Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatives. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2026

The ‘Fifth Avenue’ Election

By Nick Catoggio

Thursday, October 22, 2026

 

I’ll say this in defense of Steve Witkoff. You don’t need to believe that he sincerely admires Vladimir Putin to understand why he said what he said yesterday.

 

You’re free to believe it. I believe it myself. But you don’t need to believe it to make sense of why a White House envoy would praise the butcher of Ukraine—to his face, on camera, shortly before three new waves of Russian missiles crashed down on Kyiv—as a “humanitarian.”

 

For Witkoff, I imagine, bowing and scraping is simply how courtiers interact with authoritarians. He works for a president whose own Cabinet meetings are filled with effusive flattery from deputies, remember. Whether the flattery is sincere is irrelevant; what’s important is that those deputies are willing to stoop to it, acknowledging their leader’s authority by prostrating themselves before him.

 

Praise under those circumstances is probably more effective when it isn’t sincere, frankly. Telling a guy with a 31 percent approval rating that he’s the greatest president ever, or Putin that he’s Albert Schweitzer as he depopulates a neighboring country (and his own), shows him that you’ll take sides with him against reality itself. Fascists demand nothing less. That’s how they know you’re a man they can do business with.

 

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven’t been doing much,” Donald Trump himself observed a few days ago when asked about a potential summit with Russia and China to discuss Ukraine. That’s a man with whom Putin can do business. It can’t be long before reveries about the powerful muscularity of the Russian leader’s ass become a topic in the president’s increasingly homoerotic stump speeches.

 

In 1936, the U.S. Olympic delegation famously refused to salute Adolf Hitler as it paraded before him in Berlin, declining to dip the American flag as other delegations had done with their own standards. All you need to know about how Trumpists relate to authoritarian power is to understand that the president and his allies would have lowered the Stars and Stripes without hesitation. All the way to the ground, if requested.

 

Especially if there was something in it for them to do so.

 

It’s one thing for America to knife Ukraine in the back while getting nothing in return. (That’s the art of the deal.) It’s another for its leadership to resort to whitewashing Russian evil gratuitously. Witkoff’s startling Orwellian “humanitarian” slobber was an unusually shameful comment—and it came during an unusually shameful week, for an unusually shameful administration, at an unusually inopportune moment with a national election 12 days away.

 

Americans might notice. They might even (gasp) care.

 

Add it up. In the past few days, we’ve had Trump and Witkoff rhetorically shining Putin’s shoes; Vivek Ramaswamy and J.D. Vance making hay of the sexual abuse an opponent suffered as a child; various new exposés of administration corruption; de facto admissions of corruption, sometimes thinly veiled, sometimes not at all; and assorted WTF picayune weirdness from the president, whose interests include building ballrooms, admiring the derrieres of Republican men, renaming New Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, but not so much as addressing the cost of living.

 

This is the closest we’ll ever come to seeing a political party actively try to alienate voters. As undecideds, including disgruntled Trump 2024 supporters, go about making up their minds, Trump and Republican apparatchiks are doing everything possible to make backing the GOP as embarrassing as it can possibly be.

 

Unintentionally, they’ve turned the midterms into a stress test for the personality cult that’s defined right-wing politics since 2016. Is there any combination of policy failures and immoral antics that can overcome the fathomless partisan loyalty of the modern Republican voter?

 

If not now, when?

 

Now or never.

 

For an election that’s shaping up to be as lopsided as this one is, drawing firm conclusions about Americans’ big-picture political preferences from the results will be tricky.

 

I wrote about that last month. A huge Democratic wave can and will be read, fairly, as a repudiation of Trump’s first two years back in office. But it won’t be a repudiation of postliberalism.

 

How could it be? Public discontent is mostly being driven by the Iran war and its inflationary consequences; postliberals opposed that war, as they’ll eagerly remind you. If the president had stuck to “America First” isolationism and avoided another needless Middle Eastern entanglement, his approval might be in the low 40s instead of the low 30s and his party wouldn’t be sweating control of the Senate.

 

Postliberals will claim that Republicans lost not because Trump listened too much to Tucker Carlson and too little to Lindsey Graham and Benjamin Netanyahu but vice versa. And they’ll have a point.

 

Here’s another example in which drawing a firm conclusion from a result will be tricky: What’s the “lesson” if Democrat James Talarico ends up upsetting Republican Ken Paxton in Texas’ Senate race?

 

The Lone Star state is now a battleground, liberals will insist. Is that right? Or will a Talarico victory simply be the fluke result of a freak, once-in-a-lifetime perfect political storm? Trump’s approval is the worst for any president heading into a midterm in 80 years; the opposition party now leads on every major issue, in most cases by double digits; the Texas GOP nominated the worst Senate candidate it reasonably could have; and the Democratic nominee is a mild-mannered Christian seminarian—a cultural leftist, to be sure, but an awkward fit for the traditional “far-left bogeyman” role.

 

Everything that realistically could have happened to boost Democrats’ chances at winning Texas this year has happened—and even so, Talarico leads Paxton by just 1.5 points in the RealClearPolitics average. His margin was more than twice that on October 6 but has since crumbled under the weight of an avalanche of Musk-bucks. To all appearances, notwithstanding the parade of recent Republican moral imbecility that I described earlier, GOP voters are “coming home” in the final weeks of the race.

 

If I had to bet on the outcome, I’d bet on Paxton prevailing narrowly. And if he does, I think we can draw a firm conclusion from that result: Despite anger at the cost of living and an aimless war, despite the Republican candidate’s flamboyant scumminess and the Democrat’s inoffensiveness, despite screaming headlines about the betrayal of Ukraine and preposterously brazen corruption, despite the White House planning to resume a war most Americans hate, most right-wing voters would still rather reward an incompetent and dissolute GOP than endure six years of representation by the other party in a Senate that won’t be able to do anything until 2029 at the earliest anyway.

 

Not all right-wing voters. The latest Fox News poll found 28 percent of self-described “non-MAGA Republicans” supporting Talarico this year. But enough of them.

 

Texas’ “perfect storm” has made it the supreme stress test for postliberalism this year, which, as noted elsewhere, is why so many right-wing activists—and their foreign allies—are invested in the race. But the lesson of a Republican victory there would also apply in other red-state battlegrounds like Alaska, Kansas, and Ohio. If a decisive share of center-right voters can’t be persuaded to cross the aisle in this environment, with this administration behaving this way, then they’ll never be persuaded. Period.

 

Insofar as Trump getting reelected after January 6 didn’t already broadly confirm his famous hypothesis about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, the GOP holding the Senate next month will do it. And he and his team will recognize that, and act accordingly in the two years he has left—beginning with their inevitable “rigged election” campaign next month aimed at discrediting Democratic victories.

 

Lessons for postliberals.

 

Postliberals will draw their own lessons from the results, some silly and some not, if Republicans hold the Senate after doing more or less everything possible to blow it.

 

“Postliberalism is popular!” will be a silly one. Needing Elon Musk to pony up $158 million to drag Ken Paxton over the finish line in Texas—barely—does not mean that Americans have a fever and the only prescription is more right-wing amorality. It will mean, quite obviously, that nihilism and corruption are serious political liabilities even in red states and the party would be wise to penalize such qualities in candidates. How many Musk-bucks might have been spent in, say, North Carolina to defeat Democrat Roy Cooper if they hadn’t been needed in Texas?

 

But “postliberalism isn’t disqualifying, even in the worst political environments,” will be a lesson fairly drawn. In fact, I’m willing to draw it right now. Is there any doubt that Paxton and other Republicans locked in tight races in red states would be on their way to comfortable wins if inflation were down and Trump had stayed out of Iran?

 

What we’ve learned about American voters since 2016 is that they’ll elect a scumbag if they believe doing so will be good for their bottom line. Only when it turns out not to be so good does the scumbaggery bother them—although not enough for them to do anything about it, assuming the GOP holds the Senate.

 

Or is that unfair?

 

After all, Democrats are assured of winning the House. They need to flip only a few seats in the lower chamber to have a majority, and they’re far enough ahead on the generic ballot to make that a fait accompli. Whether there are any broad conclusions to be gleaned from the midterms about the state of cultishness among Republican voters probably depends on the scope of the House’s blue wave. If, in an era of ruthless gerrymandering, Democrats nonetheless manage to gain dozens of seats thanks to votes from across the aisle, that will tell us something about the right’s waning appetite for shooting people on Fifth Avenue.

