Did any of you see this article on Jim McCrea's email thread?
"Days before former president Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial began, more than 100 former GOP officials reportedly hopped on a Zoom call. The topic: how to best rally whatever anti-Trump momentum is left in the party."
From the article:
“Some people at the summit strongly favor starting a new party,” McMullin, who ran as an independent presidential candidate in 2016, told The Washington Post on Wednesday. “They think the GOP is irredeemable. They understand how difficult it is to form a new party, but they understand that there is no other choice.”
"...Trump’s lasting influence in the party helped spark the meeting last week, McMullin said. Roughly 120 former officials called in, McMullin said. Reuters reported it confirmed those figures with three others who participated in the call, and said the group included John Mitnick, Trump’s general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security; former Pennsylvania congressman Charlie Dent; Elizabeth Neumann, deputy chief of staff at DHS under Trump, and Miles Taylor, who also worked at DHS under Trump."
"...While the call included discussion of forming a new party, only about 40 percent of those on the call appeared to support that course of action, McMullin said. The rest argued they could have more impact by nurturing the anti-Trump faction within the GOP."
"...He said the former officials were split between those who wanted to keep operating strictly under the GOP, and those wanting to back independent Republicans “willing to support Democrats [and Independents] when facing extremist Republicans in general elections.”
Evan McMullin's name caught my eye. I actually voted for him when he ran as an independent in 2016. It was a protest vote, there was no chance of it making any difference one way or the other in my solidly red state. I appreciated then and now that he is making an effort to wean Republicans off of Trumpism.
Yes, saw that. Interesting to imagine what a Trumper-less party would look like. Fiscal conservatism, certainly, which means less for social programs. I would be impressed if they extended fiscal conservatism to defense (or at least cut weapons to increase pay for enlisted personnel and care for veterans) and corporate welfare. Probably softer on environmental and biz regulations and harder on immigration and foreign affairs than I'd want to see.
ReplyDeleteI don't factor abortion into my voting decisions, but seems to be a deal-breaker issue for a lot of people, so something they would likely have to take a stand on. No abortion without medical cause after the first trimester might best reflect where most Americans are on this issue.
I'm sure they are busy with focus groups and surveys because that's how we market everything from soup to nuts to political parties now. Frank Luntz will certainly be busier and richer.
The Repubs need to split up and so do the Dems. The disparity between the corporate and populist parts of the Democratic Party is too much to reconcile. There is too much spectrum to be covered by two parties. Maybe we need a fascist right wing party as a loony collector. I have no desire for a one-party system with Democrats in control. I vote Dem usually because I have no other choice but I don't see that party being reformed either. Too much corporate money and buy in to neoliberalism. I would join a populist breakaway party from the Dems.
ReplyDeleteStanley, how do you define populism? I see it used by both right and left, Trump was sometimes called a populist. So was William Jennings Bryan. In the dictionary it is "supporting the concerns of ordinary people". Which can mean anything.
DeleteI think "populist" is a vexed term and refers more to an attitude than ideology. Basically,as I understand it, it's a politician who appeals to "regular folks."
DeletePopulists become problems when they start fear-mongering. Often they appeal to ethnic prejudice, anti-intellectualism (anti-elistism), the rich or poor as enemies of prosperity for the bulk of hard-working Americans, and morality/decency issues. Populists rhetoric often encourages people to see things in black and white, reducing issues to slogans and formulas, often with lots of colloquialisms.
Huey Long seems like the quintessential leftist populist: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k
My definition of populism is practical, a bread and butter affair. The government's primary concern is the welfare of the ordinary man. Food, shelter, medical care, job security, education. If you don't take care of these things, the population becomes dangerous and susceptible to demagoguery. It is the opposite of pandering to banks, corporations, wealthy people as if they are more fundamental to civilization than the people.
DeleteI think that's the good side of leftist/socialist/FDR populism.
DeleteBut the danger of populism on either side lies in demonizing groups of people or worsening class resentments.
Very interesting stuff. Not sure that this effort has the proper "heft" of disgruntled GOP leadership to achieve lift-off. I am sure most elected officials and party officials are still trying to figure out how to preserve the status quo and not alienate Trump followers.
ReplyDeleteThe precedent for this in American history was the demise of the Whig Party and the birth of the Republican Party. In the Lincoln political history series I've been reading, author Sidney Blumenthal makes the point that there was nothing inevitable about the new party getting traction and becoming a major party. There were many points during its formative years where it could have run off the rails and joined other stillborn 19th century parties in the scrap yard. All of which is to say: if they're going to pursue this, it's important that leaders emerge who will do this right.
