I thought I would look for hope and listened to your podcast with Adam Kinzinger. Bad idea! I am now completely 100% sold the road ends badly here. Even someone as smart and who gets what is at stake can't move beyond partisan politics to be the grown up and fight back against Trumpism. He very clearly stated we have a hierarch…
I thought I would look for hope and listened to your podcast with Adam Kinzinger. Bad idea! I am now completely 100% sold the road ends badly here. Even someone as smart and who gets what is at stake can't move beyond partisan politics to be the grown up and fight back against Trumpism. He very clearly stated we have a hierarchy or needs and it starts there. Policy differences come later and we can fight over those in a democratic fashion once the authoritarian moment has passed. However, he then says he can't support the Democrats because of their liberal progressive policies including spending and voting rights. He thinks tinkering at the margins by supporting Evan McMullin types and getting smashed in a Presidential party nomination fight against TFG is going to do it. Wake up! Joe Walsh tried that, him and the very few sane republicans left are trying that and failing miserably. Maybe he needs to step back and take the advice he gives to the Dems and prioritize the most important aspects of the fight himself. I thought he was one of the grown ups left, but I am finally realizing he is just another one of the children running around doing nothing.
I've always been disappointed in Adam. He voted for Trump twice, he votes pretty much his party's line but he did stand up for the Jan 6th committee and for the second impeachment. But when it came time for protect the nation's debt and the peoples' voting rights, he (and Liz) were nowhere to be found.
There were a number of things in those Voting Rights bill that we're not good. Too many to get into right now. Adam said he will support the compromise Voting Rights bill. The trouble is the Democrats obsess about minor changes in voting procedures while ignoring much bigger issues like changes to vote counting and certification. Why are the Democrats doing something about the Electoral count act which needs to be amended?
I meant to say why are the democrats NOT doing something about the electoral count act? The changes to voting procedures they obsess about won't make a minuscule difference. The next presidential election is going to be stolen by state legislatures overriding the will of the people or congress doing that on their end. Yet the Democrats aren't doing a thing to stop this from happening.
Yes, and? Why should the Democrats unilaterally disarm themselves? Kinzinger, other than on Jan 6th, is a conservative republican that supports his party's (non)policies.
It depends on what you want to prioritize. Yes, Kinzinger is a Republican and votes like one. But policy is secondary to resisting authoritarianism, for me at least, and Illinois Democrats don't seem to be taking the threat seriously when they're lighting allies in the fight on fire. There is an alarming pattern of Republicans who stand up against their party's authoritarian impulses vanishing from the scene, ever since Jeff Flake. When Liz Cheney loses reelection next year, who will be left?
If Kinzinger or Cheney were serious about something like voting rights or anti-authoritarianism they could work together to put forward a bill, get a few Democrats to sign onto it. Did they even approach anything like that? Imagine what a coup that would be to get some people in the center to put forward a workable bill.
The only problem is that NONE of these Republicans are remotely in the center or remotely interested in electoral reform or other such issues.
Cheney and Kinzinger are already on the outs, so it isn't like doing something like that would hurt them WRT the GoP much further.
I am not really sure what they are doing, other than simply expressing distaste on a personal level for Trump. They seem to be on board with everything else. Why would Democrats want to keep them around (as others have noted)? No reason to do so.
This makes a number of assumptions. First, that people like Cheney or Kinzinger have any future in GOP politics. If they require help from the democrats to win, they don't have a future, period. The fact that he's retiring says that he understands this: he can't win against his own party, and his own party would destroy him otherwise. He serves no purpose to anyone.
At this point, he's a gangrenous limb on Trumpism. He's not going to be the thing that defeats it, and he wouldn't be the one to rise after it, anymore than someone like Mitt Romney would. There's no hope in him existing as some kind of 'see what you could be, GOP?'
And the reason for that is GOP voters. GOP voters do not want people like Kinzinger. They see what he's selling, and they've chosen against it. They continue to choose against it. the gop voters themselves would prefer a MTG to a Cheney. They would prefer a Josh Hawley to a Mitt Romney. They prefer Trump to everyone. And why? Because the voters do not care one bit about policies anymore. The GOP voter is not motivated by anything resembling actual policy, because decades of GOP messaging about how government is bad and can do no right have borne fruit.
