Former attorney general William Barr illustrates a big problem for Democrats:
Asked by NBC News' Lester Holt whether he considered Trump "responsible" for the violence at the Capitol, Barr said: "I do think he was responsible in the broad sense of that word, in that it appears that part of the plan was to send this group up to the Hill. I think the whole idea was to intimidate Congress. And I think that that was wrong."
....But asked if he would vote for Trump if he wins the party nomination in 2024, Barr suggested he would. “Because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee,” he said.
Barr has spent the past couple of decades swirling down the rabbit hole of conservative paranoia, but he's still emblematic of a real problem: Republicans who are genuinely disgusted by Trump but aren't willing to do the one meaningful thing that would weaken his hold on the Republican Party. They aren't willing to vote against him.
I've come across this often enough that it strikes me as a genuinely widespread phenomenon.¹ The upshot is that it's not enough to go after Trump. Plenty of center-righties already understand perfectly well that the man is a disaster in human skin. The problem is that many (most?) of them don't feel like they have any reasonable alternative. This is partly because of Fox News & Co. and partly because of the leftward migration of the Democratic Party.
But whatever the cause, it's a problem. And fair or not, we need to do something about it.
¹If there's some kind of survey data that says otherwise, let me know.
Now, I have to point out, this isn't just your average Fox News-watching grandpa. This is Bill Barr. He was the AG of the United States. Twice! He worked for the CIA, the DOJ, and federal courts. He worked under 4 different Presidents. He's known Joe Biden for decades.
It's one thing to be someone who gets all their news from Fox and believes Democrats are Satanic pedophiles or whatever. Bill Barr knows enough to know better. He's just a right wing extremist who Democrats will never win over.
Also, he's probably upset that Democrats have been basically calling him out for being Trump's today, but he was in fact Trump's today, no matter what he is doing today to launder his reputation.
I'm not saying your point doesn't hold for many centrist voters. Just that Barr is a bad example.
*Trump's today = Trump's toady. Oh, autocorrect!
The fact that someone of Bill Barr's political pedigree can believe the fetid sewage burbling up from the American Spectator, Drudge, InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, Project Veritas, etc., over the past thirty-three years makes you realize that the GQP leadership, despite going to the best schools (Brett Kavanaugh, Haw-Haw Hawley, J.D. ANTIVAXXX, Stewart Rhoades are all Yalies, to begin) & having a lot of money (David Koch, Peter Thiel), they are no less facile & dare I say simple than the high school educated machinist in overalls at the local tap after another shift at the machine shop.
Sure, for some GQP types past & present believing the lies was a matter of electoral expedience -- James A. Baker III, William Safire -- but with each generation of conservative, the fatuity seeps ever more powerfully into the marrow of the party writ large.
Nowadays, instead of William Buckley ostracizing the Birchers, he would hire an Associate Editor at Die Sturmer to lead National Review.
+1
+1
there's a lot of truth to this--we are social animals, and our internal thoughts, personalities, ideologies, and even sense of self depend to a much greater degree on what we read, watch, and listen to to a degree that most folks probably care to admit (or think about).
Bill Barr having attended Columbia half a century ago matters much less to who and what he is than does his media diet for the past 20 years.
how dare you insult manly man hawley! he demands satisfaction! croquet mallets at 10 paces, dawn tomorrow at the whites-only country club of your choosing!
Is there one in O'Fallon, MO?
I like the microbrew there, so could kill two birds with one stone.
Barr is a shining example of what I mean when I say repubs would destroy the country rather than let a dem win. They really do want to kill us all if possible.
"This is partly because of Fox News & Co. and partly because of the leftward migration of the Democratic Party."
Kevin sounds like a Ukrainian saying, "I can understand Putin's fear of Ukraine joining NATO." It's beside the point, it freely buys into Russian propaganda, and misunderstands what's really going on.
The Democrats aren't any more "left" than they were 80, 50, or 30 years ago. Democrats are pushing progress - social and economic - as they have since FDR. They aren't more left, they're just making progress in the direction they have wanted to go, slowly - too slowly, it could be said - but surely. And the more progress that's made, the more alarmed and combative the elite, monied right, represented by the GOP and propagandized by Fox and other RW media, become. And they'll resort to any means to slow that progress. Including electing a corrupt idiot for president. Including lying shamelessly about Democrats.
The problem for these elites on the right isn't Democrats per se; it's democracy. It's not working for them anymore. Which makes the GOP an existential threat to the republic now, much as Putin is for Ukraine.