 

But if Democratic gains are more modest than they were in Trump’s first midterm election, when they picked up 41 seats, the degree of difficulty created by modern gerrymandering won’t deter right-wing postliberals from finding encouragement in that outcome. “We lost because of the war and gas,” they’ll insist, “but Democrats still underperformed expectations. Americans are basically fine with everything else Trump is doing, including taking sides with Russia against Ukraine.”

 

And, again, they’ll have a point.

 

How postliberals react to the election is important because some meaningful number of Republican House (and possibly Senate) incumbents are about to be bounced out of office next month. Who succeeds them as their party’s nominees for those seats in 2028 and beyond will depend on which lessons the Republican base takes from this midterm.

 

“There’s functionally no difference between Dems having 225 vs 245 seats in 2027,” housing analyst Conor Sen argued this morning, “but I think it’d be good for the GOP (and America) to have a fresh start in 20 or so R+10 House districts in 2028.” Would it? I’m … not so sure.

 

It will be good if, as I say, the right concludes from November’s results that the electoral cost of unapologetic degeneracy is too steep to continue promoting candidates who suffer from it. “For the last decade, our party has been infected by a corrupted moral center,” former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said yesterday when asked about Ramaswamy’s new attack ad and the vice president’s defense of it. “Vance’s acceptance of this campaign ad only breathes life into the disease we should be seeking to cure.”

 

A string of upsets in R+10 districts might give Republican primary voters an electoral incentive to cure the disease in the next cycle. The president will be less popular then than he is now, as getting to spend two years governing as a lame duck with no electoral accountability will only make him worse. Rationally, the right-wing base should want to hedge against Trump’s unpopularity in 2028 by prioritizing electability and inoffensiveness in its congressional candidates. In so many words: fewer Paxtons, more Talaricos.

 

But this isn’t a movement known for rationality, is it?

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

My guess is that Republican voters will do the opposite.

 

They’ll tell themselves, with some justification, that the 2026 wipeout happened only because their working-class base tends not to show up for midterms. Turnout in a presidential election year like 2028 will be plenty robust enough to flip those R+10 districts back to red no matter whom they nominate, they’ll say.

 

They’ll also have spent two years listening to Tucker Carlson and other J.D. Vance apologists insist that real Trumpism has never been tried. The president, a warmonger, betrayed “America First” postliberalism by attacking Iran, and his party paid for it in 2026, they’ll hear. The path back to power requires nominating a committed isolationist like Vance for president and like-minded postliberals downballot in Senate and House races—especially safe-ish R+10 districts where the GOP is likely to win regardless of who’s on the ballot.

 

To all appearances, as the party’s new nominee in 2028, Vance himself will follow Trump’s lead by promoting vicious ruthlessness as the indispensable quality required of all Republican leaders. “There is nothing J.D. has more personal disdain for than weak Republicans who reflexively kowtow every time the Dem-media demands a scalp,” a source close to the vice president told Axios yesterday of the backlash to Ramaswamy’s ad. “It drives him crazy to see the cucked reaction from some establishment operatives and politicians in the GOP, who he views as nothing more than useful idiots for the left.”

 

With Republican voters looking to a guy like that for political leadership, and with the right-wing media echo chamber amplifying his every word, whom do you think they’re more likely to nominate in House primaries? A Republican Talarico or Paxton 2.0?

 

Or something even worse?

 

As pleasant as it is to imagine scores of House Republicans being wiped out this year, and as much as they deserve that fate, the remorseless moral logic of 10 years of right-wing postliberalism is that things will get worse. I’m open to the possibility that the right will regain its moral bearings someday, but within one election cycle of a drubbing at the polls? Not bloody likely.

 

So if you’re excited for a “fresh start” for the GOP and its House candidates in 2028, I’ll tell you the same thing I’ve said about practically every political impulse Republicans have had since 2016: Be careful what you wish for.

 

On that note, I leave you with this link to the president’s latest Truth Social post, in which he weighs the merits of smearing Democrat Amy Acton as a liar for claiming she was sexually abused as a child—a crime for which her stepfather was indicted by a grand jury before going on the run. Can you guess whether Trump endorses that smear or condemns it? If not, here’s a hint: Postliberalism is a movement of sociopaths, by sociopaths, for sociopaths.

 

Maybe voters will care about that next month. Maybe they won’t.

They Wrecked Eisenhower’s World

By Kevin D. Williamson

Friday, October 23, 2026

 

Sometimes, the god of metaphors smiles on a writer.

 

I am an Eisenhower man. I would write “an Eisenhower Republican,” but I am not a Republican, and Eisenhower Republicans went the way of Chelonoidis abingdonii many years ago. I once made the case for Eisenhower as a political role model in a cover story for National Review, the conservative magazine that was launched in opposition to Eisenhower-style Republican politics as much as in opposition to the New Deal and postwar progressivism. I like Ike.

 

The contrast between Dwight Eisenhower and Donald Trump—and his coterie of fools, cretins, incompetents, drunks and drug addicts, grifters, deviants, and seditionists—could not be sharper.

 

Before D-Day, Eisenhower quietly composed a handwritten note taking personal blame for the operation’s failure—he was smart enough to know that success was uncertain and that he might not be in a position to talk about it afterward; Donald Trump, a dog-ate-my-homework guy if ever there were one, takes personal responsibility for precisely nothing. Eisenhower led Allied forces to victory in World War II and at the time of his retirement outranked George Washington (who received a posthumous promotion in 1976), but he was buried in a standard-issue soldier’s coffin and lay in state with no decorations on his field jacket except his two distinguished service medals and the Legion of Merit; Trump is a draft-dodging coward currently hard at work building himself a triumphal arch like some kind of limp Caesar.  

 

Eisenhower was a mediocre student at West Point but excelled in math and history and had serious intellectual interests throughout his life, reading everything from the Greek and Roman classics to Carl von Clausewitz; Trump cannot write a grammatical sentence in his native language. Eisenhower was a first-rate card player; Trump went bankrupt, more than once, owning casinos. Eisenhower was a serious negotiator whose greatest diplomatic triumph came not during his presidency but during his military career, a miraculous exercise in “managing up” to keep Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Charles de Gaulle more or less on the same page; Trump cannot get any meaningful legislation through a Congress controlled by his own party and instead tweets contemptuously at the Supreme Court when the justices remind him that, unlike de Gaulle, the U.S. president cannot quite rule by decree. Eisenhower was a model of duty and patience, spending 16 years as a major unable to win a promotion to higher rank in peacetime—the same number of years it took him to go from his next rank to being elected president of the United States; Trump has the discipline and attention span of a toddler who has just swallowed a two-pound bag of pure sugar. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock against his own political interest in order to bring lawless segregationists to heel; Trump sent lawless masked homicidal goon squads to Minneapolis to terrorize the city for the crime of electing Democrats. Eisenhower was modest about his intellectual endowments but served ably as president of Columbia University; Trump thinks that he is an expert on artificial intelligence (and everything else) because he had an uncle who taught physics. Eisenhower presided over several budget surpluses and an average federal deficit of less than one-half of 1 percent of GDP; Trump’s first term saw the largest deficit ever recorded, which might be explained away as a COVID-era exigency, but his second term has seen deficits climbing back toward COVID levels and exceeding those of any year of the pre-COVID era going back to World War II.

 

And, of course, Eisenhower was served by able, patriotic subordinates who made the wrong call from time to time but were serious men: John Foster Dulles, Herbert Brownell Jr. (architect of the Civil Rights Act of 1957), Walter Bedell Smith, etc.; Trump is served by the likes of television personality Pete Hegseth, who cannot quite decide whether his next gig should be social-media influencer or president of these United States—and who may not understand at all that those are different jobs.

 

Hegseth, the hilariously incompetent, imbecilically strutting secretary of defense who imagines a testosterone-enhanced military that looks like something dreamt up by Tom of Finland, would like to be thought of as a great commander on the order of Eisenhower. To help him along in his preposterous Generalissimo Walter Mitty fantasy, he requested that a globe that had belonged to Eisenhower be moved to his office. (God knows what he planned to do with it.) The globe was old and fragile (like Hegseth’s boss) and the specialists who would normally handle relocating such an artifact had been furloughed by the administration Hegseth serves. But Hegseth imagines himself to be a man of action—though not in Iran, not in Ukraine, not really anywhere beyond the cushy wall-to-wall carpeting of his natural environment—and so he sent people who didn’t know what they were doing over to move the globe like a couple of college students loading up a secondhand sofa on a U-Haul, ripping a hole in the globe in the process.

