Good God, even after all his professing to care about international affairs "Fluffer" Graham is still covering for Trump after last night's abortion of a town hall!
I’ve read (ok, skimmed a bit) all of Saletan’s work on Lindsey Graham, and it’s masterful in bringing back the many details we’ve forgotten. His moral case against Graham is powerful.
However, like the Democrat that I am, I have to dig deeper. One of the rationales animating Graham, according to Saletan was that a return to power by the Democrats would be a catastrophe so great that it must be prevented at all costs - even Trump. I think that refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Democratic Party runs through Republicans from Graham, to McConnell (top priority insuring Obama be a one-term president at the beginning of his term) to almost all Republicans now in office. Even those who committed legitimate acts of heroism in opposition to Trump - one thinks of Brad Raffensberger - are perfectly okay with vote suppression measures in their states. Brian Kemp, who won re-election in part by denying that Trump won, now signs a bill enabling the legislature to remove elected prosecutors (Fani Willis?) who displease them.
What motivates such politics that can only be helpful to the return of Trump? I contend that on some level it has to be a belief that the DP is in some sense illegitimate.
In 2013, the GOP conducted an “autopsy” to understand why they couldn’t carry Romney past Obama. The autopsy concluded that the GOP needed to find a way to appeal to nonwhite constituencies and to appeal beyond their current strongly racially motivated base. The party looked this over and said “Naah”. Instead they doubled down on the base, on gerrymandering, on vote suppression.
And that has been the tip of the GOP spear ever since.
So I have to ask the Bulwark how they understand the Democratic Party. Did Bulwarkers regard, say, the “For the People Act” as the same abomination as non-RINO GOPers or did they regard it as an important tool in their effort to defeat Trump? It’s one thing to say you support Biden in 2024, but do you regard vote suppression and gerrymandering as legitimate and necessary for long-term GOP survival? How serious are you about electing a Democrat to shut down the authoritarian threat? Or are you ready to plant your flag behind the recommendations of the 2013 autopsy?
I've thought a lot about Lindsey Graham as well as some other well-known Republicans who have undergone what appear to be drastic behavior changes since Trump and Trumpism entered the national scene.
Most of us who aren’t part of the MAGA cult have also seen changes in relatives and ex friends that we have found utterly appalling.
But this doesn’t mean that the behavior changes aren't to a great degree, surface changes.
Adults rarely change who they are at their core. Changing external circumstances simply reveal more about that core.
What makes someone like Lindsey freely choose to sacrifice his integrity to selfish self-interest was always there, waiting to show itself.
Likewise, what makes Liz Cheney act honorably while Elise Stefanik does not was always there - an intrinsic part of their characters.
Of course, this is far from being a new or profound insight.
By coincidence over this past weekend, I happened to see the Arthur Miller play, “The Crucible” about the Salem witch trials in which the behavior and actions of the characters illustrates this same truth.
Thé GOP is suffering from Anosognosia. Wikipedia defines it as a condition in which a person with a disability is cognitively unaware of having it due to an underlying physical or psychological. More commonly it is a symptom of larger problems or simply a lack of self awareness, which my friends and wife can accuse me of. 😙
Errol Morris the documentarian and The Thin Blue Line fame wrote a six part series on the topic for the New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/ Most relevant to today’s discussion are part 1 & 6 while the others are more academically interesting. On second thought part six has a discussion of President Wilson’s stroke and the amendent that followed. 😴
George Santos, the Republican congressman who lied extensively on the campaign trail, has been charged by federal prosecutors in New York.
Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:39 PM ET
The charges come after months of investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, which has been conducting one of the inquiries into Mr. Santos’s financial and campaign activities."
As someone born in Mexico, who now lives in Canada, I'm intimately familar with the U.S. ethos of superiority and the historical record of Americans working to fullfil their "manifest destiny".
So when I hear the term "American Exceptionalism" that translates into an American belief that that due to the inherent superiority of the U.S. (of which there is little objective data to support the claim) means that the U.S. is excempt from from the rules that apply to ordinary countries. It's an excuse to do things like:
1) Initiating unilateral attacks against countries like Iran, who DARE to try to develop nuclear weapons, which is a balsy hypocritical move from the only country in the world that has ever deployed nuclear weapons on a civilian population.
2) Invading Iraq based on information that the Bush administration knew to be false.
3) Shipping people to black sites or Guantanamo Bay and literally torturing them, never charging a single person for the torture once discovered.
4) Holding itself out to be a paragon o f civil liberties and due process, while at the same time detaining 32 suspects without charges for over 20 years, with the exception of two suspects who were found guilty by a "military tribunal" that is in no way recognized by international law.
The fact that 95% of Americans have no issue with the above, yet also reflectively belleve that the U.S. is the "best country in the world" is what "American Exceptionalism" seems to refer to.
Well that was a weirdly aggressive response. I'm a Bulwark + subscriber, and I listen to every single weekly podcast, with the exception of Mona Charen's work.
What on earth makes you think from my comment that I didn't listen to the episode? The monday Will Saletan & Charlie Sykes podcast is the highlight of my week.
What is revealing in your response is that you didn't actually bother to engage with any of the arguments. That's very Trumpian of you, ignore valid criticisms and just declare that the points I've made are just borne out of anti-Americanism.
Sir, can you point to a single FACTUAL error that I made in my comment? Or are you just upset that my comments interfered with your masturbatory 'merican 'jingoism?
Hmmmm. Not quite yet, apparently. I hope that this latest eruption helped. It's better to vent on hated "others" online than to kick the dog. Unfortunately, though, that much pent-up hostility and vulgarity too often finds several outlets. Poor Fido!
I'm not sure about "pathetic", but this clearly is going nowhere. Your original screed could have been quoted from any regime website from Beijing to Moscow to Caracas so there's no "substance" there to answer, but you knew that already.
May the courage of Juárez, the idealism of Madero, and the understanding of human nature of Porfirio serve you well in your chosen homeland. Thank you for choosing Canada.
I would challenge him to lift a woman in the air and twirl her around without dropping her, while he's skating, and see if he still thinks the guys who can do that are unmanly.
I suspect he isn't talking about physical prowess, but about something more undefinable...manliness...men don't figure skate or dance, especially ballet in his view. It's a girly thing to be graceful with music. Though I challenge anyone to see Steph Curry at work and not see gracefulness in his 3 point shots.
Per NYT: "BREAKING NEWS A jury found Donald Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial, but rejected her rape accusation. "
Trumpites are out claiming that the jury "proved" that Carroll "lied about rape," and therefore she was lying about everything.
Or: the jury finding of liability proves that the whole system is corrupt; that "the government" can convict anyone of rape, and therefore we need Trump because he's the only one who can "fix" such a corrupt system.
These people are just so horrible and predictable. And I am just so tired - as I’m sure many others are. I find myself wondering if there will ever be a time we aren’t trying to defend the democracy from MAGA.
Will Saletan's ebook is very good. It's actually riveting. Graham was the perfect choice to demonstrate the downward spiral into authoritarianism. Well done Will and the Bulwark.
it's a mental health issue when those reps in TX keep saying that they can't do nuthin about the guns because all of these mass shootings by Nazi incels is part of God's mysterious plan or something. They insisting on praying their delusions away.
Charlie's asking the right question that should be posed to every one of them, at every opportunity: "Would you say the same things and be so passive if the shooters were jihadist terrorists?"
When legislators fall back on "God is in control of everything," they should be asked why then did they choose to be in a legislature where their job is to control things. Why are they trying to change the direction of the country with laws, instead of just sitting back and letting God do it all?
This is a towering work of journalism. It is a meticulously recorded timeline of the destruction of the old GOP through the case study of Graham. Incredible effort. Anyone today or a hundred years from now wanting to know what in the fresh hell happened to our democracy just needs to read this.