Interesting about the early Republican Party.
DeleteMy sense is that Republicans would need to be persuaded that they cannot simply ride out Trumpism by gradual and careful distancing between now and 2024. I think there's a good chance that Trump will get distracted from and bored with politics. Plus, state courts seem poised to keep him busy.
I think we'll see Republicans returning to mainstream conservative fiscal and defense issues in the next couple of years. My guess is that they'll soften their attitudes about immigration and give lip service to "inclusivity." Watch for them to put more clout behind Latino and African-American spokespeople.
I think Republicans will soft-pedal whatever doubts they have about the science behind global warming and COVID. Trumpers have made them look like know-nothings on these issues. Republicans will always temper science-driven policy with economic exigencies, but I look for the outright deniers to start living at the fringes of the party instead of its mainstream.
Republicans, if nothing else, are good at getting the bulk of their people in line.
All of the above would be good for the GOP and for the USA.
Jean, I hope you're right, but I fear that Trump has propelled the party in the direction of becoming a working-class populist party, and that momentum will be difficult to reverse or redirect, even if party leaders were so inclined - and it's becoming ever clearer that they're not.
DeleteThe party will be mostly but not entirely white. It would attract votes by stoking anger and grievances, and would be the opposite of a responsible governing party.
I say "would" as though this were all theoretical speculation. It's pretty much what we've seen over the last four years, and as you note, on issues such as climate change, for a good deal longer than four years.
I am not sure that the word "conservative" even describes it. It's pretty much tribalism, shorn of any higher or deeper principles. Cf. the contempt for Obamacare, made contemptible because it originated from the tribe on the other side of the river, coupled with the inability to cook up an alternative, as that would would require a core philosophy and serious interest in policymaking. Today's Trumpified GOP runs on slogans and rage.
It's possible that the Capitol assault wasn't an anomaly - it was an epitome.
Republicans experiment occasionally with packs of wild dogs--racists, misogynists, commie baiters, etc.--who will help them get elected or maintain their majorities. Nixon hired them and got bitten. However, this time, the GOP, in a breathtakingly stupid maneuver, decided to nominate the leader of the pack.
DeleteI think Republicans knew this was dangerous out of the gate, but now they realize that the whole pack is not only wild but completely rabid. They could be done with the lot of them once and for all by putting Trump out of their misery and convicting him.
But my guess is that they would prefer some type of slow, untraceable poison to avoid being primaried. Meantime, they are going to go out of their way to look reasonable and concerned.
Many Trumpers never bothered to vote and just lived in their enclaves of resentment engaging in passive-aggressive behavior like flying the Confederate flag, joining the NRA, and reading nutty conspiracy theories. Unless they have Margery Taylor Green, Lauren Hobart, or similar to provide a rallying cry, they'll sink back into inactive mode. I can't see them forming a viable third party.
I'm in the voted-for-Evan-McMullin club, too! Can't say it was a well-thought-out decision. A friend of mine told me he had voted for the guy. I admit that, until then, I had never heard of McMullin. But I didn't have any better ideas, and he was on the ballot, so I pushed the button, or punched the chad, or did whatever we did that year to vote.
ReplyDeleteSame here! At that time I was still struggling with whether voting for a pro-choice candidate such as HRC was a sin. I have since come to the point of view that voting for someone in spite of, and not because of, their pro-choice position, was a morally acceptable decision. Especially since I felt that four more years of Trump would have destroyed what's left of our democracy.
DeleteIt is interesting that Evan McMullin is a Mormon. His candidacy spawned some "Mormon mafia" jokes such as, you have to be careful because they will break into your house and leave a pie.
Anyway, I am glad that there are people trying to steer the Republican party away from the extremist/nutty cliff they seem to be heading for, even if they aren't successful in spinning off a new party.
" I have since come to the point of view that voting for someone in spite of, and not because of, their pro-choice position, was a morally acceptable decision."
DeleteYep. Especially when the only other realistic alternative is Donald Trump.
The math does not compute for a center-right party in addition to a Trump party (either the present Republican party or a new one).
ReplyDeleteA third of Americans approve of Trump. That has been relatively constant. The half of Americans that voted for Trump included many who did not approve of him, but voted against the Democrats. You have to get Trumps approval ratings down to at least 25% of Americans, preferably down to 20% of Americans before a center right party can emerge to the left of Trump.
Getting together the middle third of Americans for a center right party does not compute. They would have to pick off about half the Trump supporters (16% of Americans) to become just barely a majority party (34 plus 16). Plus they have to be centrist enough to keep the half of the center that normally goes Democratic.