 

Maybe Hegseth just wanted to make the map of the world more semiotically accurate by giving it a big ugly gash made by clumsy Americans.

 

The postwar global order was in no small part the creation of Dwight Eisenhower, who secured the U.S. victory in World War II, served as the first supreme commander of NATO, and helped to implement the Marshall Plan before expanding on it as president. Trump has helped to fan the flames of war in Europe by his shameful sucking up to Vladimir Putin, wrecked NATO by threatening repeatedly to invade the sovereign territory of another NATO country, and heedlessly gutted U.S. support of allies and programs serving U.S. interests around the world. As secretary of defense, Hegseth has helped to advance an approach to the world that veers from the criminal (kidnapping the Venezuelan dictator, murdering seafarers in the Caribbean and elsewhere) to the catastrophic (Iran, Ukraine, etc.) The Trump administration has been reduced to begging (“like a dog,” as Trump would say) Moscow to help the president buy a few midterm votes with the promise of cheap Russian diesel. Eisenhower helped to rebuild a world crippled by war and economic catastrophe; Trump et al. have undone the better part of a century’s work securing American interests and prosperity by bringing war, inflation, humiliation, and dishonor to everything they touch.

 

As a literary matter, it was practically inevitable that Hegseth would tear up Eisenhower’s globe. The god of metaphors is not mocked.

Wednesday, October 21, 2026

GOP Candidates May Pay the Price for Trump Administration Self-Dealing

By Gregory W. Slayton

Monday, October 19, 2026

 

Conservatives once believed that character is the foundation of effective self-government and that public office is a trust to be honored rather than a prize to be exploited. The opposite is also true: corruption and self-dealing are the hallmarks of failing nations and kleptocratic dictatorships like Russia.

 

It used to be that Republicans said these things loudly and often, usually while a Democrat was explaining why a scandal was really only a misunderstanding. But now, the GOP must decide: will that principle apply to our own side in addition to our enemies or does it not apply to anyone? By that standard, the past few years have been grim, and the past few weeks a disaster.

 

Start with Athens. Kimberly Guilfoyle, the president’s now-outgoing ambassador to Greece, is in the middle of a growing scandal. On Tuesday, the White House finally asked her to resign. But it took multiple Wall Street Journal reports, which included the detail that, just before her confirmation hearing, she asked a Trump donor to pay a $100,000 credit card bill in a way she thought was untraceable, and had promised him access to high-level administration officials. Her problems do not stop there. The State Department’s inspector general has opened a formal investigation into her use of private planes and helicopters, acceptance of huge improper gifts, and close ties to foreign energy and construction companies hoping for her help. The fact that Guilfoyle has constantly urged EU leaders to work with those companies that have bankrolled her lifestyle is surely no coincidence.

 

This self-enriching lifestyle mimics from the president’s own actions over the past two years. In a federal disclosure of his financial holdings Trump filed in June, he reported profiting by more than $1 billion from new crypto businesses after he loosened regulations on the industry. The majority of investors in Trump’s meme coins have lost most of their investment. According to recent polling, six in ten Americans now believe Trump is illegally profiting from the presidency or that his self-dealings are — at the very least — immoral. Only two in ten believe Trump is not profiting from his position.

 

Then there is the diesel deal with a murderous dictator. A few weeks after Trump signed a Russian sanctions law meant to choke off the energy revenue that pays for the war in Ukraine, he announced a deal with Vladimir Putin to buy Russian diesel. He said Russia would supply more than 300,000 tons this month, with 500,000 more in November, and another 4 million to follow. This means U.S. consumers will be paying up to $4 billion to help finance Russia’s increasingly bloody war on Ukraine, despite the congressional mandate in 2022 that the U.S. import no more oil products from Russia.

 

With more than 2 million soldiers killed and wounded on both sides and millions of Ukrainian civilians dead, wounded, or forced to flee their homes, the completely unjustified Russian invasion of a fellow democracy has gone on far too long. Now Trump, after promising dozens of times on the campaign trail that he would end the war in “24 hours,” is making decisions that will prolong it or even help Russia win. Sadly, the horrific diesel deal is unlikely to reduce the price of the fuel by more than a few cents, and only temporarily. But the damage to Ukraine and NATO, whose other heads of state almost uniformly distrust and dislike Trump, will be long-lasting.

 

Trump’s motive is no mystery. With midterm elections only weeks away, he is concerned about the price consumers are paying at the pump. As always, Trump seeks to shift the blame to others. But it was Trump’s decision to attack Iran without first securing the Strait of Hormuz that caused oil prices to explode, not Ukraine’s defending itself. Ukraine’s strikes on Russian refineries have left Russia struggling to supply its military invasion. Ukrainian pressure was working, and Washington has now offered Moscow a way out of it, paid with American dollars.

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Russia would repay the deal “with further terror and perfidy.” Anyone who knows Putin’s history knows this is true. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.), a cosponsor of the sanctions law with my friend the late Senator Lindsey Graham, said Trump’s actions make America complicit in Putin’s war. The diesel deal was announced while Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were meeting with Ukrainian officials about a peace proposal. As I’ve mentioned before, Steve and Jared are at best rookie diplomats with scant qualifications. But you have to feel sorry for them when their own boss pulls the rug out from beneath them. And now, Elon Musk has intimated that Trump told him recently to reduce Starlink availability to the Ukrainian military, for whom it is vitally important. One wonders, though, if there were . . . other motivations.

 

And then there is the wedding. ProPublica reported that Donald Trump Jr.’s three-day wedding celebration in the Bahamas in May was heavily funded by Umar Kremlev, a Russian oligarch who heads the International Boxing Association and has very close ties to Putin. He covered hundreds of thousands of dollars of Trump Jr.’s wedding celebration expenses, including the rental of a private island and a massive fireworks show. Bettina Anderson Trump confirmed the generosity, calling it a gift from a “dear friend.” The couple may actually believe that, despite having only known Kremlev casually for a few years. One gets the impression that friendship in the Trump administration is more about the size of one’s bank account than anything else.

 

No matter what, the son of a sitting president accepting lavish hospitality from a Putin intimate is the kind of arrangement that would have had every Republican on Capitol Hill demanding subpoenas had the surname been Biden or Clinton. The New York Times called it an extraordinary flouting of ethical norms. A retired FBI official told ProPublica that a man who pays millions for your wedding expects something in return. That is exactly right. It is why such gifts were unthinkable in earlier administrations of both parties, and it puts a decidedly bad taste in every voter’s mouth a few weeks before the midterms. Excellent Republican candidates across the country are going to pay the price.

 

These episodes from just the past two weeks, on top of the widespread practice of self-enrichment over the past two years, are now a feature of the Trump administration. Americans of both parties have noticed. The recent cratering of Republican candidates across the country, including many in GOP strongholds, indicates there is something big moving the political needle — despite huge ad spending in their behalf by GOP committees and Trump’s various PACs.

 

Appearances matter in a republic because trust is its fundamental working capital. Voters can forgive a lot, including mistakes, bad luck, and even bad policy. What they cannot forgive is the overwhelming sense that the people they elected to serve them are instead benefiting handsomely through shady self-dealing while they struggle to make ends meet. Conservatives, of all people, should say so plainly, and say it now, even if it incurs the president’s wrath.

 

Shame is not a partisan emotion. It is the reflex that tells public servants when they have drifted too far. An administration that has lost any capacity for shame or self-control will soon completely lose the confidence of the voters who put it there. Unfortunately, the GOP is about to see how ugly that can be.

 

 

Tuesday, October 20, 2026

Bordering on Sanity

By Kevin D. Williamson

Monday, October 19, 2026

 

McALLEN, Texas—Poor feckless Mike Johnson looks like a melting vanilla ice-cream cone in the practically Congolese mid-October heat in McAllen, Texas, the political heart of the Rio Grande Valley, with just under 1 million people in the greater metro and more than 460,000 registered voters. It is an area that swung hard for Donald Trump but many of whose residents—87 percent Hispanic and 12.5 percent naturalized citizens—are having second thoughts. Across the spectrum, the locals are engaged: The unprepossessing Republican speaker of the House is nobody’s favorite figure in American politics, but the room here is packed and the venue’s parking lot and off-street parking are crammed with Ford Super-Duty trucks that currently cost their owners nearly $300 to fill up in the greater McAllen area, which is, of course, a big part of what this election is going to be about.

