Wisdom worth pondering from Josh Marshall, writing about an impenetrable maybe-scandal involving Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders:
You know that old saw about how the cover-up is worse than the crime? That’s never been true and people who say that are idiots or at least they’re not people who cover scandals. You take the risk of covering something up because the thing itself is really bad. And coverups usually work. Even when they don’t work or you get caught for the cover up you still are mostly able to keep the underlying big bad thing under wraps. People do the cover up because usually it works and even when it doesn’t it partly works.
I’m surprised — OK, I’m not surprised — at the self-loathing liberals who are criticizing House Democrats for not helping Kevin McCarthy hold on to the speakership. That would have required negotiations, and negotiations require compromise. What would a comprise look like? Power-sharing, no more evidence-free investigations, and an end to the phony impeachment inquiry. Why would Democrats vote to save McCarthy without getting something significant in return?
They don’t make politicians like Whip Saltmarsh anymore. Sherman W. “Whip” Saltmarsh Jr., who represented Winchester in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1974-’89, was a throwback to a time when legislators were not especially interested in ideology and instead devoted their attention to helping their communities and constituents. He died last Thursday at 94.
I got to know Whip when I was covering Winchester for The Daily Times Chronicle in the early 1980s. He was a regular presence at selectmen’s meetings (today the select board), updating local officials about what was taking place on Beacon Hill and asking what he could do to make their jobs easier. He was an old-fashioned Yankee Republican; although he was conservative about spending and taxes, it is impossible to imagine him getting caught up in the performative extremism that passes for Republican politics these days. He had a voice like a trumpet, and several of us used to do newsroom imitations of him bellowing, “I have filed legislation!”
A tribute posted by the Lane Funeral Home puts it well:
Whip’s mantra was always “betterment of the community and giving back” and he embodied the true definition of leader, albeit a not so quiet one. Whip’s leadership ability stemmed from his ability to be an intent listener; he didn’t always agree with someone’s opinion, but he always tried to come up with the best resolution for all. Whip was the “go to” person and arguably the Town of Winchester’s patriarch. Whip had a solution for every problem, whether the issue was obtaining legislation for a revitalization project or improving the wrist shot of one of his grandchildren.
Whip’s long life was filled with accomplishments, including serving as the town’s youngest chair of the board of selectmen — and at that time the youngest in the state. He was a star hockey player at Winchester High School and Boston College, served in the Navy, was named to the Olympic hockey team (but did not play because of injury), and was a member of the auxiliary fire department. He also founded his own insurance agency, and, after he’d left the Statehouse and I’d left the Times Chronicle, he became our insurance agent, providing outstanding, caring service for what I’m guessing was 25 to 30 years. My best wishes go out to his family, his friends and his employees.
Excellent commentary in CommonWealth by Jim Aloisi on why it’s time to treat the miserable state of the MBTA like the crisis that it is. I especially recommend his criticism of the Federal Transit Administration for what he regards as an overemphasis on safety at the expense of actually getting anything done: “As a regular T rider, I care about safety as much as anyone, but we cannot sacrifice ridership on the altar of safety — a perfectly safe system would be one that simply stops moving.” Which it pretty much has.
Aloisi blames the crisis on every governor, legislative leader and transportation official “since 1991,” meaning everyone since Michael Dukakis, who really did take the T seriously — adding that he includes himself among those who made mistakes, since he served for a time as state transportation secretary. And though he believes that the MBTA’s general manager, Phil Eng, is off to a reasonably good start, it’s clear to Aloisi, and to all of us who depend on the T, that he doesn’t have much time to make real, lasting changes.
A performance of Wagner’s “Götterdämmerung.” 1917 photo.
What Mark Twain once said of Wagner — “I have been told that Wagner’s music is better than it sounds” — could be applied to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: I’ve heard that he’s not as bad as he seems. Right now, though, Schumer seems really bad in refusing to call for the resignation of Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who’s been indicted on lurid federal bribery charges involving everything from gold bullion to a Mercedes-Benz convertible. Schumer went so far as to call Menendez a “dedicated public servant” and said, “He has a right to due process and a fair trial.”
