By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, October 27, 2017
Last week was quite a humdinger.
I’ll spare you the recap, on the assumption that, you, my
brilliant and informed Dear Readers, are up to speed on the details.
Responding to the week’s events, the editors of The Weekly Standard write:
Everyone’s talking about the civil
war in the Republican Party. It seems more like a surrender to us.
The great bulk of elected
Republicans have surrendered to the forces of Donald J. Trump. And they didn’t
even put up much of a fight. Has a hostile takeover of a historic institution
ever been accomplished with less resistance?
The flag of surrender went up
before many blows were even landed.
Not surprisingly, I agree with this.
What I find so shocking is not so much the capitulation
but the terms of the surrender. Or, rather, I should say the term — singular — of surrender, because
there seems to be only one requirement expected of Republicans: Lavish praise
on Donald Trump no matter what he does or says. Or at the very least, never,
ever criticize him. Policy is an afterthought.
Again, The Standard:
A reporter for Politico recently asked John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican
in the Senate, for his views on a potential bipartisan compromise extending
cost-sharing payments under Obamacare. “I’m with the president,” Cornyn told
Seung Min Kim. When she asked him where, exactly, Trump is on the plan, Cornyn
threw his hands in the air. So Cornyn doesn’t know what Trump’s position is —
but he knows that he shares it.
The Trump agenda begins and ends with personal loyalty to
Trump — not to the Trump agenda, but to the Trump personality.
Don’t believe me? Let’s look at some facts.
Trumpists in Name
Only?
Because my first column this week argued for shunning
Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore, my Twitter feed was already acting
like the industrial fan at the end of a sewer pipe. But after Ben Sasse’s
comments on my latest podcast were picked up, that fecal mist felt like the
cool zone at an amusement park by comparison.
Even the briefest tour of the grand continental landscape
of asininity that materialized — on Twitter, in comment sections, etc. — would
be like taking a walking tour through a Hieronymus Bosch painting.
But there is one cave of ignorance that’s worth
spelunking with a lantern in hand. Countless people said Sasse should leave the
Republican party because he’s a squish, a RINO, a Democrat, etc. As stupid as
all that is, such statements seem like bon mots at the Algonquin roundtable
compared to such acidic cranial flatulence as this:
Roy Moore is rather primitive and hateful.
Also, Ben Sasse is a traitorous,
anti-white lefty who should leave GOP. https://t.co/TSU1UoT1ux
— N Tree (@ToTheFuture13) October
26, 2017
I think — or hope! — that even the most sane-yet-ardent
Trump supporters wince at this racialist buffoonery. So we’ll ignore the
“traitorous anti-white” nonsense. But this poltroon speaks for many more sane
people when he insinuates that criticizing Trump is by definition leftwing.
Sasse likes to point out he is the third most
conservative senator by voting record. I’m not sure how he reached that figure,
but it seems plausible given that the American Conservative Union gave him a
100 percent conservative score in both 2015 and in 2016. Meanwhile, John Cornyn
had a score of 71 in 2015and a79 in 2016.
But, remember, Sasse
is the RINO squish traitor.
Ah, quoth the Bannonite mobs, but he’s thwarting Trump’s
agenda! Conservatism is a dead creed. What matters now is the new nationalism
and supporting our president’s pursuit of coveted wins. Nothing else matters.
Well, according to FiveThirtyEight,
Sasse has voted with Trump 90.2 percent
of the time. He supported the Graham-Cassidy health-care bill, admittedly
with reservations. But if Sasse had his way, the president would have had more
than one big win by now.
Likewise, Jeff Flake has voted with Trump 90 percent of
the time and Mitch McConnell — that cloven-hoofed, demon-headed Mephistopheles
of the Establishment — has voted for the Trump legislative agenda on 96.1
percent of his votes.
Meanwhile, one could argue that no senator is more
responsible for denying Donald Trump a “win” on health care than Rand Paul. At
every turn, Paul made repealing and replacing Obamacare harder. Whichever route
the White House and McConnell pursued, Paul insisted on going the other way, on
the grounds that going any other direction would be a compromise of his
principles.
And yet, the Trumpistas don’t excoriate Paul. Even Susan
Collins, a true RINO if such a term has any meaning and such a creature exists
in the Senate, has been largely been spared the wrath of Trump and his armies.
Now, when I talk about Trumpistas, I don’t actually mean
most politicians or political activists. Politicians and activists have
prudential considerations that are often at variance with simply telling
inconvenient truths. (You could look it up.) This isn’t always damning. For
instance, as Charlie Cooke notes on the latest episode of The Editors podcast, a pro-life politician or activist may not like
what Trump says, but such people have their eyes on a larger cause. They have
to decide what is the lesser evil: condemning boorishness or failing to advance
the pro-life cause. Losing a seat to the Democrats is worse for the pro-life
cause than appeasing the Trump White House — or at least a reasonable person
could come to that conclusion. (And lest liberals get sanctimonious about this,
the same logic works for the pro-choice cause — and has for decades.)
I think such considerations are legitimate even when I
may disagree with them. When I listen to Hugh Hewitt decry Flake and Bob Corker
for their “drama” — but not Trump (!) — I can almost hear him shouting: “Will
you all shut up! We’ve got judges to get on the Court!”