 

How worried are Republicans? People in the valley are getting provocative phony text messages—“bathrooms and beyond for trans kids at school”—made to look like they were sent from an advocacy group that had nothing to do with them. Most plugged-in observers, including Republicans, assume that they were sent by Republican-leaning activists to stir up fears of a fictitious effort to insert transgender-advocacy material into the local public-school curriculum. Anything to change the subject from the economy.

 

People here in the Rio Grande Valley are very pissed off about the price of diesel and gasoline, and milk, and eggs, and hamburger, and lumber, so Texas Republicans predictably are leaning into the crazy and the smears and the conspiracy kookery and the overall Trump-era GOP weirdness, and there is definitely a stink of desperation in the air as Johnson, who has been wearing the MAGA gimp suit for so long that it has become a second skin, goes through the motions. But even Johnson, who tempts your favorite correspondent to exhaust his vanishingly small Spanish vocabulary (¡Pinche pendejo!) cannot quite avoid all the facts of the case.

 

“I’m not exaggerating: South Texas will literally decide the majority in Congress,” he says, trying his best to sound hopeful.

 

It is not clear that he should be.

 

If the Democrats have a secret weapon in 2026, it is that economic pain and the all-drama-all-the-time character of the Trump administration have forced them, in spite of themselves, to turn their attention to a constituency that they seemed to have forgotten about for a few years there: normal people.

 

***

 

It is a long drive down from the Llano Estacado to the Rio Grande Valley—from the high ground of cactus-and-mesquite Texas to palm-trees-and-sand Texas by way of live-oak Texas—and there’s a lot of eye-popping stuff to see: Up in Lubbock, mediocre hotel rooms are going for $600 on a Saturday night because people have come in from five states away to see Ella Langley sing “Choosin’ Texas,” leaving the city unusually packed for a Texas Tech football bye week, while the suburbs and exurbs of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, which are seeing slower growth than they have in recent years, are still expanding and changing and mutating so quickly that they feel like new communities every six months. In Central Texas and down south, exotic African game can be glimpsed behind the high fences of the hunting ranches, Nubian ibex and gemsbok and impala strutting around within a 25-minute drive of a Dollar General and not too terribly far from a Buc-ee’s. Texas is big and weird and a lot of fun to look at.

 

What I don’t see as I make a 1,000-plus mile squiggle on the map from Amarillo through the heart of Texas to Houston and along the coast to the border and up the Rio Grande Valley is a lot of political advertising: Not in White Settlement—surely the community in Texas with the most Republican-comforting name—not in Parker County just west of Fort Worth, the most heavily Republican of the Texas counties with 100,000 or more registered voters, not even up in Roberts County, where Trump won a practically North Korean 95.6 percent of the vote the last time around. And Democratic signage is pretty scarce, too, with almost nothing other than a few billboards promising that Senate candidate James Talarico will protect your deadbeat cousin’s Medicaid and your mama’s Social Security checks. But the signs do thicken up a bit once you get near the I-35 corridor, and the advertising on television and online is relentless—the relative scarcity of real-world political billboards vs. the ubiquity of feverish online denunciations offer a dramatic indicator of exactly how online Texas politics has become, in every sense of that word.

 

It’s pretty ugly at the moment: Between the GOP’s hysterical TV spots and that Bo French schmuck running for the Texas Railroad Commission while lamenting that there are too many young brown engineering majors in the bleachers cheering on the Texas Longhorns this season, Republicans have now managed to add college football to the list of things they’re ruining for everybody.

 

There is a reason for the Republicans’ cornered-rat panic in Texas: The Democratic nominee has a modest but consistent lead in the polls over the Republican nominee in the U.S. Senate race, while the incumbent Republican governor might be in trouble, too. As Johnson notes, a handful of close House races, including the ones in Texas, will play a big role in determining whether the expected Democratic majority in the House actually is elected in a couple of weeks and, if so, how big it is.

 

And Republicans are getting ready to get punched in the face.

 

Texas is not in a happy mood right now, with gasoline and diesel prices punishing truck-loving Texans in typical communities where pretty much everybody drives to work and many people drive hundreds of miles in a typical week. Farmers are pissed off over the uptick in the prices of basically all of their inputs—fuel, fertilizers, chemicals, equipment, seeds—contemporaneous with the disruption of important export markets for U.S. producers of big commodity crops such as soybeans. Tariffs are making life hard on manufacturers, too, adding to the price of imported components and making them harder to get. Formerly enthusiastic Trump supporters such as high-profile businessman Mario Guerrero, the influential CEO of the South Texas Builders Association, are talking very publicly about their buyers’ remorse after the White House declared war on their workforces.

 

The war in Iran has rattled energy markets. Donald Trump’s promises to whip inflation and end any number of major world conflicts—including ending the Russian war on Ukraine, another driver of high fuel prices, on his first day in office—have gone the way of Trump’s previous promises to voters, allies, business associates, creditors, and any number of wives. James Talarico may seem like a guy who probably was president of the University Democrats at the University of Texas at Austin—because he literally was that—but rather than filling out the rest of the slate with a fresh batch of Beto O’Rourke analogs, Democrats around the state have nominated a slate of Tejanos in cowboy hats who like to shoot guns and have a good time–e.g., former Tejano star Bobby Pulido running in the 15th District, lawman Johnny Garcia in the 35th–and whose neighbors think that everything is too expensive right now, and too chaotic, and too obviously corrupt in ways that are all too familiar to people who have family and community connections to Latin America. Having burned their fingers on various kinds of stupid radicalism in the George Floyd era, which they are now trying to put behind them as “Woke 1.0,” Democrats have put forward candidates such as Garcia, a 20-year veteran of the sheriff’s department in Bexar County (wherein lies San Antonio) who knows how to talk a good law-and-order game and may even mean it.

 

Naturally, Republicans are talking about ... pedophilia.

 

Bobby Pulido’s band, as it turns out, used to employ an accordionist who turned out to be a habitual criminal, a drug addict, and worse, who ended up being convicted of sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl. Truly horrible. Pulido says he knew the guy had drug problems but did not know that he was a sex offender—and, embarrassingly, Pulido once brought the musician along to a performance at a middle school. Excruciating stuff, to be sure, but pretty arm’s-length stuff, too: It’s not like Donald Trump used to be in a band with a guy who had to pay a multimillion-dollar settlement in the E. Jean Carroll sexual-assault matter—that was Trump himself, Mr. Grab ’Em by the Pussy. You’d think the party of Matt Gaetz and the late Dennis Hastert and state Sen. Mike Folmer (child porn, 2020) and state representative R.J. May (child porn, 2025) and Ralph Shortey (child sex trafficking, 2017)—you get the picture—would be a little circumspect about that sort of thing. But this is the great age of brazenness, when the Republican hack at the center of the truly loony “Pizzagate” pedophilia hoax routinely hosts high-ranking Republican officials—including, most recently, J.D. Vance and Pete Hegseth—on his podcast.

 

(Garcia has had some troubles, too: It recently came out that he was twice suspended by the sheriff’s department, once for violating policy by taking a cell phone into a secure area and once for leaving a firearm unsecured–a Glock that was stolen and later recovered. Dangerously boneheaded stuff.)

 

Bobby Pulido is a celebrity (he was nominated for a Grammy this year) but he also seems like a pretty normal guy, as celebrities go. He used to be in Coors Light ads, for goodness’ sake. He once shared the stage with a creep, as did everybody who ever performed with Iggy Pop or Aerosmith or Led Zeppelin—or, more to the point, anybody who ever appeared on a stage alongside Donald Trump, as Pulido’s opponent in the race has. The thing is, Republicans want to talk about pedophilia—not even that, really, but former workplace proximity to a sex criminal—while Bobby Pulido wants to talk about why he finds that it makes more financial sense for him to go across the river to Mexico for medical care.

 

I wonder which of those is of more acute interest to a guy putting $5.77 diesel into his work truck at the filling station in Goliad. It probably depends on how much Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes he is watching and how inclined he is to internalize that kind of madness. If kooks are your thing, Texas is ready when you are: The Texas Republican Party is dominated by the people former Cameron County GOP Chairwoman Morgan Eakin refers to as “squatters,” a grifty and incompetent set of very online weirdos associated with super-Trumpy oil-and-gas gazillionaire biblioplangist Tim Dunn, the “Branch Davidian-lite sugar daddy” of contemporary Texas politics, as Eakin describes him.