It turns out that if you tell people government is evil and can't help you, people will stop caring about who is in charge. There's no 'allies' in these dead representatives walking, only the slow inevitable defeat. Either they lose in primaries to Trumpy people, or they are redistricted out of existence. But there is zero chance of doing anything on their own.
And at this point, choosing to support Trumpist policies while saying you don't like him is a false choice. To support such things means you support the man, because helping his policies is the same as helping his reelection.
There is no 'well, I was totally on board with the fascists until they started talking crazy' position that you can take. You can choose to join them, you can choose to join their opponents, but you can't support every part of them and then act like you're not with them. That's an untenable position, because they're not going to care what your policies are if you don't support the leader, and your enemies aren't going to support you for supporting everything they hate.
Kinzinger is only an ally on the Jan 6th committee. When it comes to protecting voting rights he is one of the enemies. When it comes to not monkeying around with the nation's debt he is one of the enemies.
I am also old enough to remember that a couple of weeks ago they were talking here about how partied in Europe came together and ignored policy differences in order to beat fascism in their countries. Adam must have missed those articles and podcasts.
I know Charlie and many of his guests are pessimistic about the GOP ever escaping Trumpism, but there is a problem with their position. For a movement inside a political party to be successful it has to 1) stand for something and 2)( WIN general elections. Trumpism has no longer term future as it stands for nothing and is unpopular with the vast majority of people. Worse yet for the movement, Trumpism is strongest among the demographics groups that are fading in influence. Trumpism's strength is with older white voters who live in rural areas. That group of people is losing influence every day.
And let's not forget that Trumpism isn't actually a coherent political philosophy. It's a grievance culture, a "let's be angry" at the other side. Trumpism doesn't actually stand for a coherent set of policies which is necessary for a movement inside a party to exist.
Having said that Trumpism is not going to fade from the GOP overnight. It's going to take losing several more elections. Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that the GOP will win the House in 2022, which the Trumpists will claim, wrongly, is due to their efforts. I think it will probably take until the end of the decade and several other big election losses, for Trumpism to fade. But it will fade.
Charlie,
I thought I would look for hope and listened to your podcast with Adam Kinzinger. Bad idea! I am now completely 100% sold the road ends badly here. Even someone as smart and who gets what is at stake can't move beyond partisan politics to be the grown up and fight back against Trumpism. He very clearly stated we have a hierarchy or needs and it starts there. Policy differences come later and we can fight over those in a democratic fashion once the authoritarian moment has passed. However, he then says he can't support the Democrats because of their liberal progressive policies including spending and voting rights. He thinks tinkering at the margins by supporting Evan McMullin types and getting smashed in a Presidential party nomination fight against TFG is going to do it. Wake up! Joe Walsh tried that, him and the very few sane republicans left are trying that and failing miserably. Maybe he needs to step back and take the advice he gives to the Dems and prioritize the most important aspects of the fight himself. I thought he was one of the grown ups left, but I am finally realizing he is just another one of the children running around doing nothing.
I've always been disappointed in Adam. He voted for Trump twice, he votes pretty much his party's line but he did stand up for the Jan 6th committee and for the second impeachment. But when it came time for protect the nation's debt and the peoples' voting rights, he (and Liz) were nowhere to be found.
There were a number of things in those Voting Rights bill that we're not good. Too many to get into right now. Adam said he will support the compromise Voting Rights bill. The trouble is the Democrats obsess about minor changes in voting procedures while ignoring much bigger issues like changes to vote counting and certification. Why are the Democrats doing something about the Electoral count act which needs to be amended?
I meant to say why are the democrats NOT doing something about the electoral count act? The changes to voting procedures they obsess about won't make a minuscule difference. The next presidential election is going to be stolen by state legislatures overriding the will of the people or congress doing that on their end. Yet the Democrats aren't doing a thing to stop this from happening.
Democrats basically redistricted Kinzinger's seat away. After everything he has done, that was an appalling disgrace on Illinois Democrats, IMO.
Yes, and? Why should the Democrats unilaterally disarm themselves? Kinzinger, other than on Jan 6th, is a conservative republican that supports his party's (non)policies.
