Republican Cowardice in the Face of Trump

Some - including me on numerous occasions - say that the Republican Party has been completely taken over by Trump and that most Republicans now subscribe to Trump's racist and misogynist agenda.  For many in the GOP the statement is sadly only too true.  For others, rather than stand up and try to save some shred of decency for the Party, they cower in fear and cowardice and allow the reprehensible become increasingly normalized in the GOP.  They fear the Party base and the treat of a primary challenge more than they respect honor and decency. Some fear for Trump's wrath.  Whatever the motivation, the act little better than the "good Germans" who allowed Hitler's rise.  Former Republican David Jolly calls out the cowards of the GOP in a lengthy column in the Washington Post and calls on them to put country first, which is their true duty as members of Congress.  Here are column excerpts:

We might as well impeach Trump. That was the sentiment of a sitting Republican member of Congress confiding in conservative blogger and radio host Erick Erickson. The anonymous member said [Trump] the president was an “idiot,” “evil,” “stupid.”

It was hardly the first time: During the later stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, GOP strategists anonymously expressed concern that Trump might win. In 2017, Sen. Susan Collins, seemingly unaware that she was on a hot microphone, acknowledged that she was “worried” about the administration. Still others have reportedly suggested that they think the president should be removed from office, though they, too, have almost always done so on background.

 

[T]he one consistent refrain I hear is, “I’m just keeping my head down, trying not to get noticed.” Some have privately described to me that serving in Congress during the Trump administration is “miserable.” Moreover, a colleague who has decided to call it quits confessed he was doing so to try to salvage his political career by not being forever branded a “Trump Republican.”

Like Erickson’s anonymous interlocutor, these politicians are engaging in what can only be considered a personal catharsis of sorts, not an act of political courage. A meaningful political statement would have been on the record, direct to voters, and would have substantively contributed to the national debate in which we remain engaged regarding [Trump's] this president’s fitness for office. This wasn’t that.

Few Republican officials today are willing to openly criticize [Trump] the president, even if they have deeply held reservations about Donald Trump’s ability to govern. They instead keep their lament private, their panic measured and their comments off the record. It’s a situation that needs to change. If you believe in serving your constituents, you are obliged to speak up and speak publicly.

This is Trump’s Republican Party, and his approval numbers among Republican voters sit at close to 90 percent. Cross him and you risk not only the wrath of the president himself but also the electoral base that he has cultivated to wrestle control of the party.

Knowingly or not, members of Congress choose one of two approaches to serving. Many strictly embrace their partisan identity, believing with honest conviction that they promised to uphold a party platform that voters back home both affirmed and expected their representative to enforce. A smaller minority of members of Congress embraces the notion that though elected in partisan races, they hold a greater responsibility — that upon taking the oath of office they hold a public trust and are called upon to advance the nation’s broader interests, even if that means at times going against their party. This latter approach was the very essence of James Madison’s embrace of a republican form of government. As he puts it in Federalist 10, a chosen representative may “best discern the true interest of their country” and may provide a voice “more consonant to the greater good.”

During my years in the House of Representatives, I witnessed members on the Democrats’ side of the aisle publicly vote on the House floor against Nancy Pelosi to be their leader, just as GOP members coordinated to stop the coronation of Kevin McCarthy following the resignation of Speaker John A. Boehner. These members largely lost the support of their party’s fundraising arms, suffered through immense criticism from their base and were often relegated to inconsequential committee work in the Congress.

I, for my own part, called on Trump to drop out of the presidential race from the House floor in December 2015. I was also a Republican advocate for marriage equality; I embraced the science behind climate change; I voted against the Planned Parenthood investigation; I advocated for reasonable gun control measures; I pushed radical campaign finance reform. The result? The party apparatus that spent millions on my behalf in my first run for Congress happily spent zero in my last. I lost my race, and now I’m a political commentator rather than an elected official.

But losing your office doesn’t mean you have to lose your voice. My wife and I call it the “sleep well at night test.” There’s something Margolies-Mezvinsky, McCain and these other outspoken members have that too many of today’s Republican leaders don’t: courage. These members each went on the record, stood on principle and accepted the political consequences of doing what they believed reflected the right direction for the country.