 

“There is an identity crisis in both parties,” Eakin says. “Our problem on the right is that we have been dominated by folks who have an intense focus on stunts and on being provocative but not having any discipline, tradition, or the institutional respect that is part of being a conservative.” They also seem to think that George W. Bush’s political circle is the problem and that Karl Rove is the devil incarnate. “The squatters spend their time attacking the people who flipped this state in the first place and tearing down the infrastructure they built. They’re the political equivalent of the TikTok ass-shakers constantly vying for attention and engagement, which is not translating into success in the real world.”

 

At the moment, there are no normal Republicans in Texas. Not that matter very much, anyway.

 

There are some normal Democrats.

 

***

 

Here’s a theory of Texas politics in 2026: Democrats with Spanish surnames, especially ones from rural or working-class backgrounds, are allowed to be pretty much normal, whereas college-educated white professionals are obliged to engage in the kind of idiotic performative progressivism that has come to be known as woke. Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for governor currently giving Greg Abbott fits, is a pretty lefty politician—her background is in public-sector unions and public-school politics, and her father was chairman of the Texas Democratic Party—but she’s a pretty normal lefty politician, one who has caused some of her party’s campus activist base to get their dresses over their heads by joking that her pronouns are “mom” and “Texan” and “future governor.” And so you see this split: Pulido is a familiar Texas type who suggests that maybe people from Boston or wherever should mind their own business when it comes to how people in Jim Wells County dispose of javelinas, while James Talarico has a record of saying dumb stuff about how God is nonbinary and there are at least six biological sexes. Talarico isn’t fundamentally stupid, of course—all of his billboards are about protecting Social Security and medical entitlement benefits, nary a mention of exceedingly rare chromosomal configurations—but the Anglo-Hispanic cultural split is real, and Talarico is still more of a Beto O’Rourke than he is a Bobby Pulido.

 

And Pulido is a reminder that, politically and culturally speaking, there is no such thing as a Latino. The notion that Tejano ranchers whose families have been in the same Texas communities since the 1700s are somehow in the same bucket as McKinsey consultants who went to Harvard Business School after emigrating from Buenos Aires 10 years ago just because they all have Spanish-speaking ancestors is bananas. Rural-urban is a thing. College-noncollege is a thing. Money is a thing. Texans with Mexican connections whose great-grandparents were native English speakers living in the United States do not necessarily have a lot in common with Los Angeles hotel workers who arrived from Guatemala two years ago and don’t speak much English.

 

Tejanos famously proclaim, “We didn’t cross the border—the border crossed us,” and that isn’t really a joke. These are the descendants of people who were Americans before Americans were, and they’re patriots with a profound and inescapably conservative sense of tradition and community. The cynical ploy of trying to use the unassimilated recent immigrants to otherize Americans with Latin-American ancestry might work among certain gullible bigots in Queens—you may remember Trump’s argument that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel was not fit to judge the border-wall case because of his Mexican ancestry. (Curiel was born in Indiana.) But here in the Rio Grande Valley, as in much of Texas and much of the country, people who look and sound and talk like Pulido or Garcia—Bobby and Johnny—are just people.

 

Normal people.

 

If anything, insufferable campus progressives such as Talarico are the outliers this time around, and Republicans have had more luck trying to paint them as out-of-touch boutique radicals than they have had trying to smear candidates like Pulido. Talarico might win, but not because he’s a great candidate: He is running against one of the most obviously and comically corrupt, inept, and self-serving men in American public life—which is really saying something circa 2026 A.D. And unfair as such factors may be and as unseemly as it is to talk about them, Paxton also bears the curse of looking like exactly the sort of man he is, a fact that obviously irritates Trump, who has made it pretty obvious through his own petty insults about Paxton’s looks that he thinks of intervening on behalf of a guy like Paxton as beneath his dignity in a way that pro-wrestling performances and stints in softcore porn films were not.

 

That Anglo-Hispanic split is somewhat diminished from what it was in, say, the 1990s. A fair number of Anglos around my age or older, particularly if they are Texans, will have a distinct memory of a peculiar cultural moment in 1995: the murder of singer Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, simply “Selena” to her millions of fans, who was gunned down at a Days Inn in Corpus Christi, shot in the back by a woman who had been the president of her fan club. Selena’s name recognition was probably right around 100 percent among Americans with Spanish surnames, whereas most Anglos were only vaguely aware of the “queen of Tejano music” if they knew of her at all, and the dramatic public outpouring of grief over her death surprised a lot of white people, who suddenly realized that there was this big important cultural phenomenon of which they were generally oblivious, that wasn’t meant for them, that was a kind of special property of Americans who speak Spanish. It was like they hadn’t discovered there had been this great English band called the Beatles until the murder of John Lennon. The episode pushed a lot of buttons: The mourning had a distinctly Catholic flavor to it (though Selena herself was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness), a Spanish-speaking character, an immigrant character, etc. It wasn’t that the country was changing—it was that the country had changed, and English-speaking white people were the last to hear about it.

 

Not all of them liked that. Donald Trump would make his first half-assed run for president just a few years later.

 

Carlos Valdez is a Democratic candidate for the office of judge of Texas’ 148th District Court, a seat he held once before but lost to a Republican challenger the last time around. He knows a hell of a lot about the Selena murder trial: He was the prosecutor in that case, serving at the time as the Nueces County district attorney. He was derided at the time as young and inexperienced, which he was. “When I first started, people said, ‘Hey, who’s the kid?’ So, I grew a mustache,” he says. “And then they said, ‘Hey, who’s the kid with the mustache?’”

 

Valdez won that case, put Selena’s killer in prison for life (currently 66, she’ll have a parole hearing in 2030), and wrote a book about it, Justice for Selena: The State Vs Yolanda Saldivar, the cover of which features a photo of Valdez that, he notes, shows him with darker hair and a slimmer waist. He is, to be sure, no longer young and inexperienced. He has seen some things, and he is not as confident as many of his fellow Democrats.

 

We’re at an event for a House candidate in Corpus Christi, and he gestures around the room, where the candidate and her family are serving chips and salsa and fried pickles to a handful of supporters and one out-of-town reporter. “I don’t see the enthusiasm everybody is talking about,” he says. “You’d think that there should be a line out the door for this.”

 

Valdez signs off on my normies-vs.-progressives analysis, and he is definitely team normie, not in the sense that he thinks Democrats are necessarily wrong in their policy views about, say, Gaza or transgender issues, but that these issues simply are not top of mind for ordinary voters. I ask him whether any voter who is not a young college-educated white person has ever brought up Gaza with him. He laughs. “No.” He thinks Democrats still need to work on sticking to the interests of ordinary voters.

 

“I’ve been telling them, ‘Look, we’ve got the wrong message. We’re talking a language that people don’t care about.’ I go block-walking and talk to the real people—they don’t care about these cultural issues. They just want to feed their children. They want to have a good school for them. That’s what they’re interested in. And I think, my God, we waste a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of resources, talking about these other matters. The person who is talking about important issues is the one saying he is going to bring down the price of bacon on his first day in office. That resonates. That’s what I want.”

 

I ask him if he has any good ideas for the bacon deflation. He demurs.

 

James Carville makes the same argument, as do many other Democrats. But Valdez does not think that message is really breaking through. In fact, the Democrats’ dilemma can be observed in miniature right here in this not-exactly-packed room at the Executive Surf Club, where Tanya Lloyd, the Democrats’ candidate for the 27th Congressional District, is working to gin up some enthusiasm. Thanks to the Republican gerrymandering project lately lambasted as the “dummy-mander,” Texas has more reliably Republican-leaning House districts than it did before—but this was achieved at the cost of making some Republican districts less Republican than they had been before. The 27th is still a Republican district, but not as Republican as it was pre-gerrymander. It’s a big weird district that takes three hours to drive end-to-end, stretching from the suburbs of Austin all the way down to what nobody I have ever talked to spontaneously calls the Gulf of America.

