Republicans Keep Failing the Same Test

As Donald Trump faces his arraignment on violations of the Espionage Act, Republicans again have the choice of opting to support democracy, the rule of law and the concept that no one is above the law or remaining Kool-Aid drinking cultists who blindly support Trump and the toxic reality of what the Republican Party has become.  No doubt some cultists will protest in Miami but the majority of rank and file Republicans will likely shrug their shoulders even as congressional Republicans make statements they know to be false as they condemn the indictments and go through tortured contortions to avoid focusing on the gravity of Trumps crimes and the threat he poses to national security (not to mention common decency).  A column in the New York Times looks at the continued refusal of Republicans to decide to support truth and America's democratic system thanks to both a herd mentality and in the case of elected Republicans an unquenchable thirst for power at any cost.  Here are column excerpts:

In the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, Republican officeholders had three choices.

They could stick with and defend Donald Trump and his riotous allies, and if they were members of the House or Senate, they could vote in support of the effort to overturn the results of the election, in a show of loyalty to the president and, in effect, the rioters.

Or they could criticize and condemn the president as conservative dissenters, using their voices in an attempt to put the Republican Party back on a more traditional path.

Or they could leave. They could quit the party and thus show the full extent of their anger and revulsion.

But we know what actually happened. A few Republicans left and a few complained, but most remained loyal to the party and the president with nary a peep to make about the fact that Trump was willing to bring an end to constitutional government in the United States if it meant he could stay in office.

We have been watching this dynamic play out a second time with Trump’s indictment on federal espionage charges for mishandling classified documents as a private citizen. The most prominent Republican officeholders wasted no time with their full-throated denunciations of the indictment, the Department of Justice and the Biden administration.

“Let’s be clear about what’s happening: Joe Biden is weaponizing his Department of Justice against his own political rival,” said Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, . . . . “This indictment certainly looks like an unequal application of justice,” said Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming,. . . . Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said that the indictment was a “weaponization of federal law enforcement” that “represents a mortal threat to a free society,” . . . .

The only notable Congressional Republican to really condemn Trump was Senator Mitt Romney of Utah. “By all appearances, the Justice Department and special counsel have exercised due care, affording Mr. Trump the time and opportunity to avoid charges that would not generally have been afforded to others,” he said in a statement. “Mr. Trump brought these charges upon himself by not only taking classified documents, but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so.”

All of this is typical. With vanishingly few exceptions, Republicans are unwilling either to discipline Trump, withdraw their support for his political leadership or even just criticize him for his actions. The most we’ve seen, Romney aside, is a nod to the fact that these are serious charges.

There are several ways to think about most Republicans’ reluctance to break with Trump in the face of his egregious lawbreaking and contempt for constitutional government, but I want to focus on two in particular.

The first concerns something that exists wherever there is a relationship between an individual and an institution. That is, it concerns the loyalty of the individual to the institution. Political parties in particular are designed to inculcate a sense of loyalty and shared commitment among their members. This is especially true for officeholders, who exist in a web of relationships and obligations that rest on a set of common interests and beliefs.

Loyalty makes it less likely that a dissenter just ups and walks away, especially when there isn’t a plausible alternative. Few Trump-critical Republicans, for instance, are willing to become Democrats. . . . . strong loyalty to an institution like a political party might lead a dissenting or disapproving individual to hold onto her membership even more tightly, for fear that exit might open the door to even worse outcomes.

“The ultimate in unhappiness and paradoxical loyalist behavior,” Hirschman wrote, “occurs when the public evil produced by the organization promises to accelerate or to reach some intolerable level as the organization deteriorates; then, in line with the reasoning just presented, the decision to exit will become ever more difficult the longer one fails to exit. The conviction that one has to stay on to prevent the worst grows stronger all the time.”

Most things in life, and especially a basic respect for democracy and the rule of law, have to be cultivated. What is striking about the Republican Party is the extent to which it has, for decades now, cultivated the opposite — a highly instrumental view of our political system, in which rules and laws are legitimate only insofar as they allow for the acquisition and concentration of power in Republican hands.

Most Republicans won’t condemn Trump. There are his millions of ultra-loyal voters, yes. And there are the challenges associated with breaking from the consensus of your political party, yes. But there is also the reality that Trump is the apotheosis of a propensity for lawlessness within the Republican Party. He is what the party and its most prominent figures have been building toward for nearly half a century. I think he knows it and I think they do too.