Today we have [Trump] a president who continually undermines our most basic institutions, from attacking an independent judiciary and law enforcement agents, to belittling a free press that has been a bedrock of our nation since its founding, to normalizing an invective form of politics while injecting increasing volatility into both our economic and national security, to flirting with the onset of a constitutional crisis caused by his own actions. 

[F]or the 535 men and women on Capitol Hill, there lies a greater responsibility — a responsibility envisioned when our founders drafted the Constitution and a responsibility knowingly accepted by the members of Congress, all of whom owe to us true faith and allegiance to the same.

Which is why the casual supermarket conversation between a congressman and a journalist on background isn’t funny. It’s scandalous.

The silence of these members of Congress is both a violation of the public trust and a reflection of their own lack of personal and political mettle.

Refusing to publicly acknowledge your convictions simply affirms your unwillingness to act on them. And that is an indictment of you, not [Trump] the president.

History rightfully discards those unwilling to take a stand, those who, in the face of a divided nation, shrink from controversy and seek refuge in the shadows of their own indecision. Conversely, history memorializes those who speak with courage, those who, at defining national moments, put country over party.

Sadly, I think it is too late to save the Republican Party.  The only way forward is to defeat Republicans in every election possible, from local school board elections to the race for the White House.  The GOP as it now exists needs to die. 

Trump Is Not Above The Law

America again needs to affirm that no one is above the law.

In an editorial today the New York Times editorial board reminded all of a reality that separates American democracy from a dictatorship: the principle that no citizen is above the law, not even the occupant of the White House.  What is disturbing is that many Republicans, especially members of Congress, seem to have forgotten this principal.  Once upon a time - think the Watergate era - Republicans had not forgotten this crucial principal.  Frighteningly, we may be about to reach a moment of truth where either congressional Republicans will put America and the rule of law first or put their party and Der Trumpenführer first and push America on the road to autocracy.  The only possible bulwark against this fate, if it comes to pass, is to flip both the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to the Democrats.  Here are editorial excerpts:

“This great nation can tolerate a president who makes mistakes,” declared Senator Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican. “But it cannot tolerate one who makes a mistake and then breaks the law to cover it up.”

No, Mr. Hatch wasn’t talking about Donald Trump. It was 1999, and he was talking about Bill Clinton.

Now Mr. Hatch and his fellow lawmakers may be approaching a harsher and more consequential test. We quote his words not to level some sort of accusation of hypocrisy, but to remind us all of what is at stake. News reports point to a growing possibility that President Trump may act to cripple or shut down an investigation by the nation’s top law-enforcement agencies into his campaign and administration. Lawmakers need to be preparing now for that possibility because if and when it comes to pass, they will suddenly find themselves on the edge of an abyss, with the Constitution in their hands. Make no mistake: If Mr. Trump takes such drastic action, he will be striking at the foundation of the American government, attempting to set a precedent that a president, alone among American citizens, is above the law.

What can seem now like a political sideshow will instantly become a constitutional crisis, and history will come calling for Mr. Hatch and his colleagues. Until the last few weeks, Mr. Trump had shown restraint, by his standards, anyway. He and his lawyers cooperated with investigators. Mr. Trump never tweeted directly about Robert Mueller, the special counsel, and spoke about him publicly only when asked.

Alas, that whiff of higher executive function is gone. Mr. Trump is openly attacking both Mr. Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, appointed by Mr. Trump himself. Mr. Rosenstein is overseeing the Russia investigation and signing off on Mr. Mueller’s actions.

He may choose not to fire either man. We know he has already twice told his aides he wanted Mr. Mueller fired, only to be talked out of such rash action.

But if the president does move against the investigators, it will be up to Congress to affirm the rule of law, the separation of powers and the American constitutional order. The miserable polarization and partisan anger that have been rising in American life for decades will hit a new crescendo, and that will present congressional Republicans with a heavy burden indeed.

Republicans used to warn the nation about Mr. Trump openly, back when they thought they could still protect their party from him. Here’s a short sampling: “malignant clown,” “national disgrace,” “complete idiot,” “a sociopath, without a conscience or feelings of guilt, shame or remorse,” “graceless and divisive,” “predatory and reprehensible,” flawed “beyond mere moral shortcomings,” “unsound, uninformed, unhinged and unfit,” “a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world,” “A bigot. A misogynist. A fraud. A bully.” Some still say these sorts of things, albeit anonymously. Maybe — and this is the scariest contingency to contemplate — Republican leaders would calculate that with their support, or mere acquiescence, Mr. Trump could get away with it. The overwhelming majority of Americans, including most Republicans, want Mr. Mueller to keep his job, and perhaps a groundswell of revulsion at unchecked presidential power would follow any action against the special counsel. 