 

It will still be uphill for Tanya Lloyd, a 55-year-old public-school teacher who looks and talks and thinks exactly like how you think a 55-year-old public-school teacher making her first run for office would. She worked at car dealerships and in real estate before going back to school in her 30s to become a teacher. She’s bright and earnest and does not seem to have a lot of very developed political ideas per se beyond a firmly held conviction that the world would be better if government were run by people like her in the interest of people like her. E.g., she says that she wants to see a federal right to abortion codified in law because it seems wrong to her to have different laws in different states, and when I ask whether she thinks her progressive interests really would be best served by having Washington dictating abortion law to California and Massachusetts, given that we have a government presided over by Donald Trump, who has twice been elected president of these United States, with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and a Supreme Court that seems to most progressives to be overly solicitous of Republican interests, it is clear that she never has considered this line of argument. “Well, I don’t want this government doing that!” she says. I don’t want to lampoon her, and she isn’t stupid—that’s how most people think about these things. She’s a small-town mom who could stand to read some more books, sure, but it’s not like her Republican opponent in the race is some kind of Hayek scholar—he was the PR guy for a South Texas megachurch before being elected to public office.

 

Abortion is a famously divisive issue. In general, Tanya Lloyd is much more one of those price-of-bacon people that Carlos Valdez talks about. She wants to stop the Iran war because she wants the price of gasoline to go down. She acknowledges that there are environmental challenges associated with the local oil-and-gas industry but values its economic effects and the good wages that come along with energy production. And, like many people, she is surprised and confused by the intensity and prominence of conspiracy theories in our political discourse.

 

“Whatever that wild conspiracy theory is on the other side, we’ve got to tone down the propaganda,” she says. “I’m not sure how we’re going to make that happen. But when we have politicians tell lie after lie after lie, and people are believing it ... and why are they lying about certain things? Why are they lying about vaccinations? I don’t know. But we have a measles outbreak in Texas. Why? Because we’re not vaccinating anymore. We’ve had children die of measles for the first time in decades. Why? What is the point?”

 

She and her husband both come from small-farm backgrounds, and her daughter raised show cattle for Future Farmers of America competitions. She isn’t exactly Abdul El-Sayed—or Nancy Pelosi, for that matter.

 

“I know exactly what you’re going through when there’s a drought,” she says. “I know what it looks like when your stock tanks dry up, and you’re having to haul in water and fill up those little Tractor Supply galvanized stock tanks. I can have these conversations with people about their gas prices, their diesel prices, that your fertilizer prices are high. I know what it’s like to balance a checkbook at the end of the month and go, ‘There ain’t nothing left.’”

 

The generational split that runs through the Democratic Party runs through her family, too. I speak with her daughter, a bright young woman who recently finished up a degree in animal science at Texas A&M–Kingsville but is unable to find a job that suits her. She was a three-sport athlete in high school and describes her mother as the reliable and hardworking type who “went to every track meet, every volleyball game, almost every golf tournament.” She also talks about affordability and healthcare challenges (some mothers-to-be in the district will have to drive an hour or more to reach a labor-and-delivery facility), and she is worried about aging out of her parents’ insurance coverage before she gets a “real job.” She also is the one who brings up LGBTQ rights and Gaza: “It’s not okay for people to just be, uh, genocided on the other side of the world. Right?”

 

Again, it is easy to make fun of young people offering up callow political opinions expressed without maximum articulateness, but she isn’t dumb, and she probably knows as much or more about national and world affairs than the average person her age anywhere in the country, which may be faint praise but is worth at least something. But when Democrats decide that the moral center of their politics is going to be gender ideology and superficial Hamas-apologist talking points, a lot of people are going to check out. Never mind the non-coveted demographic of pointy-headed right-wing ideologues who write for political magazines—there are real gettable voters out there who may not be signed up for Fox News-style hysteria but still think that having boys play girls’ high-school sports is a pretty bad idea and that the word “genocide” should be reserved for actual genocides.

 

I see the same split play out in similar scenes across Texas. At another event, there’s an old guy with a well-brushed cattleman’s hat and a fabulous Sam Elliott-worthy mustache, the kind whom local waitresses just address in Spanish without bothering to check, and he’s nodding along enthusiastically as he watches Talarico on CNN talking about the border. A poster behind him on the wall of the white-kids hipster bar where Democrats have gathered to watch the town hall shows a vicious-looking dog with a bloody muzzle over the legend: “GOOD BOYS MAUL TRANSPHOBES,” and the expensively miseducated progressive Anglo types with the facial piercings and whatnot get real quiet when Talarico declares that Joe Biden “failed us” on the border. But they roar their approval every time abortion is mentioned. Culturally, Talarico is more like these kids than he is like Pulido or Martinez, never mind the guy here with the extravagant cookie-duster, who I’ll bet has never in his long life used the Spanish word for transphobe, whatever that may be. The guy I sat next to at breakfast a couple of days before, taking his mother out for some post-Sunday Mass migas, whose shirt embroidery identified him as an usher at Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church and whose boots identified him as a man doing pretty well for himself, might very well be where Talarico et al. are on healthcare, spending, taxes, education, etc. He probably has some friends and family who are worried about getting deported. I don’t think he probably wants to sic his dog on misgenderers, however wanton. But the Democrats don’t seem quite ready to get over their adolescent boutique campus radicalism. Maybe they just haven’t had enough pain and humiliation.

 

If Democrats manage to lose in Texas, rooms like these will be the place where they lost.

 

***

 

It isn’t that there is no overlap between the hot-button culture-war stuff and the real-world issues that voters in Texas care about: The Trump administration’s use of ICE as an instrument of theatrical terror to be directed against Democratic cities and perceived Kulturkampf enemies is both a symbolic issue for the campus radical left and a real-world issue for people and communities affected by the raids and deportations. There is a feeling of betrayal among at least some Mexican Americans in the valley, some of whom supported Trump and many of whom believe that getting control of the border is the right policy—but a policy that they understand as being separate from staging terrifying, humiliating raids and rounding up roofers and landscapers—and, you know, nuns. Sister Letty Ugboaja, a Nigerian nun and nurse with the Daughters of Mary Mother of Mercy was arrested, wearing her habit, walking out of Sunday Mass at Our Lady of Sorrows here in McAllen. “They told us they were going to go after the bad guys,” says one local. “How is a nun a bad guy?”

 

You hear the same thing from locals such as Juan Jose Salinas, a 19-year-old college student at UT-Rio Grande Valley who currently works at the Hidalgo County Democratic Party office, where tonight they are offering cafecito y pan dulce to volunteers putting together literature packets for block-walking in a couple of days. Thanks to dual-credit high school courses, he is a senior on the verge of graduating, so the real-world stuff is a little closer on the horizon for him than it is for the average 19-year-old. He talks about prices and wages, but also about family members and friends who have had run-ins with ICE, and he says that deportations have been pursued with particular vigor in nearby Harlingen. Part of what really got his attention was not the focus on illegal immigrants but the attempt to overturn birthright citizenship, which was accompanied by some fairly nasty talk about denaturalization as well.

 

Salinas’ father is a naturalized citizen originally from Reynosa, McAllen’s sister city on the other side of the border. “I know what kind of man he is, and he is a hell of a lot more of an American than most of these people,” Salinas says.

 

The immigration issue lands on a lot of people around here as both a threat and an insult, and it doesn’t help that people already are feeling stress from the fact that everything seems too expensive, that wages are not keeping up, that trips to the grocery store have become positively shocking, and that it feels like ... something bad is lurking over the econo-political horizon.

 

Juan Jose Salinas is a teenager, and a little bit of gas that costs him $40 instead of the $30 it used to cost is a big deal. He probably is too young to be lamenting the decay of trust in American institutions and the ravages of affective hyperpartisanship, but he is not wrong about those, either. “If you agree with one side on 80 percent of the issues but not the other 20 percent, you’re treated as a traitor,” he says. “I feel like we are taught to hate each other now just because we have differences, you know?”

 

There was a time when precocious young men on their way to an early college graduation and kicking around the idea of law school—and thinking, as Juan Jose Salinas is thinking, about how to build an economically secure life before starting a family—were natural Republicans, Alex P. Keaton types interested in upward mobility, the professions, an orderly kind of community life. Salinas is not the only one of those Republicans have lost—and some of them, at least, they are never going to get back.

 

***

 

On Monday, I got a speeding ticket in a classic speed trap in Falfurrias, Texas. On Wednesday, a minor elected official a couple of towns over offered to have it fixed for me, as casually as if she were offering me a cup of coffee. It is the blasé pettiness of the corruption that really grates, but that’s political life in the Rio Grande Valley, where patronage and nepotism are unhappy facts of life. This was a single-party Democratic fief for generations, and the political machine and the compadre networks associated with it have been practically baked into the ground by the hot South Texas sun.