The most insidious aspect of Trumpism is the bizarre notion that a conspicuously amoral narcissist is really on a mission to "expose corruption" and "save America" -- and therefore whatever gets in the way of his desires is itself corrupt and anti-American. Law itself thus becomes a force of evil to the MAGA mind.
Trump may be too much of a narcissist to realize that his will is not actually the highest moral law, but he has the animal cunning to exploit other people's longing for a hero who has license to slay their enemies. When he characterizes all of his personal adversaries as "radical left Marxist maniacs," it's probably not because he really believes they're radical leftists. He just understands that those labels encourage his devotees to think that whatever he does in his own self-interest is for a greater cause.
It boggles my mind that so many people have bought into it, making Trump himself their standard of righteousness.
When he was president, Trumpites loved to intone "Duly Elected President" as a way of delegitimizing criticism or pushback. Will of the American People and all. But when the American people rejected their idol, a different tune emerged. Trumpites are untroubled by Trump's open admiration of despots, because some of them would prefer their own Vladmir Putin over someone who feels constrained by rules and ethics and the will of the people.
It's easy for him to call his opponents "radical left Marxist maniacs", because he has no understanding of political theory, so those are just words to him; he has no issue with lying, so the truth or falseness of the charge doesn't matter to him. The lasting harm is that he has permanently branded the entire responsible, patriotic Center-Right to Center-Left majority in the United States as political enemies who want to destroy America for the millions of people who take his word as gospel.
The change to the brains of a lot of those people is probably irreversible. Like the Confederate sympathizers of 150 years ago, they'll represent an unreconcilable group always ready to support an insurrection if given the chance for decades, that we have to keep outvoting until they finally die off.
"Mental Health Crisis" v. Availability of Semi-Automated Weapons Crisis. Bullshit.
Republican elected officials - most certainly NOT "leaders" - who flail around trying to distract voters of all political inclinations by crying about a mental health crisis in the U.S. are liars and betrayers.
The mechanics of any solution to a "mental health crisis" betrays the supposed bedrock principle of the modern Republican Party: the freedom of the individual from the inexorable reach of government*.
To treat a "mental health crisis" would first require massive, legally-enforced (not "enforceable") mandatory and standardized (one-size-fits-all) testing of the the entire population regardless of age, ethnicity, economic strata, or gender.
This from those who so strenuously fought against mandatory vaccination against a disease.
Next, this would require massive hiring of mental health professionals - doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, and maintenance personnel to staff just the all-encompassing required testing.
This from people who oppose hiring thousands of IRS employees to help citizens pay their legally required taxes.
We would expect a massive increase in the legal system (judges, staff, facilities) required to process the volume of court orders and challenges to those court orders by those whose testing indicates them as, for instance, "anti-social".
This from those who have been unable to fund the expansion of the immigration court system.
Oddly, Republicans may support the massive expansion of the mandatory mental health facilities required to institutionalize and treat "patients" (victims).
I can almost hear the chants of "Lock [Them] Up!".
*As if such an inflammation as is the currently contrived Republican Party has built itself on any bedrock or principle.
Good God, even after all his professing to care about international affairs "Fluffer" Graham is still covering for Trump after last night's abortion of a town hall!
I’ve read (ok, skimmed a bit) all of Saletan’s work on Lindsey Graham, and it’s masterful in bringing back the many details we’ve forgotten. His moral case against Graham is powerful.
However, like the Democrat that I am, I have to dig deeper. One of the rationales animating Graham, according to Saletan was that a return to power by the Democrats would be a catastrophe so great that it must be prevented at all costs - even Trump. I think that refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Democratic Party runs through Republicans from Graham, to McConnell (top priority insuring Obama be a one-term president at the beginning of his term) to almost all Republicans now in office. Even those who committed legitimate acts of heroism in opposition to Trump - one thinks of Brad Raffensberger - are perfectly okay with vote suppression measures in their states. Brian Kemp, who won re-election in part by denying that Trump won, now signs a bill enabling the legislature to remove elected prosecutors (Fani Willis?) who displease them.
What motivates such politics that can only be helpful to the return of Trump? I contend that on some level it has to be a belief that the DP is in some sense illegitimate.
In 2013, the GOP conducted an “autopsy” to understand why they couldn’t carry Romney past Obama. The autopsy concluded that the GOP needed to find a way to appeal to nonwhite constituencies and to appeal beyond their current strongly racially motivated base. The party looked this over and said “Naah”. Instead they doubled down on the base, on gerrymandering, on vote suppression.
And that has been the tip of the GOP spear ever since.
So I have to ask the Bulwark how they understand the Democratic Party. Did Bulwarkers regard, say, the “For the People Act” as the same abomination as non-RINO GOPers or did they regard it as an important tool in their effort to defeat Trump? It’s one thing to say you support Biden in 2024, but do you regard vote suppression and gerrymandering as legitimate and necessary for long-term GOP survival? How serious are you about electing a Democrat to shut down the authoritarian threat? Or are you ready to plant your flag behind the recommendations of the 2013 autopsy?
I've thought a lot about Lindsey Graham as well as some other well-known Republicans who have undergone what appear to be drastic behavior changes since Trump and Trumpism entered the national scene.
Most of us who aren’t part of the MAGA cult have also seen changes in relatives and ex friends that we have found utterly appalling.
But this doesn’t mean that the behavior changes aren't to a great degree, surface changes.
Adults rarely change who they are at their core. Changing external circumstances simply reveal more about that core.
What makes someone like Lindsey freely choose to sacrifice his integrity to selfish self-interest was always there, waiting to show itself.
Likewise, what makes Liz Cheney act honorably while Elise Stefanik does not was always there - an intrinsic part of their characters.
Of course, this is far from being a new or profound insight.
By coincidence over this past weekend, I happened to see the Arthur Miller play, “The Crucible” about the Salem witch trials in which the behavior and actions of the characters illustrates this same truth.
Your eloquence is staggering.
Loser.
This was fantastic Will Saltens. Remarkable job.
Please do Kevin McCarthy.
Thé GOP is suffering from Anosognosia. Wikipedia defines it as a condition in which a person with a disability is cognitively unaware of having it due to an underlying physical or psychological. More commonly it is a symptom of larger problems or simply a lack of self awareness, which my friends and wife can accuse me of. 😙
Errol Morris the documentarian and The Thin Blue Line fame wrote a six part series on the topic for the New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/ Most relevant to today’s discussion are part 1 & 6 while the others are more academically interesting. On second thought part six has a discussion of President Wilson’s stroke and the amendent that followed. 😴
The New York Times: "BREAKING NEWS
George Santos, the Republican congressman who lied extensively on the campaign trail, has been charged by federal prosecutors in New York.
Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:39 PM ET
The charges come after months of investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, which has been conducting one of the inquiries into Mr. Santos’s financial and campaign activities."
Will Saletan, great job on the Lindsay graham ebook!
Re: American Exceptionalism
As someone born in Mexico, who now lives in Canada, I'm intimately familar with the U.S. ethos of superiority and the historical record of Americans working to fullfil their "manifest destiny".
So when I hear the term "American Exceptionalism" that translates into an American belief that that due to the inherent superiority of the U.S. (of which there is little objective data to support the claim) means that the U.S. is excempt from from the rules that apply to ordinary countries. It's an excuse to do things like:
1) Initiating unilateral attacks against countries like Iran, who DARE to try to develop nuclear weapons, which is a balsy hypocritical move from the only country in the world that has ever deployed nuclear weapons on a civilian population.
2) Invading Iraq based on information that the Bush administration knew to be false.