This is what could be called the Blinder Caucus. It seems
every time I hear Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell talk about life in the Trump
presidency, they talk about the importance of putting on their blinders and
focusing entirely on getting things done. The subtext is that they don’t like
how Trump does things, but they’ve got work to do.
It seems to me that technique hasn’t worked too well. But
we can argue about that another time.
I’m more interested in the psychological factors
animating commentators and the rank-and-file Trumpublicans of the GOP.
They also talk about wanting to get things done and the
importance of fulfilling the Trump “agenda.” But they reserve their purest
passion and most sustained vitriol not for people who don’t vote with Trump,
but for people who do vote with Trump
but who also refuse to remain silent. The same holds for Trump himself.
Why?
Well, in the president’s case, the answer is obvious: his
own Brobdingnagian yet astoundingly fragile ego. Because Trump cares so little
about policy, he can forgive policy differences quite easily. What he can’t
forgive is anyone even hinting that the emperor’s new clothes are, at best,
invisible to the naked eye.
I’ll give Steve Bannon credit. He understood this from
the get-go. He understood that criticizing Trump for the Access Hollywood tape was the kind of disloyalty Trump cares about.
But criticizing a tax-reform proposal? He won’t care, at least not if it’s
couched in compliments. The Breitbart
folks are quick to point out that they criticized Trump when he seemed to be
capitulating on DACA — “Amnesty Don” and all that. This was at Bannon’s
direction of course. But Bannon & Co. never, ever criticize the man
himself. When Trump is doing wrong, it’s because the “Globalists” or the
“Establishment” are giving the king bad information and whispering treason in
his ear.
The New Snowflake
Caucus
It really is amazing. The people most likely to mock
“snowflakes” and ask if you’ve been “triggered” have the most Pavlovian
responses to criticism of Trump. They can’t seem to handle hearing anyone
pointing out Trump’s personal, ideological, political, or managerial failings.
To use their lingua franca, it is the stuff of “butthurt.”
I don’t think there’s a single reason for this. It’s more
like an arsenal of psychological defense mechanisms. Off the top of my head:
There’s the kneejerk anger at having it pointed out that
your hero is out of his depth and that all of your assurances of superhuman
skill and winningness were so much naïve piffle. There’s the blind tribal fury
of saying things that lend aid and comfort to liberals. And we can’t leave out
the discomfort, particularly acute among those with a long record of claiming
ideological purity, of having the extent of their capitulation exposed.
Which brings us to the enabling. Everyone understands
Trump can’t help himself. The rest of us, therefore, should make allowances for
that and not provoke him. “You should have known Dad would fly off the handle!”
So Trump is held to one standard and everyone else to another. Ted Cruz is
right that the Republicans have work to do. But who has taken his eye off the
ball more than anyone else in Washington? Hint: It’s not Jeff Flake, it’s not
Bob Corker, and it’s not Ben Sasse. It’s most emphatically not Mitch McConnell,
who gave Trump his biggest win — Justice Gorsuch — and who is doing yeoman’s
work to get conservatives on the lower courts.
It’s the guy who’d rather fight Gold Star families and
rant about the NFL. It’s the guy who talks about revoking licenses for the
press and talks about Confederate generals as “our heritage.” But just as
there’s no reasoning with Dad when he gets into the Dewar’s, there’s no talking
Trump out of his Twitter when he gets into one of his “moods.”
And, finally, there’s the fact that, like Trump, many of
these people don’t care about policy either. As Michael Brendan Dougherty
recently pointed out, the culture-war spats and nasty personal fights are to a
very real extent Trump’s true agenda, or at least it’s what people who love the
Trump Show love about the Trump Show.
Where does this end? I don’t know. But I do know that
political parties and ideological movements are defined every bit as much by
what they say as what they do. The rhetoric yields the reality. And
I for one think it’s worth pushing back against the forces that think the best
way to win over voters — and the president — is for goonish felons to talk,
however coded, about what a big d**k the president has.
“[Former congressman Michael] Grimm
admits he’s only met Trump a few times, and never in a meaningful way. As a
congressman, he’d visited the president’s Trump Tower office as a formality
more than anything else, just like every other New York politician. But his
impression of Trump, he told me, was a lasting and positive one — so positive,
in fact, that if the president were the kind of person who paid close attention
to his press coverage, he might come across Grimm complimenting him effusively.
“I remember saying to myself, I
never realized what a large man — I mean stature-wise, he’s a big man, with
massive hands,” Grimm said, outstretching his own regular hands above the
table. “I don’t have small hands, but when I shook hands with him, the first
time I shook hands with him, I realized he was a big man.” He sensed my
skepticism. “He is!” he said, defensively. “I thought they were pretty big. You
don’t think so? I thought he had a big, strong grip. I’m dead serious.” He went
on about how Trump is “a pretty big guy” and “not a small man even for his
height” and how his hands were “more like a workman’s hands” than those of “a
CEO.”
If this is the cause you want your party to surrender to,
be my guest. I kind of thought conservatism and the Party of Lincoln stood for
something more than one man’s fragile ego and the people determined to protect
it. I prefer to fight. If you don’t like that, remember “But he fights!” can be
a principle for everyone — for people without principles and also for those of
us who have them.
No comments:
Post a Comment