An alternative to our two-party system may be developing.
If the GOP ouroboros process continues, we could end up with a three-party system. Left: Democratic Socialists. Center: Democratic Party. Right: GOP.
If the Democratic Socialists start by running for local offices, they can quickly build up durable political mass in urban areas, and avoid the current third party ‘spoiler’ dynamic that you have previously discussed.
I think it is fair to say that Stuart Stevens is the only prominent Republican who has owned up to the intentional maliciousness of the GOP project post Eisenhower. Which is itself scary and sad that there is really only one. A few have come close (Kristol, Frum), but haven't really taken the final step of admitting to the mendacity from the start. From my perspective, many in the Lincoln Project will flip back to pushing fear and fake economics as soon as they feel the fascist risk abate, as did Andrew Sullivan, for example.
I didn't realize your personal connection to Mr. Stevens. That says a lot to me. But I am still finding it very hard to forgive.
(That Tim Scott clip was super cringey. Weird to see how Trump warmed up to that, um, effort. )
I keep on coming back to this analogy. Imagine if we are back in late 1983 or early 1984 and Jimmy Carter emerges from retirement in Georgia to offer the following potential platform for a 1984 campaign: "(1) I had a great term as President. (2) The economy stinks and to the extent it's good, it's because people think Ronald Reagan won't get re-elected, and (3) Ronald Reagan is too old to serve." I'd argue such a platform would have been as true (and untrue) then as it is today.
An insane idea. Jimmy Carter would have not been able to raise money or get any meaningful traction in Iowa or anyplace else. The process Stevens says will take 8 more years probably was instantaneous - and not just because the former President was entirely too dignified to entertain such a folly. It wasn't that the Carter "movement" was toxic per se, the party nominated his Vice President after all. But the former President was. And maybe it's because he wasn't "of the party" in the same way a Humphrey, Stevenson, or LBJ were. But neither was the 45th President. Sure, he was invited to subsequent conventions, etc... but no one seriously entertained him taking on any role as kingmaker or candidate in Democratic politics after 1980. (I seem to remember a brief pre-convention brouhaha where Jesse Jackson wanted him involved to mediate some internecine dispute. But that was it.). We really have gone through the looking glass with the current GOP.
Jim The conundrum is whether the media is dictating what its audience gets or whether the media is responding to what most interests them.
The media frenzy on Iowa, New Hampshire, DeSantis, Haley, and, of course, Trump in court or campaigning overwhelms any possible ongoing coverage of our recurring budget crisis, Ukraine, and other seminal issues.
Moreover, the coverage is so superficial that there is scant chance that the recipients will understand what actually is significant, much less the historical context. I recall when Cancun Cruz ‘won’ the 2016 Iowa caucus. So what?
The 2024 presidential election will be a media marathon with more irrelevant distractions than Carter has liver pills. As The Guardian and The Economist discuss, key issues include autocracy vs. democracy, serving the people rather than the most wealthy, the Constitution and justice vs. neither, and a coherent foreign policy vs. ill-considered bromances and hissy fits.
Remember all the outrageous comments about the three female university presidents who were sandbagged during a House inquisition? The most cogent commentary on this incident is David Cole’s WHO’S CANCELLING WHOM? In the latest NY Review of books.
Cole provides a historical context for this brouhaha, states that these ladies did nothing ‘wrong,’ and highlights the difference between First Amendment and, as Justice Holmes phrased it, ‘shouting fire in a crowded room.’
I fear, in the coming months, that there will not be a factual forum in which a great majority of Americans choose to participate. There is Fox, CNN, and other single voice cable networks. Also TikTok, where, apparently, young Americans often get much of their news.
I have recently re-read George Orwell’s 1984 and ANIMAL FARM. The first, with its NEWSPEAK was more discouraging than the latter, where the other animals eventually ousted the [MAGA] pigs.
I fear that 2024 will be a long and dissonant year.
As always, an informative and interesting post. And I think Stevens sums up the state of today's Republican Party very well. His points about things continuing to play out in ways that surprise us, and pain being the only teacher in politics, seem especially spot on.
Haley and DeSantis have both said that they'll vote for Trump if he's the nominee. Trump hasn't said he'll vote for one of them, and it's a virtual certainty that he won't. Not only that, but he'll snipe at the nominee endlessly and do whatever he can to deny them the presidency. Who knows how many people in Trump's personality cult would be lost to the Republican candidate. Ten percent seems low, 30% could be high, but in a close election - and it will be close! - even 10% could doom the candidate.
That's Trump's superpower. The GOP needs him, he doesn't need the GOP. Nikki and Ron want a future in the party. Trump doesn't care. They want a Republican president, Trump wants a Repub president too, but only if it's him. Otherwise, "Screw 'em." He'd probably get more of a kick out of denying Haley or DeSantis the presidency than he would if he won and actually had to pretend to do the job.
This is the same calculation that all the elected officials and pooh-bahs who've endorsed him have made. They may not be able to win with him, but they can't win without him. When you've got them by the you-know-whats, their hearts and minds will follow. And be thoroughly debased and corrupted in the process.