3) Shipping people to black sites or Guantanamo Bay and literally torturing them, never charging a single person for the torture once discovered.
4) Holding itself out to be a paragon o f civil liberties and due process, while at the same time detaining 32 suspects without charges for over 20 years, with the exception of two suspects who were found guilty by a "military tribunal" that is in no way recognized by international law.
The fact that 95% of Americans have no issue with the above, yet also reflectively belleve that the U.S. is the "best country in the world" is what "American Exceptionalism" seems to refer to.
Did you bother to listen to the podcast, or was this just a convenient opportunity to vent your anti-Americanism? I hope you feel better now.
Well that was a weirdly aggressive response. I'm a Bulwark + subscriber, and I listen to every single weekly podcast, with the exception of Mona Charen's work.
What on earth makes you think from my comment that I didn't listen to the episode? The monday Will Saletan & Charlie Sykes podcast is the highlight of my week.
What is revealing in your response is that you didn't actually bother to engage with any of the arguments. That's very Trumpian of you, ignore valid criticisms and just declare that the points I've made are just borne out of anti-Americanism.
Sir, can you point to a single FACTUAL error that I made in my comment? Or are you just upset that my comments interfered with your masturbatory 'merican 'jingoism?
Hmmmm. Not quite yet, apparently. I hope that this latest eruption helped. It's better to vent on hated "others" online than to kick the dog. Unfortunately, though, that much pent-up hostility and vulgarity too often finds several outlets. Poor Fido!
Oooo sweetie, I didn't know you have basic literacy issues.
I mean, that's the only explanation for your continued inability to address the substance of my original comment.
Buddy, this is getting pathetic at this point. I know your right-wing mind has difficulties processing *GASP* logical arguments.
To quote Abe:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt".
I'm not sure about "pathetic", but this clearly is going nowhere. Your original screed could have been quoted from any regime website from Beijing to Moscow to Caracas so there's no "substance" there to answer, but you knew that already.
May the courage of Juárez, the idealism of Madero, and the understanding of human nature of Porfirio serve you well in your chosen homeland. Thank you for choosing Canada.
Oh sweatheart, I see you're still having issues with literacy, either that or you think that ad hominem attacks are a valid from of discourse.
So to confirm:
1) You have no substantive issue with the content of my original comment.
2) You're too proud to admit that you've been outsmarted.
Sweetie, this is getting a little pathological on top of pathetic.
Dude, just walk away ....
Starting a GoFundMe to watch Matt Walsh fight a high school hockey player. With or without skates. Loser loses his Man Card.
I would challenge him to lift a woman in the air and twirl her around without dropping her, while he's skating, and see if he still thinks the guys who can do that are unmanly.
I suspect he isn't talking about physical prowess, but about something more undefinable...manliness...men don't figure skate or dance, especially ballet in his view. It's a girly thing to be graceful with music. Though I challenge anyone to see Steph Curry at work and not see gracefulness in his 3 point shots.
Per NYT: "BREAKING NEWS A jury found Donald Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of E. Jean Carroll in a civil trial, but rejected her rape accusation. "
Sounds like a negotiated verdict, along the lines of "we can't agree on the mechanics, but we agree that the plaintiff was abused sexually."
Trumpites are out claiming that the jury "proved" that Carroll "lied about rape," and therefore she was lying about everything.
Or: the jury finding of liability proves that the whole system is corrupt; that "the government" can convict anyone of rape, and therefore we need Trump because he's the only one who can "fix" such a corrupt system.
These people are just so horrible and predictable. And I am just so tired - as I’m sure many others are. I find myself wondering if there will ever be a time we aren’t trying to defend the democracy from MAGA.
When Trump and every single one of his enablers are permanently incapacitated and unable to speak or write a word. God, I'm turning into one of them!