 

Modern technology has a way of making ordinary things irritating in the pursuit of phantom convenience, and when you get a ticket in Falfurrias today you get a link to a computer-generated citation and an app and whatnot that does everything except what you need to do, i.e., pay the fine and go on with your life. Because while you can get a ticket fixed down here if you know the right people, you’ll have a hell of a time beating one in court, especially if you happen to be, you know ... technically ... guilty.

 

I don’t feel too bad about the ticket. Given the crap I’ve gotten away with in life and the things I probably should have been sent to jail for over the years, a couple hundred bucks into the kitty of some economically moribund valley backwater just feels like karma trying to even up the score a little bit.

 

So as soon as the deputy lets me go, I take the first exit—slowly—and come to a full stop and conscientiously signal a right turn and then a left and then another right and park at the Brooks County municipal building, to go pay my ticket. Which, of course, I can’t—the ticket is electronically generated and a copy of it already is on a website somewhere, but county governments are a full-employment program for ... well, you’ve probably been to your county courthouse. There’s a dead-eyed deputy at a desk who has the same quiet despair on his face that I saw on the deputy who wrote me the ticket, that awful disappointed self-loathing that guys who thought they were going to be cops get when they learn that what they actually have become is tax collectors, that this is it until retirement. The deputy at the desk does his job, which is telling me that what I need is the window on the right. He is the human version of the meeting that could have been an email: a bureaucrat who could be replaced with a sign.

 

I tell the lady at the window that I’m here to pay my ticket. I hand her the ticket. She goes and tap-tap-taps on a keyboard for a couple of minutes while another lady across the room simply stares straight at me with bovine indifference. Tappa-tappa-tappa, click, click. “I can’t find it. When did you get the ticket?” Twelve minutes ago, lady, just like it says on the ticket, which is in your hand. “Oh. It isn’t here yet.” You’ll know where this is going: The documents are all online, but somebody somewhere in some other office has to print something out and walk it over to this office for processing, a bit of old-fashioned meatspace paperwork that takes 10 business days at least. She tells me to come back in two weeks. “Or you can call.” Stare Bear over in the corner continues staring—not hostile, not not-hostile. I keep thinking I’m standing in front of a television she’s trying to watch or something, but these people don’t sit around the office watching television all day, which would be unseemly—they sit around the office watching their phones.

 

And that old, familiar feeling comes over me—that old Republican feeling, that radical spirit of ’94 thing, back when it seemed like rallying to Newt Gingrich’s flag was a good idea. I walk into a government office an Eisenhower guy and walk out ready to join a militia. The whole scene—the pointlessness of it, the pettiness, the dehumanizing bureaucratic stupor, the subsequent bush-league corruption—that is a big part of why the Republican Party came to exist in its Goldwater-Reagan-Buckley form. (There were other factors, too, including some ugly ones that I did not really appreciate sufficiently at the time.) We really meant it when we said, “Government is not the solution—government is the problem.” And for the few old-school conservatives who still cling to the Republican Party, the notion of handing over the keys and the checkbook to ... these people ... is hard to stomach, even if doing so is the practical political price for liberating their party—and their state and their souls—from the taint of Ken Paxton, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, J.D. Vance, and all that they stand for. But to the extent that the old reforming Republican Party was a real thing at all and not merely a projection of our desires, that party is gone: It’s “squatters” and grifters and Paxton all the way down—and down goes a very, very long way.

 

“You know, they’re not just a pair of hands,” says Criselda Vera, an advocate for immigrants’ interests in the valley. “They’re not just the hands that build your houses or the hands that work your soil. These are human beings.” She helps deliver food to poor people who are too terrified to visit the food banks they used to rely on, helps families deprived of their breadwinner to get help of various kinds—and she and her colleagues work on both sides of the border, helping deportees dumped in Mexico nowhere near the places they are from to get back to the place that used to be home. “That’s what gets me, right? A lot of people are now like, ‘Oh, my housekeeper got detained and now it’s an issue for me, but I voted for Trump.’ Or, ‘Oh, I don’t have anybody to build my houses, because they’re all detained or scared to come to work, but I voted for Trump.’ And that grinds my gears.”

 

Like many activists of her kind, she can’t quite bring herself to say to me in plain terms what it is that she actually wants in policy terms, which is clear enough: that the government stop enforcing immigration law when the people breaking the law are sympathetic. “Republicans don’t want criminals here. Democrats don’t want criminals here, either,” she says. “It’s the cruelty—we shouldn’t be okay with the cruelty.”

 

I wonder if that is our choice: petty corruption and destructive permissiveness and inefficiency and economically suffocating bureaucratic metastasis on the one hand and, on the other—cruelty. There was a time when the Republican Party did seem to stand for something. Maybe the cruelty was always there—but now the cruelty is all that is left. And the Republicans have their own new problems when it comes to government meddling in the economy, administrative overreach, fiscal incontinence, and, of course, the wild and open new spirit of utter corruption that Trump has unleashed in the GOP.

 

Eakin, the former county Republican chair, says she is still voting for Republicans—some Republicans. “I’m probably going to be under-voting in a few races,” she says, meaning that her ballot will have some blank spots on it. “I can’t in good conscience vote for them—not because of private scandals but because of the corruption.”  

 

Driving up out of the valley, carefully hewing to the speed limits, I am spared at least the sight of billboards with gigantic depictions of the face of Ken Paxton, the living breathing picture of Dorian Gray that Republicans have pulled down from the attic and are trying to set up in the Senate rather than, you know, recoiling in horror like normal people would. I don’t know what to call that.

 

But it isn’t normal.

 

 

Monday, October 19, 2026

A Partisan’s Progress

By John McCormack

Monday, October 19, 2026

 

In Thom Tillis’ new book, How to Lose Friends and Antagonize Presidents, the two-term senator with little more than two months until his retirement dismisses “lazy reporters” who say he was only willing to speak out against President Trump’s excesses once he decided to retire in June 2025. But Tillis concedes he did become more outspoken after announcing his retirement.

 

“Now that I wasn’t quite as concerned about having to answer for my every statement during the next election cycle,” Tillis writes, “I’ll admit that the number of f—s I had to give did diminish pretty quickly.”

 

One of the more surprising elements of the seemingly mild-mannered senator’s book is that if it were a movie, it would merit an R-rating for language. Executive overreach is "bad because it doesn’t f—ing work,” Tillis writes, without the polite dashes. Partisans who win a trifecta—the White House plus both chambers of Congress—think they had a mandate only to realize two years later that voters “simply gave them a chance to govern after the other guys f—ed it up.”

 

“It’s not a children’s book,” Tillis tells me in an interview. “It’s an after-action [report] from a Price Waterhouse partner who grew up at a trailer park.”

 

The 17 f-bombs in How to Lose Friends and Antagonize Presidents are less surprising when he reveals toward the end of the book that he’s “always liked” the foul-mouthed band Sublime. When I tell Tillis nothing has ever made me feel older than reading that a retiring two-term (Medicare-eligible) senator was always a fan of a band popular when I was in junior high, he replies: “Come on, man! I went to a Nine Inch Nails concert. All these young people like to hijack them, but they started in 1989.” The math, alas, checks out.

 

***

 

Thom Tillis is an odd duck in more ways than one. His book focuses on his fraught relationship with the second Trump administration, and the villains in his story are the sycophantic supporters and advisers who have led Trump astray, rather than Trump himself. Tillis calls these sycophants “MAGATS,” sounding a bit like a #Resistance influencer. But he remains a committed Trump-era Republican: He tells me he has no regrets about voting against convicting Trump in his second impeachment trial in 2021 or supporting Trump for president in 2024, and he wants every Republican Senate and House candidate to win in 2026.

 

“I am writing this book to save my party from itself, and to save the president from the temptations and tragedies being set upon him from MAGA extremists like [Laura] Loomer and [Steve] Bannon who have no understanding of governance, politics, or simple human decency,” Tillis explains at the outset of his book. “There’s nothing conservative about setting up a $1.776 billion fund for scumbags who beat on cops and stormed the Capitol. There’s nothing conservative about spending millions on TV commercials while your ICE thugs gun people down in the streets, or starting investigations of your Fed chair because he won’t fall in line like all the other spineless lowlifes who work for you.”

