By Jonathan S. Tobin
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Jeff Flake’s retreat from the Senate while skewering
Trump won’t advance conservatism. With impeachment a left-wing obsession,
Republicans must pick a side.
Senator Jeff Flake is clearly a realist. But it’s far
from clear that he’s the hero many in the media are cheering this week, after
he gave a speech denouncing President Donald Trump. He also noted in the speech
that he would not be running for office again next year.
Given his grim poll numbers, Flake was simply bowing to
political facts by waving the white flag on his reelection fight. It’s
difficult to claim that he just wrote a new chapter in Profiles in Courage. Trump and those who laud the president are
enemies of both conservatism and democracy, Flake cried — and then he announced
his intentions to abandon the field of political battle.
Like other recent rhetorical attacks on Trump from former
president George W. Bush and Flake’s fellow Arizona senator John McCain,
Flake’s pointed criticisms of Trump’s character flaws and behavior failed to directly
address the question that conservatives are going to have answer in the coming
months and years as the liberal drumbeat for impeachment grows. How can
Republicans simultaneously acquiesce to the liberal crusade to topple Trump
while maintaining their integrity and advancing the conservative policy goals
that can be achieved in the foreseeable future only via cooperation with the
current administration?
If Flake, Bush, and McCain are now winning more cheers
from Democrats than from Republicans, it’s because none of them have an answer
to that question. Trump’s character flaws are worth serious criticism, but the
moral calculus we must resolve is twofold: Do Republicans wish to be morally
complicit in Trump’s bad behavior? And are we so offended by him that we’re
willing to let our anger sink our policy agenda? If the issue is saving
conservatism from Trump, how does sacrificing conservative policy goals in
order to register distaste for the president do anything but help liberals
preserve and revive the Obama agenda?
Flake is right that Trump has helped drag American
politics to new depths with his “reckless, outrageous, and undignified”
behavior. When attacked, Trump counters with shockingly personal assaults on
his foes; these and his “flagrant disregard for truth and decency” are deeply
troubling. But Flake’s clear suggestion that Trump is a tangible threat to the
future of the republic requires sober observers to separate atmospherics and
personalities, however troubling they may be, from actual policy.
Since the moment Trump took office, we’ve witnessed a
steady stream of attacks on the administration, not so much for the president’s
obvious personal foibles but because his election is supposedly ushering in
authoritarianism and the end of liberty. To date, despite the constant
predictions of imminent doom, the republic and the Constitution still stand,
even if many Americans are blushing at Trump’s over-the-top statements, boasts,
and tweets. The final judgment on whether Trump colluded with Russia or
committed other wrongs must await the report of the special prosecutor. But
very little of what we’ve heard or read would lead one to think that Trump is
likely to be in legal jeopardy.
This hasn’t impeded Democrats from rushing headlong
toward their stated goal: Trump’s impeachment. Figures such as Tom Steyer, the
environmentalist and left-wing mega donor, are ready to fund an impeachment
effort; columnists at the New York Times
and the Washington Post are cheering
them on. In this climate, it’s obvious that we’re heading toward a moment when
American politics will become a zero-sum game whose outcome will hinge solely
on Trump’s survival. And Trump’s survival might depend on how many Republicans
are so disgusted with him that they abandon him.
Flake’s dilemma is the product of failure. His book tour
last summer — in which he proposed himself as the second coming of Barry
Goldwater and the conservative alternative to Trump — earned him some favorable
mentions on Morning Joe and other
liberal outlets, but it bombed among most Republicans. Flake wasn’t a strong
enough figure to sustain an independent stand among Republicans, but he was
also too conservative to attract Democratic crossovers. Even as liberal
editorial pages lauded Flake for his Senate-withdrawal speech this week,
late-night comedian Seth Myers attacked him by pointing that he’d voted for all
of Trump’s Cabinet appointments.
It’s that last point that ought to serve as a reminder to
Republicans: For all of their justified umbrage about Trump, if policy
questions still mean anything to them, preserving this flawed presidency
against the attacks of Trump’s foes is their only hope of getting anything
done. That dichotomy is the key to understanding why the anti-Trump manifestos
from Flake, Bush, and McCain aren’t shifting Republican opinion.
During the presidential campaign, there was good reason
for many conservatives to voice concerns like those McCain has recently
expressed — that Trump was abandoning the ideals America has advanced around
the world. Comments like Bush’s recent barb about “nationalism distorted into
nativism” also made sense. But for all of Trump’s loose talk and Bannon’s
boasts about purging the party, we haven’t, as of yet, seen any massive shift
in U.S. foreign policy. Trump’s desire for a new détente with Vladimir Putin’s
Russia has gotten nowhere. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has become a
leading administration voice, advocating exactly the kind of global engagement
and support for American ideals that Bush and McCain support.
So far, and despite some notable wins, such as on
education policy and in the battle against ISIS, the administration has a
reputation for incompetence. But, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is
fond of pointing out, Trump is still the only Republican who can sign a bill
into law. If we are to see tax reform or foreign-policy gains (e.g., reversing
Obama’s appeasement of Iran), we will require a Republican president. Trump is
the only one we’ve got. Without him, the GOP might as well surrender to Nancy
Pelosi and Chuck Schumer right now.
It’s also worth pointing out that on some issues, such as
Iran, Trump has a firmer grasp of the problem than some of the so-called adults
like Senator Bob Corker who seek to restrain him. Nor is Trump quite the idiot
that his detractors always assume him to be, as he proved this week by brushing
back any notion of a cap on 401(k) contributions. What may well be the most
conservative cabinet in recent memory — a cabinet that Flake voted for — should
also remind Republicans of what’s at stake when they support the anti-Trump
resistance.
Principled Republicans aren’t wrong to be offended by
Trump. They aren’t wrong to worry about the long-term damage to the GOP brand
Trump might do if he can’t achieve major policy victories and if he permanently
undermines the moral standing of the party.
But at this point, abandoning him — as Flake, Bush, and
McCain seem to be leaning toward — will neither save the GOP nor allow it to
accomplish anything in what may prove a brief window of opportunity. When else
will Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House? Democrats
lack any real agenda except a push for impeachment. Are Republicans ready to
join them? They must pick a side. They can’t be neutral about the man the
voters stuck them with. Which is why most Republicans won’t follow Flake into
the lifeboats while the GOP ship is still afloat.
No comments:
Post a Comment