#481 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday October 13)
Good morning,
WHY NOT FOLLOW THE WATERGATE EXAMPLE?
Those of us who lived through Watergate and the Watergate hearings saw a “third rate burglary” mushroom into a full-blown attempt to cover-up facts, impede a criminal investigation, wrongfully assert Executive Privilege, pressure the Justice Department to do the President’s bidding, conspire to violate the law, and obstruct justice. Hearings were held and the extent of the cancer was aired in public, generating outrage. Ultimately, it was crystal clear that something had to change. Sound familiar?
Eric Swenson wrote in to ask why the Republicans, who intelligently and strategically ultimately abandoned Richard Nixon when the corruption became obvious, don’t take a similar tack here with Donald Trump.
For those who may recall, Mr. Nixon was actively defended by the party faithful for nearly two years of investigation, inquiry, and court hearings. But at one point, the Republican establishment trudged their way down Pennsylvania Avenue to meet with the president to tell him that it was over. John Rhodes and Barry Goldwater, hardly lackeys of the left, led the delegation. Nixon was told he no longer could count on the support of the Republican leadership. He surrendered to the inevitable and resigned the next day.
As an Orange County boy, I recall our congressman, Charles Wiggins, being interviewed after unwavering support of Mr. Nixon and crying, acknowledging it was time to throw in the towel. Back then, there seemed to be an ethical baseline that warranted taking political risk, and even suffering political defeat in the short term. Today, with daily disclosures of the grift, corruption, and arrogance of a rogue White House, the party faithful refuse to be dissuaded from their narrative.
ONE OPINION
Eric sent along an article by Noah Smith that attempts to explain the differences between today’s Republicans and those of yesteryear:
“The Republicans of the '70s simply threw Nixon under the bus, moved on, and in a few years they were running the table.
I think the fact that Republicans can't even contemplate a similar strategy with Trump is a function of the different way we talk about politics now. It's all eschatology. The next election is always going to be the last one that determines which party will reign for 1000 years.
Both the Republicans and the Democrats of the 1970s understood that they were playing a repeated game; that neither party or its base would vanish after the next election, or the next, or the next.
And of course on the GOP side most of the fear comes from the "Great Replacement" idea.
The Republicans of the '70s didn't think that if they lost one presidential election it would mean the destruction of everything they hold dear and their subjugation to invaders blah blah blah. Many modern Republican voters have become convinced that it would.”
I think Mr. Smith is onto something. Both parties have adopted the stance that the Republic will come to an end if the other party prevails. This narrative is pervasive; however, the Republicans are following their titular leader (since when does someone go to electoral defeat and maintain a stranglehold on the party?) all the way down the dark path of manipulating our electoral system for victory at all cost.
BUT WHY DO THEY HANG ON TO TRUMP?
First, I think that in the Watergate era, we had better politicians. I’m not saying they weren’t flawed or that they did things for little reason other than bolstering their political standing. But they also seemed to stand for something. Juxtapose that with today. The party conventions spent inordinate time in committee, logrolling and compromising in order to develop a platform that would adhere to the basic principles of the party, while positioned to attract the broader electorate to their side in the coming election. The 2024 Republican platform was something completely different. It was but a page long and simply said President Trump was doing a great job.
THEY RESPOND TO THE MOOD AND MORES OF SOCIETY
But it isn’t just that they were better politicians or that they had better moral compasses. They also analyzed the populace and knew the people would not stand for the behavior evinced by Nixon and his cohorts. Now, people who secretly loathe Trump and recognize his danger won’t say anything because they know a broad spectrum of the populace will excoriate them as apostates. As Mr. Smith notes, “Unfortunately, convincing [the Trump supporters to do something] is nigh impossible, because A) They aren't listening to anyone outside their circle, B) all their own media outlets are still trying very hard to convince them of this narrative, and C) Dems are not exactly in a cajoling sort of mood.”
And herein lies the problem. Not only were the politicians better, but we were better. We, the American people, were better educated on our nation’s founding principles, the importance of our Constitutions and laws, and in the ability to critically think. We watched network television (or PBS), which provided something of a moderator to the news of the day. Newspapers were written by journalists. Articles were reviewed for the facts (recall some of the most interesting parts of movies about newspapers uncovering a scoop involves boring things like fact checking and editing to “get it right”). We are the media were sufficiently suspicious of what we heard to seek more information and, as such, we subscribed to different newsweeklies and periodicals. We heard multiple sides of the argument. Importantly, we were not willing to be convinced that any other point of view than our own was the devil’s work.
Donald Trump fed into the fear of so many, the sense of abandonment by the government, and the conclusion that their government (defined as controlled by the other party, the press and/or the deep state) was not their ally. This was repeated and magnified by media that do not ascribe to certain basic tenets of journalism. They are parroted over and over on social media until it seems it must be true. With Citizens United and other actions of courts and legislatures, elections increasingly are bought and sold by people who will pay for the spreading of their world view, researched and rational, or not. Money is political speech. When someone gives $1MM+ to a political action committee to say whatever it wants, true or false, speech is tilted to the untrue or misleading.
Trump won because he grasped one simple concept. Subsequently, the Republicans in Congress have grasped this same concept. They aren’t speaking for themselves. They give voice to the disaffected—most of which may not be MAGA-crazy, conspiracy theorists, or in thrall of “replacement theory” (though many of them are). The politicians are responding to people who aren’t thinking, but who feel deeply.
What is the concept that has gotten our political environment so toxic—where people truly hate others and hate any ideas that interfere with their chosen orthodoxy? Simple. Know your audience.
ANTIQUATED INSULTS?
Bradley Taback-Bank sent me 50 19th century insults that perhaps should return to regular usage. I’ve culled these down to a few of those I know and like and others that seem particularly fun:
1. Afternoon Farmer. A laggard; a farmer who rises late and is behind in his chores; hence, anyone who loses his opportunities.
2. All Hat and No Cattle. An empty boaster; a man who is all talk and no action.
3. Blunderbuss. A short gun, with a wide bore, for carrying slugs; also, a dumb, blundering fellow.
4. Cad. A mean fellow; a man trying to worm something out of another, either money or information.
5. Chatterbox. An excessive, incessant talker or chatterer. “Clack-box” is the more derisive variation.
6. Chicken-Hearted. Cowardly, fearful.
7. Chuckle Head. Much the same as “buffle head,” “cabbage head,” “chowder head,” “cod’s head” — all signifying stupidity and weakness of intellect; a fool.
8. Cow-Handed. Awkward.
9. Dunderhead. Blockhead.
10. Fop, Foppish, Foppling, Fop-doodle. A man of small understanding and much ostentation; a pretender; a man fond of show, dress, and flutter
11. Fribble. A trifler, idler, good-for-nothing fellow; silly and superficial.
12. Fussbudget. A nervous, fidgety person.
13. Gadabout. A person who moves or travels restlessly or aimlessly from one social activity or place to another, seeking pleasure
14. Gasser. Braggart.
15. Go-Alonger A simple, easy person, who suffers himself to be made a fool of, and is readily persuaded to any act or undertaking by his associates, who inwardly laugh at his folly.
16. Grumbletonian. A discontented person; one who is always railing at the times.
17. Nincompoop. A fool.
18. Rascal. A rogue or villain.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: