Partisanship Is a Helluva Drug
We've entered a political world in which the only thing that matters to most voters is whether there is a "R" or "D" next to a politician's name.
Thank you again for subscribing to Truth and Consequences. I hope you’re enjoying the content here, and, as always, if you have any suggestions or ideas, or topics you’d like me to explore, please send me an email or comment below! Also, if you’re not following me on Twitter, you can do so @speechboy71 and leave me a message there. Since this is a subscription newsletter, I need to ask again that if you are enjoying Truth and Consequences, please consider a paid subscription. Next month I’ll be starting Zoomcasts for subscribers only and sending out more articles to just subscribers. Beyond that, however, your contribution will help me to add more contributors and new content and make Truth and Consequences the go-to site for your political news and opinion. Believe me, when I say that asking for money, especially in the midst of a pandemic, is pretty much my least favorite thing to do. So subscribe, and I won’t have to bother you anymore!
Polarization Is Everything
Later today, the US House of Representatives will vote on President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill. It is doubtful that a single Republican will support the legislation, while all Democrats will likely back it.
On the surface, this is an insane political position for the GOP to take. According to the most recent Economist/YouGov poll, 66 percent of Americans support the legislation. Only 25 percent oppose it. That makes it the most popular legislative proposal in more than a decade.
Making things more difficult for the GOP is that they don't have a coherent message that explains their opposition. Earlier this week, Senator Mitt Romney of Utah published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that made a straightforward and coherent argument against the legislation:
"It would waste hundreds of billions of dollars, do nothing meaningful to get kids back to school, and enact policies that work against job creation. The Congressional Budget Office's recent analysis of the plan found that more than a third of the proposed funding—$700 billion—wouldn't be spent until 2022 or later, undermining the administration's claim that the massive price tag is justified for urgent pandemic-related needs."
That's a persuasive, politically astute critique, but it only gets traction if all Republicans are saying it - and they're not. Indeed, the GOP messaging on the bill is all over the map. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are attacking the bill for containing "hundreds of millions of dollars for pet projects" for liberal causes. Others are dismissing the relief package as "payback to the radical left." According to Politico, "Republicans are now gambling that there will be more backlash over schools staying closed, the Covid bill's massive price tag and a partisan process."
But money for vaccine distribution, school reopenings, and $1400 checks is not, for most Americans, all that radical. Few voters are going to care about the allegedly "partisan process" to make the bill a law, and any backlash about schools still being closed will almost certainly fade if kids are back in their classrooms next Fall.
It's not helping Republicans that the bill is competing with Neera Tanden and Ted Cruz's lost vacation to get much attention, but the lack of an organized and effective message to Biden's plan is striking. It's also leaving the GOP in a potentially difficult political position when the bill succeeds.
I'm generally allergic to making predictions - based on past failure - but I feel reasonably confident in saying that if you pump $1.9 trillion into the economy, it will have a positive impact. Unless inflation goes haywire - a distinct but arguably slim possibility - the bill will work as advertised.
So why are Republicans opposing a bill that a majority of Americans want (including a broad number of GOP voters), and that is likely to succeed?
The simple answer is partisanship. America is a deeply polarized country. A majority of Republicans see Democrats not as political opponents but as enemies. Any Republican signing on to a bill that Democrats wrote and voted for en masse is basically requesting a primary challenge. Since the vast majority of congressional Republicans represent ruby-red districts, they have every political incentive to toe the party line and oppose everything Democrats try to do. It's actually a fascinating lesson in how intense partisanship, while ensuring GOP voters' loyalty, also creates larger political problems for the party.
Because the disincentives to compromise are so strong - and the political consequences so dire - Republicans are unable to moderate their image or take steps that would allow them to reach out to less partisan voters. Even for the occasional stragglers who go against the party and take the politically more popular route, the GOP brand's overall tarnishing can still hurt them. For the few Republicans in competitive seats, their vote on COVID relief could create a host of political problems down the road. But for those in safe seats, who only need to rely on the steadfast loyalty of Republican voters (which is the vast majority), opposing the bill is the obvious and smart political choice. Even if those voters support the COVID-relief bill, they are still likely to vote for a Republican candidate when they go to the polls.
We've entered what is arguably a post-policy word. For the vast majority of the electorate, how their representative's vote is far less important than whether they are a Republican or Democrat. Like I said at the top … partisanship is a helluva drug.
"You're the Absolute Worst … Now Here's My Endorsement."
Earlier this month, Mitch McConnell said this about former president Donald Trump at the end of the Senate impeachment trial that acquitted him of inciting the Capitol riot:
"Former President Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty … There's no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things."
Not only did McConnell place the blame for the riot squarely on Trump's shoulders, but he also excoriated him for putting Vice President Mike Pence in danger:
"According to public reports, he watched television happily — happily — as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters, the president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president."
In response, Trump issued a statement calling McConnell "a dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack" and said that "if Republican Senators are going to stay with him, they will not win again."
Yet, when asked on Thursday if he would support Trump if he were the party nominee in 2024, McConnell responded, "Absolutely."
I'm hard-pressed to think of a better example of how partisanship has warped our national politics. I actually think McConnell was answering the question genuinely. Even though McConnell clearly loathes Trump, views him as the reason Republicans lost those two senate races in Georgia, and believes the party must separate itself from him, I don't think he's physically capable of suggesting that voting for any Democrat is better than voting for a Republican - even if that Republican is the modern-day equivalent of Attila the Hun. It would be the ultimate sin for a congressional Republican and even worse than supporting a president who literally incited a mob that threatened their lives.
When the simple fact that a person has an "R" next to their name is of greater relevance than the fact that said person put his vice president's life in danger, American democracy has passed a point of no return.
