Rats and Other Assorted Rodents Are Leaving a Rapidly-sinking Ship
In recent weeks, we (the sentient world, that is) are finally seeing a the beginnings of a development that has been long predicted but has strangely failed to materialize to any substantial degree: the abandonment of blind fealty by his supporters to Donald. As the indisputable evidence of Trump's indictable (if not yet assuredly convictable) behavior has mounted, there has been a veritable tidal wave of defections from Trump and denigrations of him by his former champions in the government, in the press (including even at Fox News) and among at least a measurable if modest portion of his heretofore besotted "base."
But the most striking example of people reversing their previous lapdoggery vis-a-vis Trump has come from people he once highly praised when they were commencing service in his maladministration. These denigrations of their former Commander-in-Chief typically followed their departure from the Trump train, although they occasionally preceded the break. The roster of such converts from acolyte to at least mild critic includes Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Mike Esper, John Kelley, Mick Mulvaney, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, and Kayleigh McInnerney. As a final fillip from Trump, he has tossed thinly-veiled racial epithets at his former Sec. of Transportation Elaine Ciao, not-so-incidentally the wife of Sen. Mitch McConnell.
But it was his former lickspittle Bill Barr who on "Face the Nation,” made the boldest break, saying the following re his former boss Donald Trump:
“He is a very petty man who has behaved like a defiant nine-year old kid. He will always put his own interests first. And he will never concede that is what he is doing. He is a consummate narcissist who constantly engages in reckless conduct.
"The legal theory he came up with as to why he is entitled to keep these classified documents as his personal possessions is absurd. It is just as wacky as his theory about why his Vice-President unilaterally gets to determine who won the election.”
With friends like these…Trump is learning the lesson that you can only test the willingness of your co-conspirators to go so far.
But as far as his “base” goes, the vocal opposition of so many of Trump's former allies apparently only serves to cement their view of Trump as victim, accusing everybody—even supposed friends—of ganging up on poor, beleaguered Donald Trump.
The base may be shrinking in number, but what’s left of it tends to double down on their devotion to the Dear Leader.
As for the electorally-critical Independents, they divide 63% negative on Trump, 37% positive. Now being “negative” on a politician does not guarantee that such a view translates into VOTING against someone—but it does make a positive vote unlikely. No one, repeat no one, with such numbers among swing voters can ever be elected President—unless perhaps he were to draw Hillary as his opponent once again.
Donald Trump may not acknowledge this reality, and his vaunted “base” may not either, but Mitch McConnell knows it to be true. This is also true of almost all Republicans who hold a negative view of Trump (25% of self-identified Republicans): they do NOT want Trump to be re-elected, or even to run.
Can anyone with at least a sixth-grader’s understanding of arithmetic see what 90+% of Dems, 63% of Independents and 25% of Republicans add up to? My rough calculation is that this totals about 57-59% of Likely Voters. Such an outcome would put Trump’s vote, absent some bizarre external event, close to Walter Mondale’s and Barry Goldwater‘s 40% territory. Incidentally, that is what Herbert Hoover got against FDR at the depths of the Depression in 1932.
Like most people of my fairly advanced age, I grew up in a world where we saw the American two-party system as almost entirely a blessing. We had a Republican Party that encompassed politicians from Barry Goldwater to Jacob Javits. Conversely, I was an enthusiastic adherent of a Democratic Party that somehow managed to incorporate both arch-segregationist James Eastland and uber-liberal George McGovern. (I had the privilege of working closely with Sen. McGovern in both 1968 and 1972, and I recognize both his philosophical strengths and his many political weaknesses. But his character was impeccable.)
During the 1960s and 1970s, we Americans looked on with amusement bordering on contempt for the constant ideological battles in the fractious democracies of France, Italy et al. We watched as they produced endlessly changing fragile coalition governments. Seeing parties labeled “Christian Democrats” or “Socialists” or “Radicals” (my favorite as it was essentially a bunch of right-wingers), I along with most Americans failed to understand that each of our two parties was in fact a prefabricated “coalition” of very disparate elements.
It was the very diversity of those two coalitions that allowed adherents of one to find the victory of their opponents, while perhaps unfortunate, as at least something we could live with. I accepted the landslide victory of Ronald Reagan in 1984 as upsetting but the clearly expressed will of an undeniable majority of the nation’s voters. As an unshakeable adherent of small-d democracy, I did not feel remotely qualified to question the validity of that decision, much as I regretted its actuality.
Furthermore, I could take comfort in the presence of a small but vocal cadre of “Moderate Republicans” in the strongly Right-leaning governments of either Ronald Reagan or Bush/Cheney. Similarly the presence of a Joe Manchin or a Kyrsten Sinema (until recently at least) in the Democratic caucus gave some succor to Right-winger's when Biden won a fairly narrow victory.
Now we have neatly divided ourselves into purely ideological factions, producing the bitter divisions of today’s pitched battles. The effective difference between nutso Marjorie Taylor Greene and, say, reasonable conservative John Cornyn has become nil, when ideologically-based voting purity is forced on all members of the Republican caucus. As for the Democrats, they also create a version of ideological comity, but by more traditional methods of political horse trading, with decision-making boiling up from below, unlike the GOP’s dirigiste imposition from above.
Bernie Sanders may not see eye-to-eye with Joe Manchin on many issues, but they end up voting the same on nearly all issues (excluding anything fossil-fuel related) because the differences have been more or less ironed out behind closed doors—far more often to Sen. Manchin's satisfaction than to Bernie’s.
Ultimately political realities tend to bend the outcome towards the side most likely to gain majority support among the majority of Americans—but not always and certainly not right away. The solid majorities in the country favoring both moderate gun legislation and reasonable access to abortion have not sufficed to produce legislation assuring the general populace of their desired outcomes, nor of a Supreme Court that would support those solid majorities.
Yes, we are sharply divided but not IMHO hopelessly so. What will cause some sort of healing of this wide chasm? It will take, I believe, a thorough and incontestable electoral drubbing of the MAGA-controlled GOP as it learns the folly of presenting unappealing candidates championing broadly unpopular policies. Constant devious Republican attempts to rig the playing field via gerrymandering and a variety of impediments to voting, allow by my estimate for an electorate divided 52% Democratic, 48% Republican (roughly where we are now) to wield effective blocking rights, if not outright control. This has produced the kind of government we have today: a narrowly Republican-controlled House, a narrowly Democratic-controlled Senate and a Democratic President lacking a true mandate. Oh, and I almost forgot, a total, corruptly-obtained control of the US Supreme Court.
Such a split of governing responsibility leaves the Democrats with nominal control, and this suits the GOP just fine. They don't have to take responsibility for actual governing, they can generally block measures they consider truly inimical and they get to belittle the minor--and not-so-minor--accomplishments of a nominally Democratic-controlled government. Nice work if you can get it--and the Republicans have sure got it--for now. But November 2024 is now just 17 months away. I can't wait.
