends.
Because of this, it is worth joining a party even if you do not
intend to be a partisan, and even if you will often oppose what
the party does.
Sasse was one of the earliest and loudest voices of resistance to
Trump in the Republican Party, and after the intra-GOP civil war
that is sure to ensue from Trump's loss, I wonder whether he will
decide remaining in the GOP does a service to the ends he cares
about.
Sasse is a lot more conservative than I am, so I don't expect him
to become a Democrat. It makes sense for people like him and
Kasich to try, after the election, to wrest control of the party
away from the conspiracy nuts and proto-fascists.
But I believe they will fail. And I'm not going to stick around
to watch.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article said Ted Cruz
had called Donald Trump a "con artist." It was Marco Rubio who
called him that. It's become difficult to keep track of which
Trump endorsers said which things about Trump's manifest
unfitness to be president.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Insider.