If you get Trumps approval ratings down to 20%, you can begin with the 30% of Americans to the right of center and left of Trump, i.e. try to recapture the Republican Party or create a new one. Then you have to get all those who approve of Trump to support you in the general election. If a Trump party forms to the right (or he keeps control of what we call the Republican party), you actually have to appeal to some Democrats near the center to offset that.
So in order to get a center right party you have to both discredit Trump with a substantial number of his supporters, and emerge with a better center-right alternative to Trump that really appeals to centralist Democrats.
In the past this was able to be done by the anti-communism and anti-big government theme of Reagan. Those are both rather dated. And the (evangelical) compassionate conservatism of Bush II. That is also rather dated. Trump is really not that much of a conservative. He was able to put together a center right coalition by mobilizing the radical right that had always been a part of the conservative coalition, then bringing all the other conservatives along mostly because they had nowhere else to go, and adding enough center populist votes.
Both parties need the populist vote, i.e. those at the center of the country whose issues are basically economic rather than cultural. Bernie appealed to them but he had boxed himself into a corner by labelling himself a socialist. He was really more of an FDR working class populist. I think populism, i.e. appeal to the economic interests of non-ideological people in the center of the spectrum is the way to go for both parties.
Trump remains a real threat to conservatives (the old Republican party) if he either retains control of the Republican party or creates a third party that takes away many racist voters from the right and populists with economic interests from the center.
I agree with your analysis, Jack.
DeleteJack - for the math you're discussing to work, the Democratic Party would also have to develop deeper cracks and fissures than it has so far. I was really impressed by the way that Democrats set aside their differences and rallied around their most moderate viable candidate, Joe Biden, during the primaries.
DeleteThat loyalty and discipline used to be a hallmark of Republicans. Maybe it still is; most of them still are loyal to Trump.
Nikki Haley is now saying that Trump shouldn't be allowed to run again, and that Republicans were wrong to follow him. Seems like she is a day late and a dollar short.
ReplyDeleteKatherine: I have since come to the point of view that voting for someone in spite of, and not because of, their pro-choice position, was a morally acceptable decision.
ReplyDeleteThat is actually the official stance, Katherine. It's permisable to vote for pro-choice candidates in spite of....
voters should be guided by a method developed in 2004 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI). In this way of thinking about voting, abortion is indeed of singular significance. But Ratzinger noted additional steps to take in deciding how to vote. One step is cautionary: A Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice politician if the intention of the voter is explicitly to support abortion.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/catholics-voting-and-abortion-time-correct-record
This time I didn't worry about it too much, because Trump makes my hair stand on end!
DeleteTrump Derangement Syndrome. Apparently it's a thing: Democrats hating Trump so bad that they're off their nuts. That's what's behind the impeachment effort, according to Trumpers.
ReplyDeleteMainstream Republicans seem to be appalled: “There is no question that the American left and Washington Democrats are obsessed with their incandescent hatred of Trump, but that in no way excuses his own actions,” said Michael Steel, the former spokesman for Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner. “Saying the left hates Trump isn’t a logical response to, ‘Why won’t you convict him for inciting a mob to attack the Capitol?’”
God, you can't make this stuff up. It's in the WaPo: "Donald Trump’s version of an insanity defense: His critics are insane" by Ben Terris.
Oh, the false symmetry of it, the hypocrisy. As if hating this seditious consummate asshole is the equivalent of the stoked-up hatred of Pelosi and AOC.
DeleteThis is one of the more heartbreaking things I have read concerning the aftermath of the insurrection: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-officer-suicides-capitol-riot/2021/02/11/94804ee2-665c-11eb-886d-5264d4ceb46d_story.html
ReplyDeleteIn this WaPo article the families of the two officers who committed suicide were interviewed. In addition, there were many other officers injured. They weren't minor injuries, and they are not okay. Some will be a long time healing,and some things will never heal. Such as the one who has lost an eye. The idea that Trump will likely never be called to account for the lives he has ruined is infuriating.
Acquittal, as was to be expected. The Republican Party must disappear. It serves no purpose except for the oligarchs. They don't even pretend to believe in this democracy.
ReplyDeleteAt least we know who the rats are and how fubar the country is. Now on to screwing up COVID relief and cabinet nominees!
DeleteI don't think they really ever engaged the question of whether Trump incited the riot. They just stuck with the fiction that someone who had left office couldn't be convicted. But the evidence was laid out for all to see. I think (and hope!) that he is damaged beyond repair as far as being able to run again.