I could tolerate barely 15 seconds of Tim Scott's suck-up before I hit the exit button. I enjoyed Mr. Storobinsky's comments, but once again, I could only listen to the first half before I had to stop because my brain kept screaming, "Please, for God's sake - someone tell me something that is not so overwhelmingly obvious!" No criticism of Mr. Storobinsky; it's just that every single politician and commentator in the country should be saying the same thing he's saying. Instead, they're busy singing the exaggerated praises of this depraved criminal. It's nauseating.
I just listened to a few minutes of an NPR program about the huge increase in credible threats of violence toward Republicans who refuse to kowtow to Trump - or worse, who criticize him in any manner at all. It's terrifying. One question was, with such a small percentage of his followers making these threats, and an even smaller percentage following through with actual violence, how does one know whether they are actually in danger? Of course the answer is they don't. And so the easiest - and sometimes, when fearing for one's family, the only - option is to fall in line and "kiss the ring." Trump has modeled bullying and mandatory sycophancy as the means to gain power, and it's working like a charm.
And what does it matter if he loses in November by an overwhelming margin? We already know he'll declare himself the winner and employ all manner of violence to get what he wants. He's done it before, why on earth would we believe he won't do it again, only with a higher probability of achieving his goal? We're dealing with a power hungry madman who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. As for "what he wants": I've dealt with narcissists before, and there is no end or direction to their wants. Their wants & needs change daily, even many times a day. We're racing headlong into chaos and destruction.
Stevens is on point, as he usually has been since 2015. But it's also worth remembering that the Union defeated the Confederacy in 1865, and we're STILL fighting that one! Indeed, one of my favorite comments to make is that today's republicans would have handed John Wilkes Booth the gun and then shielded him afterward.
Not sure if you saw the Crist-DeSantis debate in 2022 but I found it telling. Crist was losing that election but nevertheless showed up DeSantis as a weak public performer.
For additional schadenfreude there is this Jeb Bush interview with Brian Kilmeade where he, more or less endorses, DeSantis. Very sad.
Now we get to the real question. Where are the GOP's dark money bags going to put their money? Since it will never be for a (tax raising) Democrat; for Trump? For some third party? Hold back?
Whatever prejudice anyone can entertain towards politicians - the Republican Party is out to prove it.
An alternative to our two-party system may be developing.
If the GOP ouroboros process continues, we could end up with a three-party system. Left: Democratic Socialists. Center: Democratic Party. Right: GOP.
If the Democratic Socialists start by running for local offices, they can quickly build up durable political mass in urban areas, and avoid the current third party ‘spoiler’ dynamic that you have previously discussed.
I think it is fair to say that Stuart Stevens is the only prominent Republican who has owned up to the intentional maliciousness of the GOP project post Eisenhower. Which is itself scary and sad that there is really only one. A few have come close (Kristol, Frum), but haven't really taken the final step of admitting to the mendacity from the start. From my perspective, many in the Lincoln Project will flip back to pushing fear and fake economics as soon as they feel the fascist risk abate, as did Andrew Sullivan, for example.
I didn't realize your personal connection to Mr. Stevens. That says a lot to me. But I am still finding it very hard to forgive.
(That Tim Scott clip was super cringey. Weird to see how Trump warmed up to that, um, effort. )
I keep on coming back to this analogy. Imagine if we are back in late 1983 or early 1984 and Jimmy Carter emerges from retirement in Georgia to offer the following potential platform for a 1984 campaign: "(1) I had a great term as President. (2) The economy stinks and to the extent it's good, it's because people think Ronald Reagan won't get re-elected, and (3) Ronald Reagan is too old to serve." I'd argue such a platform would have been as true (and untrue) then as it is today.
An insane idea. Jimmy Carter would have not been able to raise money or get any meaningful traction in Iowa or anyplace else. The process Stevens says will take 8 more years probably was instantaneous - and not just because the former President was entirely too dignified to entertain such a folly. It wasn't that the Carter "movement" was toxic per se, the party nominated his Vice President after all. But the former President was. And maybe it's because he wasn't "of the party" in the same way a Humphrey, Stevenson, or LBJ were. But neither was the 45th President. Sure, he was invited to subsequent conventions, etc... but no one seriously entertained him taking on any role as kingmaker or candidate in Democratic politics after 1980. (I seem to remember a brief pre-convention brouhaha where Jesse Jackson wanted him involved to mediate some internecine dispute. But that was it.). We really have gone through the looking glass with the current GOP.
Jim The conundrum is whether the media is dictating what its audience gets or whether the media is responding to what most interests them.
The media frenzy on Iowa, New Hampshire, DeSantis, Haley, and, of course, Trump in court or campaigning overwhelms any possible ongoing coverage of our recurring budget crisis, Ukraine, and other seminal issues.
Moreover, the coverage is so superficial that there is scant chance that the recipients will understand what actually is significant, much less the historical context. I recall when Cancun Cruz ‘won’ the 2016 Iowa caucus. So what?
The 2024 presidential election will be a media marathon with more irrelevant distractions than Carter has liver pills. As The Guardian and The Economist discuss, key issues include autocracy vs. democracy, serving the people rather than the most wealthy, the Constitution and justice vs. neither, and a coherent foreign policy vs. ill-considered bromances and hissy fits.
Remember all the outrageous comments about the three female university presidents who were sandbagged during a House inquisition? The most cogent commentary on this incident is David Cole’s WHO’S CANCELLING WHOM? In the latest NY Review of books.
Cole provides a historical context for this brouhaha, states that these ladies did nothing ‘wrong,’ and highlights the difference between First Amendment and, as Justice Holmes phrased it, ‘shouting fire in a crowded room.’
I fear, in the coming months, that there will not be a factual forum in which a great majority of Americans choose to participate. There is Fox, CNN, and other single voice cable networks. Also TikTok, where, apparently, young Americans often get much of their news.
I have recently re-read George Orwell’s 1984 and ANIMAL FARM. The first, with its NEWSPEAK was more discouraging than the latter, where the other animals eventually ousted the [MAGA] pigs.
I fear that 2024 will be a long and dissonant year.
As always, an informative and interesting post. And I think Stevens sums up the state of today's Republican Party very well. His points about things continuing to play out in ways that surprise us, and pain being the only teacher in politics, seem especially spot on.
A great survey of the sad state of the Republican Party. The last clip was compelling. I hope he’s right.
Haley and DeSantis have both said that they'll vote for Trump if he's the nominee. Trump hasn't said he'll vote for one of them, and it's a virtual certainty that he won't. Not only that, but he'll snipe at the nominee endlessly and do whatever he can to deny them the presidency. Who knows how many people in Trump's personality cult would be lost to the Republican candidate. Ten percent seems low, 30% could be high, but in a close election - and it will be close! - even 10% could doom the candidate.
That's Trump's superpower. The GOP needs him, he doesn't need the GOP. Nikki and Ron want a future in the party. Trump doesn't care. They want a Republican president, Trump wants a Repub president too, but only if it's him. Otherwise, "Screw 'em." He'd probably get more of a kick out of denying Haley or DeSantis the presidency than he would if he won and actually had to pretend to do the job.
This is the same calculation that all the elected officials and pooh-bahs who've endorsed him have made. They may not be able to win with him, but they can't win without him. When you've got them by the you-know-whats, their hearts and minds will follow. And be thoroughly debased and corrupted in the process.
I could tolerate barely 15 seconds of Tim Scott's suck-up before I hit the exit button. I enjoyed Mr. Storobinsky's comments, but once again, I could only listen to the first half before I had to stop because my brain kept screaming, "Please, for God's sake - someone tell me something that is not so overwhelmingly obvious!" No criticism of Mr. Storobinsky; it's just that every single politician and commentator in the country should be saying the same thing he's saying. Instead, they're busy singing the exaggerated praises of this depraved criminal. It's nauseating.
I just listened to a few minutes of an NPR program about the huge increase in credible threats of violence toward Republicans who refuse to kowtow to Trump - or worse, who criticize him in any manner at all. It's terrifying. One question was, with such a small percentage of his followers making these threats, and an even smaller percentage following through with actual violence, how does one know whether they are actually in danger? Of course the answer is they don't. And so the easiest - and sometimes, when fearing for one's family, the only - option is to fall in line and "kiss the ring." Trump has modeled bullying and mandatory sycophancy as the means to gain power, and it's working like a charm.
And what does it matter if he loses in November by an overwhelming margin? We already know he'll declare himself the winner and employ all manner of violence to get what he wants. He's done it before, why on earth would we believe he won't do it again, only with a higher probability of achieving his goal? We're dealing with a power hungry madman who will stop at nothing to get what he wants. As for "what he wants": I've dealt with narcissists before, and there is no end or direction to their wants. Their wants & needs change daily, even many times a day. We're racing headlong into chaos and destruction.
God help us all.
#4--yeah, Trump's dementia is showing badly. I don't think he's going to be in the running this fall, and if he is, he will lose.
Excellent as always.
Stevens is on point, as he usually has been since 2015. But it's also worth remembering that the Union defeated the Confederacy in 1865, and we're STILL fighting that one! Indeed, one of my favorite comments to make is that today's republicans would have handed John Wilkes Booth the gun and then shielded him afterward.
Not sure if you saw the Crist-DeSantis debate in 2022 but I found it telling. Crist was losing that election but nevertheless showed up DeSantis as a weak public performer.
For additional schadenfreude there is this Jeb Bush interview with Brian Kilmeade where he, more or less endorses, DeSantis. Very sad.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/256-the-brian-kilmeade-show-fr-30996067/episode/unedited-brians-full-interview-with-former-106453749/
You forgot to mention "It Was All A Lie," which is Stevens' mea culpa, from which he has been "walking the walk" ever since.
Now we get to the real question. Where are the GOP's dark money bags going to put their money? Since it will never be for a (tax raising) Democrat; for Trump? For some third party? Hold back?