+10
I think if we are to be honest, one of the effects of political polarization is to make cross-party voting less possible and less attractive. In other words, though it's hard to imagine Democrats nominating someone like President Trump, imagine if the Democrats nominated some candidate who a ton of mainstream Democrats really, really disliked. They thought he was a demagogue, unqualified for the job, etc. And he came from the entertainment industry, perhaps. I'll call this person X.
I think in that situation, it would play out somewhat similarly to the way it played out with the GOP. There would be intense opposition to X in the primaries, and liberal publications publishing "Against X" special issues and the like. But in the general, if X got nominated? People would start thinking about Supreme Court seats and liberal programs, and at any rate would start thinking "you know X isn't that bad" and "Pelosi and Schumer will check X's worst instincts" and "X's Vice Presidential candidate is a true liberal hero".
This is how partisan polarization works. We are all primed to get so afraid of the other side and what they will do that we give up the power to discipline our own party and place a check on its candidates.
This is why Bernie's floor was higher than George Mc Govern's ceiling.
And I would argue that even the floor of someone far MORE disliked by mainstream Dems than Bernie would also be pretty high.
I don’t think the political landscape is symmetrical. I have come to think that the difference between a populist and a demagogue is that a populist promises policies that a lot of people like, while a demagogue tells people attractive myths and fantasies aboutwho they are - the ‘master race’, or the heirs of a once-great nation/empire that they can restore. I think Democrats are less susceptible to those appeals because they are more concerned with concrete improvements in people‘a lives. Not saying there could not be a left-wing demagogue (New Soviet Man!?), just that they are fewer, historically.
And I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying if the roughly reciprocal situation did occur, it would likely play out the way I set out.
The left used to demagogue against the rich and low-wage-labor-chasing industrialists pretty effectively. But policies in the late 90's pretty much told the working class what's what, in particular private unions. Now who do we rail against?
Methinks you have the arrow of causality pointing in the wrong direction WRT who abandonded whom in the '90s
Agree.
You made me think about this a bit more. Even when the left railed against the rich, they were calling for fairness and more equal treatment of workers. Right demagoguery sets up inequality as a goal.
I'll let you ask your spouse about the giant sucking sound we made last nite.
In other words, though it's hard to imagine Democrats nominating someone like President Trump, imagine if the Democrats nominated some candidate who a ton of mainstream Democrats really, really disliked.
It’s hard to imagine this scenario because it’s really hard to even think of someone already rich and famous for being crazy/shady/non-mainstream that all the various Dem subgroups (blacks, Latinos, Asians, LGBTs, educated whites, etc) would all settle for in a primary. I mean, it’s hard enough for Dems to find any *mainstream* candidates that appeal to all these groups in the primaries (which is why after the primaries, there are endless articles about various subgroups threatening to sit out the general election bc their preferred candidate didn’t win). Who exactly among named living individuals in the US today would this unicorn candidate that could unite enough subgroups to buck all the existing mainstream Dem candidates?
Maybe Oprah? But she’s not famous for being crazy, shady or even non-mainstream.
imagine if the Democrats nominated some candidate who a ton of mainstream Democrats really, really disliked.
Republican voters didn't dislike Trump, they just thought he might not win and, after the first few primaries, fell right in line.
I didn't say Democratic voters. I said a ton of mainstream Democrats. A ton of mainstream Republicans did hate Trump- the GOP's voting base did not.
Sorry, but you are crazy if you think democrats haven’t moved left. Just a few years ago almost every Democrat was again at gay marriage. Part of the official democratic platform was protecting our borders and enforcing preventing illegal immigration. There weren’t any any lefties wanting to rename schools named for Abraham Lincoln or George Washington or wanting to tear down statues.
I understand you may agree with all these things but they are certainly examples of Dems moving to the left in recent years. It’s this leftward lurch makes it so many republicans could never vote for a dem.
* against gay marriage
"leftward migration of the Democratic Party."
As epitomized by....Joe Biden? Please!
Biden won because he got Republican support. Lots of it.
Maybe even Bill Barr....
+20
Why is it if I or you or someone else talked any leftist, any real leftist, they would regard the Democratic Party with venomous contempt?
For the very reasons tdbach just pointed out.
And the fact that the institutional party has worked in the past to blunt the influence of the Left, especially those openly calling themselves socialists. Look at the Buffalo mayor's race last year as the perfect example.
Republicans used to do that with far-Right candidates once upon a time. Not anymore. Perhaps this might be something to comment about than one's myopic fears about the "Left". Otherwise you'll become as bad as Bill Barr.
Because they are nutjob True Believers for whom being ideologically pure is vastly more important than, you know, actually getting stuff done?