DeleteAnd I hope everyone noted which ones behaved like middle school brats, putting their feet up on chairs, doodling, etc. during the procedures. Ostentatiously unserious.
DeleteGlad I wasn't watching it, Katherine. Might have taken an axe to my perfectly good television. Please, Biden, don't talk about "unity". No unity with fascists.
DeleteI watched Mitch McConnell's speech on youtube. It's about 20 minutes long, and the first 9 minutes are damning to Trump. It's actually good. The remainder of the speech is laying out the case that impeachment has a narrow scope which doesn't include someone who is no longer in office. Sort of, just because the only tool you have is a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail. Whatever. But that first 9 minutes ought to be required listening for anyone who still believes Trump didn't incite the riot. And ought to be enough to disqualify him from holding any kind of public office, ever again.
ReplyDeleteAnd maybe we need more tools in law other than the hammer of impeachment.
He is certainly a bloodless calculator.
DeleteBasically he is offering a template for mainstream Republicans to follow in the next two years--maintain the party's stated fealty to the Founding Documents and the traditions of law and order. Show your judicious impartiality by following the letter of these principles, even if it means letting Trump go unpunished.
McConnell was the one who manufactured the fig leaf of Unconstitutionality for not-guilty voted by not allowing the impeachment trial to occur before Trump left office.
There is talk of censure, but that's nothing more than a smack with a rolled up newspaper. Dems would do better to take the tack that a majority of the Senate voted guilty, and that amounts to more than censure.
If the Dems had called to ask me what to do, I'd have urged an immediate and swift censure vote and then leveraged that into urging a Justice Department criminal investigation for sedition. That move would have forced Trump into depositions where he would likely have added perjury to the list of crimes. I know the burden of proof is higher than for impeachment, but a DoJ investigation would have been more thorough and charges more likely to stick.
All that would have been far less distracting for Congress.
My guess, though, is that Dems, in their own calculating way, wanted GOP senators on record with not-guilty voted that could be pulled out in at election time.
Jean, agree on all points (including "bloodless calculator").
DeleteThere also has been talk of a 14th Amendment Section 3 remedy. Here is the text:
"Section 3
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
This amendment was passed in the wake of the Civil War, to prevent Confederate officials and military officers from running for office in the reunited US. But its potential application is broader than the post-Civil War era.
According to a lawyer friend of mine, it is not Congress which would act to enforce this provision; it could be enforced in a state or federal court. E.g. suppose Trump filed to run in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary in 2024. Someone with standing (perhaps a rival campaign) could sue, citing this Constitutional provision.
Yes, I have heard about this, too. I'm not sure how, without the impeachment or federal court conviction on incitement/sedition, Trump could be constitutionally barred from the ballot.
DeleteI'm also not sure that most states would invoke it, especially states that went heavily for Trump and where there has already been a lot of civil unrest.
As Katherine notes, maybe we need better legal resorts.
Whatever the solution, we have to be careful. There needs to be a pretty high bar set for a ban on running for office so that it isn't weaponized and used pre-emptively on candidates that states or text congressional majority dislike. Bernie Sanders, for instance, uses the word "revolution" a lot. Could that be used to gin up a ban? For that reason, I would not favor a 14th Amendment move on Trump.
A quick fix would be to bar anyone from holding public office who has been convicted of a felony. Trump has a lot of pending court cases that might eventually disqualify him on those grounds.
I truly believe Trump will get bored being out of the limelight and unable to create drama. The best way to get rid of him is not to feed him.
I think it is stating a fact to say things would have been much simpler if the COVID had gotten him. It sounds like he came close. The top level medical treatment saved him.
DeleteI'm sure that has crossed many minds many times in the last year.
DeleteI'm not sure it isn't good for us to have to deal with Trump and do some national soul-searching about what we do with a "problem president" who incites extremism, tries everything just shy of an outright putsch to maintain his grasp on power, and lies incessantly.
I don't believe that "everything happens for a reason," but I do think now is the time for us to confront the stressors on our republic.
I'm not so sure that Trump succumbing to Covid would have made things simpler. If it had been in the lame duck period it certainly would have; no capitol insurrection. But he got it in early October. Would Pence have then been the Republican candidate for president? Trump's base probably would have canonized the dear departed.
DeleteReminds me of those time travel stories where they go back and save JFK and come back to find the world was destroyed. Or go back and kill baby Hitler and find Germany rules the world because the military didn't have Adolph meddling with their plans.
Delete