Is the GOP an Authoritarian Party? A Follow-Up
Earlier this week, I wrote about how the GOP is increasingly becoming an authoritarian, anti-democratic party. Two key examples I used to make my case are ramped up GOP efforts in state legislatures to restrict voting rights and prevent political protest.
I was curious to see where most of these bills are being proposed, so I looked at states with a so-called legislative trifecta - that means places where there is a GOP governor, and Republicans control both houses of the state legislature (or in the case of Nebraska, the only house). There are twenty-three such states. In nineteen of them, Republicans are pushing new voting restrictions. This is mostly happening in competitive states like Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, Texas, and Florida. But new laws are also being proposed in places where Republicans have a clear advantage, like Missouri, Mississippi, and North and South Dakota. They are also being pushed in four of the seven states where Republicans control both legislative houses, but the governor is a Democrat (Kentucky, Kansas, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). Even in the sixteen states where Republicans have a veto-proof majority in the state legislature (a trifecta with supermajority), twelve of them are pushing for new laws that would limit voting rights. This is not necessarily surprising, but it's good evidence that Republicans are using control of state governments to lock down their political advantages.
It's also not surprising that of the thirty states where anti-protest laws have been proposed, eighteen of them are in trifecta states and two in states where the governor is a Democrat and the Republicans have veto-proof majorities in the state legislature. In the other ten states, with just two exceptions, all anti-protest legislation has been proposed by Republicans.
Again, this is what you would expect to see. Still, since state legislatures are often a stepping stone for federal office, one should not be surprised to see Republican legislators try to move similar, anti-democratic bills if they again take control of the House and Senate. In other words, the authoritarian behavior of Republicans on the state level is not just disturbing: it's a possible preview of the future.
What I'm Writing, Reading, Watching and Listening To
Writing
This week I asked whether the GOP has become an authoritarian party? The answer increasingly appears to be yes. Also, I looked at the question of whether America has become inured to mass death. There too, the answer doesn't look good. Finally, I sat down with Rosa Brooks to talk about her new book, "Tangled Up In Blue."
Reading
Another great piece by Perry Bacon Jr. on how the Senate filibuster debate is redefining the Democratic Party. When Texas deregulated its energy markets, it was supposed to save consumers money. Instead, it cost them a staggering $28 billion. A heartbreaking piece by Andrew Kaczynski on his daughter's fight with brain cancer and what can be done to prevent other parents from experiencing the same tragedy. QAnon conspiracies are tearing American families apart. Smart piece by Jonathan Rauch on the five ways in which Donald Trump functionally amended the Constitution. This New York Times story on political correctness run horribly amok at Smith College is downright terrifying. Republicans are desperately trying to curtail absentee voting, yet in 2020 expanded voting access benefited both parties equally.
Listening/Watching
The show Seinfeld had a famous and simple credo, "no hugging, no learning." As the TV writer Matt Zoller Seitz writes, the idea was that "Seinfeld went out of its way to provoke, baffle, and offend" it "was, to quote a phrase from the Grinch's theme song, as cuddly as a cactus and as charming as an eel." It's what made the show so groundbreaking. It broke the mold of the traditional sitcom. As a lover of dark, even uncomfortable comedy, it's what I liked best about "Seinfeld," and my other favorite comedy shows like "The Simpsons," "Veep," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "The Larry Sanders Show" to a lesser extent "The Office" and more recent fare such as "BoJack Horseman," and "Big Mouth."
That brings me to my new favorite comedy, "Schitt's Creek," which is quite different than these more acid-tongued shows. For those who haven't seen it, the show tells the story of the super-wealthy Rose family, who lose their fortune to a corrupt business manager and are forced to move into a motel in a small town and rebuild their lives. There is Johnny, the family patriarch and rock of the family; Moira, the matriarch and self-centered former actress with an extraordinary and unique fashion sense and an accent that is basically undefinable; Alexis, their even more self-absorbed and materially-focused daughter, and David, the equally self-absorbed son, whose sweater collection is its own character on the show. They are surrounded by local townspeople, who combine the long-standing sitcom tropes of being quirky and having hearts of gold (for the most part).
It's the classic fish-out-of-water comedy that is both charming and accessible. But what I've enjoyed most about it is that there is actually plenty of learning and hugging. The Roses are selfish and vain, which is the source of so many of the show's laughs. But as I've been binging the show over the past few weeks, the one thing that draws me in is how the characters have grown as the show has progressed. They are still self-absorbed; they are still condescending; they still struggle to show actual vulnerability, but slowly but surely, the harsh outside exteriors are chipped away. The characters' personal evolution, which my curmudgeonly side would usually dismiss, is what makes "Schitt's Creek" so endearing. I’ve found myself rooting for these characters and pleased when they accomplish something new. I don’t find that to be the norm on sitcoms.
It's the kind of show that in the past wouldn't appeal to me at all (for example, I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about "Ted Lasso"), but over the last few weeks, I've gotten a bit obsessed. Maybe it's part of some pandemic need for comedy that is not just caustic but actually comforting, but whatever the reason, "Schitt's Creek" is a gem.
I absolutely agree about ‘Schitt’s Creek!’ My husband and I have watched the series all the way through 2 times!!! We might even do it a third time ;-)
I am a retired principal. Over my career I observed that when bully boys get control for too long a period of time and the adults responsible for their learning become intimidated by these monsters, a power base develops where perfectly rational boys become intimidated into aping the chief bully's behavior, who becomes the "leader". And the girls can be more lethal.
I honestly see all these pols in this light. Nobody taught them better behavior and their lousiness has paid off for several of them.
As for limiting voters rights, I see this as bias in the worst way.