After reading Tom Nichols' article "Why I'm Leaving the Republican Party in The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/, I experienced a bit of deja vu (I used to be a Republican). Like Nichols, I don't recognize the party of Donald Trump. It is not the party of Ronald Reagan. It is not the party I joined many years ago.
For Nichols, the final straw was the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He rightly excoriated the behavior of many of the Democrats in the same battle. I find myself in complete agreement with his assessment of some of their key senators in this circus. Nichols observed: "But during the Kavanaugh dumpster fire, the performance of the Democratic Party—with some honorable exceptions like Senators Chris Coons, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar—was execrable. From the moment they leaked the Ford letter, they were a Keystone Cops operation, with Hawaii’s Senator Mazie Hirono willing to wave away the Constitution and get right to a presumption of guilt, and Senator Dianne Feinstein looking incompetent and outflanked instead of like the ranking member of one of the most important committees in America." (I would have also singled out Senator Corey Booker's performance as execrable)
Nevertheless, Nichols saved most of his gunpowder for his former party. He wrote: "The Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society. They have become all about winning. Winning means not losing, and so instead of acting like a co-equal branch of government responsible for advice and consent, congressional Republicans now act like a parliamentary party facing the constant threat of a vote of no-confidence."
Nichols continued: "That it is necessary to place limitations, including self-limitations, on the exercise of power is—or was—a core belief among conservatives. No longer. Raw power, wielded so deftly by Senator Mitch McConnell, is exercised for its own sake, and by that I mean for the sake of fleecing gullible voters on hot-button social issues so that Republicans may stay in power. Of course, the institutional GOP will say that it countenances all of Trump’s many sins, and its own straying from principle, for good reason (including, of course, the holy grail of ending legal abortion)."
Republicans used to complain about using the Judiciary to initiate changes that could not be achieved at the ballot box, but they are apparently on board with that now. Republicans and Democrats have exchanged positions vis-a-vis the role of the courts in making law.
In the article, Nichols makes the point which I was trying to make in my last post about Republican attitudes toward Russia. He writes: "Not only have Republicans abandoned their claim to being the national-security party, they have managed to convince the party faithful that Russia—an avowed enemy that directly attacked our political institutions—is less of a threat than their neighbors who might be voting for Democrats."
Nichols also echos the views expressed here that this cannot end well for Republicans or the country. He concludes: "The Trumpers and the hucksters and the consultants and the hangers-on, like a colony of bees who exist only to sting and die, have swarmed together in a dangerous but suicidal cloud, and when that mindless hive finally extinguishes itself in a blaze of venom, there will be nothing left." I completely agree.
For Nichols, the final straw was the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. He rightly excoriated the behavior of many of the Democrats in the same battle. I find myself in complete agreement with his assessment of some of their key senators in this circus. Nichols observed: "But during the Kavanaugh dumpster fire, the performance of the Democratic Party—with some honorable exceptions like Senators Chris Coons, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar—was execrable. From the moment they leaked the Ford letter, they were a Keystone Cops operation, with Hawaii’s Senator Mazie Hirono willing to wave away the Constitution and get right to a presumption of guilt, and Senator Dianne Feinstein looking incompetent and outflanked instead of like the ranking member of one of the most important committees in America." (I would have also singled out Senator Corey Booker's performance as execrable)
Nevertheless, Nichols saved most of his gunpowder for his former party. He wrote: "The Republicans, however, have now eclipsed the Democrats as a threat to the rule of law and to the constitutional norms of American society. They have become all about winning. Winning means not losing, and so instead of acting like a co-equal branch of government responsible for advice and consent, congressional Republicans now act like a parliamentary party facing the constant threat of a vote of no-confidence."
Nichols continued: "That it is necessary to place limitations, including self-limitations, on the exercise of power is—or was—a core belief among conservatives. No longer. Raw power, wielded so deftly by Senator Mitch McConnell, is exercised for its own sake, and by that I mean for the sake of fleecing gullible voters on hot-button social issues so that Republicans may stay in power. Of course, the institutional GOP will say that it countenances all of Trump’s many sins, and its own straying from principle, for good reason (including, of course, the holy grail of ending legal abortion)."
Republicans used to complain about using the Judiciary to initiate changes that could not be achieved at the ballot box, but they are apparently on board with that now. Republicans and Democrats have exchanged positions vis-a-vis the role of the courts in making law.
In the article, Nichols makes the point which I was trying to make in my last post about Republican attitudes toward Russia. He writes: "Not only have Republicans abandoned their claim to being the national-security party, they have managed to convince the party faithful that Russia—an avowed enemy that directly attacked our political institutions—is less of a threat than their neighbors who might be voting for Democrats."
Nichols also echos the views expressed here that this cannot end well for Republicans or the country. He concludes: "The Trumpers and the hucksters and the consultants and the hangers-on, like a colony of bees who exist only to sting and die, have swarmed together in a dangerous but suicidal cloud, and when that mindless hive finally extinguishes itself in a blaze of venom, there will be nothing left." I completely agree.
Many years ago I wrote a paper on US - EEC/EU relations. I deliberately left NATO out of the equasion to the dismay of my professor.
ReplyDeleteI said: That is exactly the point of my paper. In a post Cold War world and China and (Japan at the time) on the rise a "community of values" should co-operate and lead the world on global issues.
The professor shaked his head and gave me good marks after my explanation that NATO (security) should remain an important anchor of the US - EC (EU) relationship but not the defining one with refugee and climate issues.
How strange today, to see a growing preference arise for white christian power shared between the USA and Russia.
But I must admit that for a while even I saw Russia as the savior of international relations after I witnessed my beloved Syria destroyed by the "non interventionist" Obama administration insulting Israel. I asked who will protect the pilgrim roads as was the mission of the knights templar and saw orthodox russia stepping in?
Ok. It might not be about race or religion at all. It might be about powerbases or the USA trying to get a foothold while the Eurasian landmass will be united through the Chinese Belt Road initiative reducing the USA to a minor nation within a hundred years.
At the time of my paper it was Germany where the USA had its foothold and I firmly expected the USA to exploit a "special relationship" and assert its leadership role in attacking global issues.
How strange to see different scenario's develop.
nck
As I said in the other thread. The Democrats got outflanked earlier with the Gorsuch appointment and the Republicans changed the 2/3rd majority to a 50 plus one for the supreme court. To depolarize is to understand the process of give and take.
ReplyDeletenck