We can be fairly certain that the pressure on Republican lawmakers from the minority of Americans who support Mr. Trump, as well as from the likes of Fox News and Sinclair, would be intense. A few senior Republicans have been saying the right things — including Mr. Hatch. He tweeted that anyone telling the president to fire Mr. Mueller “does not have the President or the nation’s best interest at heart.” Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, warned Mr. Trump that firing Mr. Mueller would be “the beginning of the end of his presidency.”

That’s all necessary and good. But it’s not enough. More Republicans need to make it clear that they won’t tolerate any action against either man, and that firing Mr. Mueller would be, as Senator Charles Grassley said, “suicide.”

[S]hould Mr. Trump move to hobble or kill the investigation, he would darken rather than dispel the cloud of suspicion around him. Far worse, he would free future presidents to politicize American justice. That would be a danger to every American, of whatever political leaning.

The president is not a king but a citizen, deserving of the presumption of innocence and other protections, yet also vulnerable to lawful scrutiny. We hope Mr. Trump recognizes this. If he doesn’t, how Republican lawmakers respond will shape the future not only of this presidency and of one of the country’s great political parties, but of the American experiment itself.

Republican Meg Whitman Endorses Clinton

An earlier post this morning asked the question of what is wrong with supposedly sane Republicans who continue to support Donald Trump.  One possible explanation might be that of peer pressure, if you will - e.g., members of the country club set (we are going to the James River tonight with friends) who feel the need to vote like their friends and neighbors.  If that is true, then it is a sad commentary.  Thankfully, more Republicans who put the good of the country ahead of party and self-promotion are beginning to step forward and declare that they will not vote for a fascist like Trump. The latest to join this list is California Republican Meg Whitman, a former GOP gubernatorial candidate and major fundraiser.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at Whitman's decision to endorse Trump.  Here are highlights:

Meg Whitman, the Silicon Valley executive and prolific Republican fund-raiser, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president Wednesday night.

In a Facebook post, she said Donald Trump’s “unsteady hand would endanger our prosperity and national security. His authoritarian character could threaten much more.”

Whitman’s views on Trump are no surprise. The unsuccessful Republican candidate for governor of California in 2010 compared him to Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini at a June meeting in Utah of Republican donors and executives and helped bankroll an anti-Trump super-Pac this Spring. She is close to 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the sponsor of that meeting, where she also reportedly indicated that she would probably be supporting Clinton.

But few, if any, Republicans as prominent and financially potent as Whitman have gone so far to defect to Trump’s Democratic opponent, who she praised for her experience and “stable and aspirational leadership.”

Whitman is the C.E.O. of Hewlett-Packard Enterprise and former C.E.O. of eBay. Here’s what she wrote:

As a proud Republican, casting my vote for President has usually been a simple matter. This year is different. To vote Republican out of party loyalty alone would be to endorse a candidacy that I believe has exploited anger, grievance, xenophobia and racial division. Donald Trump’s demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character.

Trump’s reckless and uninformed positions on critical issues — from immigration to our economy and foreign policy–have made it abundantly clear that he lacks both the policy depth and sound judgment required as President. Trump’s unsteady hand would endanger our prosperity and national security. His authoritarian character could threaten much more.

Therefore, I have decided to support Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is clear to me that Secretary Clinton’s temperament, global experience and commitment to America’s bedrock national values would make her the far better choice in 2016 for President of the United States. In a tumultuous world, America needs the kind of stable and aspirational leadership Secretary Clinton can provide. I urge all Republicans to reject Donald Trump this November.

In an interview with the New York Times, Whitman added: “I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her.” The Times said Whitman had phoned Clinton about a month ago.

She told the Times she stood by her Hitler and Mussolini comparison: “‘Time and again history has shown that when demagogues have gotten power or come close to getting power, it usually does not end well.’”

There comes a point where the good of the country has to outweigh past party loyalties.