Will Saletan's ebook is very good. It's actually riveting. Graham was the perfect choice to demonstrate the downward spiral into authoritarianism. Well done Will and the Bulwark.
it's a mental health issue when those reps in TX keep saying that they can't do nuthin about the guns because all of these mass shootings by Nazi incels is part of God's mysterious plan or something. They insisting on praying their delusions away.
Charlie's asking the right question that should be posed to every one of them, at every opportunity: "Would you say the same things and be so passive if the shooters were jihadist terrorists?"
When legislators fall back on "God is in control of everything," they should be asked why then did they choose to be in a legislature where their job is to control things. Why are they trying to change the direction of the country with laws, instead of just sitting back and letting God do it all?
This is a towering work of journalism. It is a meticulously recorded timeline of the destruction of the old GOP through the case study of Graham. Incredible effort. Anyone today or a hundred years from now wanting to know what in the fresh hell happened to our democracy just needs to read this.
The most insidious aspect of Trumpism is the bizarre notion that a conspicuously amoral narcissist is really on a mission to "expose corruption" and "save America" -- and therefore whatever gets in the way of his desires is itself corrupt and anti-American. Law itself thus becomes a force of evil to the MAGA mind.
Trump may be too much of a narcissist to realize that his will is not actually the highest moral law, but he has the animal cunning to exploit other people's longing for a hero who has license to slay their enemies. When he characterizes all of his personal adversaries as "radical left Marxist maniacs," it's probably not because he really believes they're radical leftists. He just understands that those labels encourage his devotees to think that whatever he does in his own self-interest is for a greater cause.
It boggles my mind that so many people have bought into it, making Trump himself their standard of righteousness.
When he was president, Trumpites loved to intone "Duly Elected President" as a way of delegitimizing criticism or pushback. Will of the American People and all. But when the American people rejected their idol, a different tune emerged. Trumpites are untroubled by Trump's open admiration of despots, because some of them would prefer their own Vladmir Putin over someone who feels constrained by rules and ethics and the will of the people.
It's easy for him to call his opponents "radical left Marxist maniacs", because he has no understanding of political theory, so those are just words to him; he has no issue with lying, so the truth or falseness of the charge doesn't matter to him. The lasting harm is that he has permanently branded the entire responsible, patriotic Center-Right to Center-Left majority in the United States as political enemies who want to destroy America for the millions of people who take his word as gospel.
The change to the brains of a lot of those people is probably irreversible. Like the Confederate sympathizers of 150 years ago, they'll represent an unreconcilable group always ready to support an insurrection if given the chance for decades, that we have to keep outvoting until they finally die off.
"Mental Health Crisis" v. Availability of Semi-Automated Weapons Crisis. Bullshit.
Republican elected officials - most certainly NOT "leaders" - who flail around trying to distract voters of all political inclinations by crying about a mental health crisis in the U.S. are liars and betrayers.
The mechanics of any solution to a "mental health crisis" betrays the supposed bedrock principle of the modern Republican Party: the freedom of the individual from the inexorable reach of government*.
To treat a "mental health crisis" would first require massive, legally-enforced (not "enforceable") mandatory and standardized (one-size-fits-all) testing of the the entire population regardless of age, ethnicity, economic strata, or gender.
This from those who so strenuously fought against mandatory vaccination against a disease.
Next, this would require massive hiring of mental health professionals - doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, and maintenance personnel to staff just the all-encompassing required testing.
This from people who oppose hiring thousands of IRS employees to help citizens pay their legally required taxes.
We would expect a massive increase in the legal system (judges, staff, facilities) required to process the volume of court orders and challenges to those court orders by those whose testing indicates them as, for instance, "anti-social".
This from those who have been unable to fund the expansion of the immigration court system.
Oddly, Republicans may support the massive expansion of the mandatory mental health facilities required to institutionalize and treat "patients" (victims).
I can almost hear the chants of "Lock [Them] Up!".
*As if such an inflammation as is the currently contrived Republican Party has built itself on any bedrock or principle.
Or the use of gas vans (a favorite of fascists in the past).