It depends on what you want to prioritize. Yes, Kinzinger is a Republican and votes like one. But policy is secondary to resisting authoritarianism, for me at least, and Illinois Democrats don't seem to be taking the threat seriously when they're lighting allies in the fight on fire. There is an alarming pattern of Republicans who stand up against their party's authoritarian impulses vanishing from the scene, ever since Jeff Flake. When Liz Cheney loses reelection next year, who will be left?
If Kinzinger or Cheney were serious about something like voting rights or anti-authoritarianism they could work together to put forward a bill, get a few Democrats to sign onto it. Did they even approach anything like that? Imagine what a coup that would be to get some people in the center to put forward a workable bill.
The only problem is that NONE of these Republicans are remotely in the center or remotely interested in electoral reform or other such issues.
Cheney and Kinzinger are already on the outs, so it isn't like doing something like that would hurt them WRT the GoP much further.
I am not really sure what they are doing, other than simply expressing distaste on a personal level for Trump. They seem to be on board with everything else. Why would Democrats want to keep them around (as others have noted)? No reason to do so.
This makes a number of assumptions. First, that people like Cheney or Kinzinger have any future in GOP politics. If they require help from the democrats to win, they don't have a future, period. The fact that he's retiring says that he understands this: he can't win against his own party, and his own party would destroy him otherwise. He serves no purpose to anyone.
At this point, he's a gangrenous limb on Trumpism. He's not going to be the thing that defeats it, and he wouldn't be the one to rise after it, anymore than someone like Mitt Romney would. There's no hope in him existing as some kind of 'see what you could be, GOP?'
And the reason for that is GOP voters. GOP voters do not want people like Kinzinger. They see what he's selling, and they've chosen against it. They continue to choose against it. the gop voters themselves would prefer a MTG to a Cheney. They would prefer a Josh Hawley to a Mitt Romney. They prefer Trump to everyone. And why? Because the voters do not care one bit about policies anymore. The GOP voter is not motivated by anything resembling actual policy, because decades of GOP messaging about how government is bad and can do no right have borne fruit.
It turns out that if you tell people government is evil and can't help you, people will stop caring about who is in charge. There's no 'allies' in these dead representatives walking, only the slow inevitable defeat. Either they lose in primaries to Trumpy people, or they are redistricted out of existence. But there is zero chance of doing anything on their own.
And at this point, choosing to support Trumpist policies while saying you don't like him is a false choice. To support such things means you support the man, because helping his policies is the same as helping his reelection.
There is no 'well, I was totally on board with the fascists until they started talking crazy' position that you can take. You can choose to join them, you can choose to join their opponents, but you can't support every part of them and then act like you're not with them. That's an untenable position, because they're not going to care what your policies are if you don't support the leader, and your enemies aren't going to support you for supporting everything they hate.
Kinzinger is only an ally on the Jan 6th committee. When it comes to protecting voting rights he is one of the enemies. When it comes to not monkeying around with the nation's debt he is one of the enemies.
I am also old enough to remember that a couple of weeks ago they were talking here about how partied in Europe came together and ignored policy differences in order to beat fascism in their countries. Adam must have missed those articles and podcasts.
I know Charlie and many of his guests are pessimistic about the GOP ever escaping Trumpism, but there is a problem with their position. For a movement inside a political party to be successful it has to 1) stand for something and 2)( WIN general elections. Trumpism has no longer term future as it stands for nothing and is unpopular with the vast majority of people. Worse yet for the movement, Trumpism is strongest among the demographics groups that are fading in influence. Trumpism's strength is with older white voters who live in rural areas. That group of people is losing influence every day.
And let's not forget that Trumpism isn't actually a coherent political philosophy. It's a grievance culture, a "let's be angry" at the other side. Trumpism doesn't actually stand for a coherent set of policies which is necessary for a movement inside a party to exist.
Having said that Trumpism is not going to fade from the GOP overnight. It's going to take losing several more elections. Unfortunately, it seems inevitable that the GOP will win the House in 2022, which the Trumpists will claim, wrongly, is due to their efforts. I think it will probably take until the end of the decade and several other big election losses, for Trumpism to fade. But it will fade.