 

The story is, in many ways, about how most of the human guardrails of the first Trump administration—people like John Kelly, Bill Barr, and Henry McMaster—went away, only to be supplanted by people like Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem, and Stephen Miller. It’s the tale of how even a faithful Republican like Tillis found himself breaking with Trump.

 

“I know for a fact that there are others like me: Republicans who agreed to go along with the early demands of the Trump team no matter how ridiculous they were, believing that failing to do so would mean the end of their political career, and who now see that things have gone way too far,” Tillis writes.

 

Tillis had several breaking points with the Trump administration. He split with Trump over the size of healthcare spending cuts in the “big beautiful bill” and promptly announced his retirement as the fight with Trump went public. The bill passed anyway. He was one of many Republican senators who helped prevent Matt Gaetz from becoming attorney general, and he got a promise (of dubious worth) to kill off a $1.776 billion slush fund for Trump allies allegedly victimized by government “weaponization.”

 

Just last week, Tillis was one of six Republican senators to sign a bipartisan letter to Trump saying that an executive action to allow Russia to sell diesel fuel was “a gift to our adversary and a betrayal of our Allies; it should be rescinded.” Trump proceeded this weekend to broadly waive Russia sanctions—covering banking, tariffs, and more—in the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia Act that passed the Senate 86-11 this summer. Tillis wrote on social media that it’s “unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine and butchers innocent civilians every single day.” It remains to be seen whether the bipartisan backlash will have any effect on Trump’s Russia-Ukraine policy.

 

Tillis did successfully play the role of human guardrail at one key moment, when he thwarted MAGA lawfare against Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. Within minutes of the Trump Department of Justice announcing in January 2026 a criminal probe into Powell that was obviously politically motivated (Trump wanted lower interest rates), Tillis announced that he would use his decisive vote on the Senate Banking Committee to block “the confirmation of any nominee for the Fed—including the upcoming Fed Chair vacancy—until this legal matter is fully resolved.” The subpoenas of Powell were later quashed.

 

“Tillis was absolutely critical,” Jason Furman, a former top economic adviser to President Barack Obama, told me shortly after the Powell investigation was announced. “Once he said that, to me it seemed like this had all backfired.” Tillis told me that he heard from Powell’s team that the subpoenas were imminent and told his own team to help him prepare to publish a statement. “I’m not going to let the markets open, thinking that the Fed has suddenly become just the Department of the White House,” he said. “I think it could have had devastating consequences.”

 

Yet, time and again, Tillis places most of the blame for disasters and potential disasters on Trump’s advisers, not Trump himself. In the book, Tillis blames budget chief Russ Vought for devising the Powell scheme. He blames Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller for the aggressive quota-driven deportation agenda that set the stage for the shooting deaths of two Americans in Minnesota. When Trump issued a blanket pardon for January 6 rioters, including those who viciously beat up police officers, Tillis writes: “That disgusted me. I’m sure this was yet another idea whispered into his ear by some White House toady, and if I ever find out who that person was, I’m going to shout his or her name from the rooftops.”

 

When I ask Tillis if he thinks he’s letting Trump off the hook by blaming Trump’s advisers for so many of Trump’s actions, he replies with an emphatic “No!”

 

“President Trump is a great salesperson,” he continues. “Do you think that President Trump got elected because [voters] said, ‘Man, that dude’s depth of knowledge in geopolitical affairs, or healthcare, or homeland security, or transportation—you know, he’s a real expert there.’ No, if you’re an executive, you hire experts there and you listen to them.”

 

“And here’s the other reality: You can fire advisers. You can’t fire the president,” he adds. “My focus is on getting the people out of there who actually expose the president to what is ultimately his responsibility.”

 

Critics will, of course, note that Tillis voted to confirm Trump’s worst Cabinet members. He writes that he wishes he hadn’t voted to confirm Robert F. Kennedy as health and human Services secretary, and his biggest regret of all was casting a decisive vote to confirm Pete Hegseth to run the Pentagon. Tillis is pushing hard now for Trump to fire Hegseth. In his interview, the senator castigated Hegseth for the “bull—” plan (reversed by the White House) to broadcast the execution of a convicted terrorist and mass murderer. He said the Trump administration’s policy of bombing unarmed suspected drug boats seems like "just another one of Pete Hegseth’s Homelander-like aggressive tactics that appeal to a lot of the more primitive desires that we have."

 

“Since I’m not in the committee of jurisdiction, I just haven’t spent a lot of time on that, but intuitively, I think history is not going to look fondly at ... what are basically summary executions,” he added, when asked why he didn’t address the controversy in his book. “My guess is they’ve killed some people that didn’t want to be on that boat, and maybe even killed some people that were not carrying any kind of [drug] payloads, let alone the kind that they’ve described.” Tillis called for more congressional investigations of the strikes, but he did not vote in favor of a war powers resolution aimed at stopping them.

 

Tillis’s selective breaks with Trump are unlikely to satisfy many Trump critics. Even after his declaration of independence from Trump in June 2025, he voted to confirm Trump lackeys Emil Bove and Todd Blanche (both of whom previously served as Trump’s personal lawyers) to high-ranking positions, Bove as federal appeals court judge and Blanche as attorney general. Tillis has no regrets about either vote: He tells me he didn’t want to leave the appeals court seat vacant, and he publicly pointed to Blanche’s pledge to kill off the $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” fund as a rationale to confirm him.

 

Although Tillis may not have the ability to fire Trump, he and his Republican Senate colleagues did have the opportunity in 2021 to render Trump ineligible to seek the presidency ever again. But the vote to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial fell 10 votes short of the two-thirds majority necessary. Tillis defends his “nay” vote by saying that the House failed to provide due process to Trump by declining to call witnesses during the impeachment trial. “It was a snap impeachment, and I think it was in the heat of the moment, and that by itself is a challenge to the integrity of our institution,” he says.

 

Tillis says institutional concerns are also at the heart of why he remains a committed Republican. Asked why he thinks GOP control of the Senate is so important that he’d even vote for Ken Paxton if he lived in Texas, he tells me he doesn’t want gridlock for the next two years, and he fears unchecked Democratic governance after 2028: “I worry about the Democrats ultimately nuking the filibuster, admitting [new] states, expanding the Supreme Court.”

 

Republican opponents of the filibuster also come under fire in Tillis’ book. He singles out Mike Lee, his Republican colleague from Utah, for flipping in favor of nuking the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE ACT. Tillis writes that Lee is “just pretending” he no longer understands the importance of the Senate’s 60-vote rule and Lee is “doing it because he, along with many other members of the Republican Party in the Senate, believes that making President Trump happy in the moment is more important than safeguarding his legacy (and the legacy of the Republican Party) for years to come.”

 

When I ask Tillis how he knows Lee hasn’t sincerely changed his mind about the filibuster, Tillis points to a 2022 speech Lee gave when Senate Democrats came two votes short of scrapping the filibuster: “I think the minute we fall out of power that he’ll dust off that 2022 speech and wax eloquent again. But he’s lost all credibility, in my opinion, by doing exactly what the Democrats did” in flip-flopping on the filibuster.

 

None of Tillis’ fights with Trump and his allies rank among his proudest moments in office. His top achievements in Congress, Tillis writes, are getting federal tribal recognition for the Lumbee Indians; securing compensation for victims sterilized in a eugenics program in North Carolina; and helping to free a Chrisitan pastor imprisoned in Turkey.

 

Though Tillis wants the GOP to hold the Senate in November, he realizes Republicans are in a difficult spot because they are wedded to a deeply unpopular president. Polls indicate Tillis’ seat is very likely to be filled by Democratic candidate and former Gov. Roy Cooper, and Tillis isn’t sure if he could have pulled out a victory if he were on the ballot.* “I think it would be closer, and I believe that it would be in reach, but it would be dependent upon the extent to which I could move unaffiliated voters to our column,” he says. Republican Senate candidate Michael Whatley “is going to have a more difficult time because at this point I’m not sure of any separation between him and the president.”

 

Is there anything Trump could actually do to help Republicans in the closing two weeks of the campaign? “What the president can do is not hurt Republicans,” he says. “Let’s just avoid any more unforced errors, and then maybe even give some of these candidates the latitude to separate from the president when they genuinely believe it.”

 

Whatever the outcome may be in November, Tillis says he hopes to be around to help the Republican Party long after he and Trump are out of office. But he concedes in the book he may not have much influence come January. “Ex-senators are as important to people as spoiled milk,” Tillis writes. “My expiration date is fast approaching.”