Why do I say that Schumer isn’t as bad as he seems? Because he’s probably having private talks with Menedez right now aimed at getting him to step down, figuring that discreet persuasion will work better than public humiliation. The problem is that such thinking is the product of a bygone age, unsuited to the always-on public performance that modern politics demands. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who’s older than Schumer, figured it out. But Schumer appears to be too set in his ways to make the adjustment.
Mitt Romney, right, with then-Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey. Photo (cc) 2018 by Gage Skidmore.
I read The Atlantic’s excerpt from McKay Coppins’ new Mitt Romney biography on the train ride home Friday. It delivers the goods. I’ve never been a Romney fan, but I appreciate his willingness to stand up to Donald Trump and Trumpism when it really mattered.
I was also struck that, after Romney became an outcast within his own party, he preferred to work with conspiracy-minded loons like Sen. Ron Johnson over the hypocrites who defended Trump in public while sidling up to Romney in private to tell him they would love to denounce Trump, too, but they just couldn’t. (“There are worse things than losing an election,” Romney would tell them. “Take it from somebody who knows.”)
What is chilling, though, is that, as Romney tells it, Republicans who once indulged Trump in order to advance their own political ambitions later had a different, more elemental reason for defending Trump in public: they were afraid they and their families would be killed by Trump’s deranged supporters, whipped up into a fury by the maximum leader himself. Coppins writes:
Some of the reluctance to hold Trump accountable was a function of the same old perverse political incentives — elected Republicans feared a political backlash from their base. But after January 6, a new, more existential brand of cowardice had emerged. One Republican congressman confided to Romney that he wanted to vote for Trump’s second impeachment, but chose not to out of fear for his family’s safety. The congressman reasoned that Trump would be impeached by House Democrats with or without him — why put his wife and children at risk if it wouldn’t change the outcome? Later, during the Senate trial, Romney heard the same calculation while talking with a small group of Republican colleagues. When one senator, a member of leadership, said he was leaning toward voting to convict, the others urged him to reconsider. You can’t do that, Romney recalled someone saying. Think of your personal safety, said another. Think of your children. The senator eventually decided they were right.
Romney was paying $5,000 for security, and he understood that many of his colleagues couldn’t afford that. But this is horrifying, and it shows the near-impossibility of breaking up the Trump-Republican alliance. Moreover, it’s how we move from democracy to authoritarianism to fascism. As New York Times columnist David Brooks put it Friday on the “PBS NewsHour”: “There are members who were going to vote to convict on impeachment, but were afraid that they or their families might get assassinated, and they knew their vote wouldn’t make a difference. We are way beyond the bounds of normal democratic governance, when that’s even on the minds of members of Congress.”
My fear is that Joe Biden’s presidency represents little more than an uneasy interregnum between Trump and whatever’s next. If Biden can win re-election, maybe that will give us four more years for passions on the extreme right — now a majority of the Republican Party — to cool off. From where we are standing today, though, I don’t see much chance of that happening.
If you’re a Medford resident who is not on Facebook, I want to let you know that the Medford Chamber of Commerce will be sponsoring a mayoral debate Breanna Lungo-Koehn and Rick Caraviello. The event will be held at the McGlynn School on Wednesday, Oct. 4, at 7 p.m. Send your ideas for questions to medford.chamber.debate@gmail.com. The email is accessible only to members of the debate panel, which I will chair, as I have in past debates. The Chamber has no role in choosing questions. For more information, see the flier below.
Huey Long in 1935. Photo via the Harris & Ewing Collection at the Library of Congress.
One of the most important books of the Trump era was, and is, “How Democracies Die,” by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. In it, the Harvard political scientists trace how healthy democratic societies are able to fight the contagion of authoritarianism — and what happens when they lose the ability, or the will, to hold the antidemocratic forces at bay.
Among other things, they describe how the Democratic Party machinery prevented the populist demagogue Huey Long’s rise to what might have culminated in the presidency back in the 1930s, in contrast to the Republican Party’s unwillingness to contain Donald Trump in 2016. They also tell us that Italy staved off a right-wing revival at one point when the mainstream conservative party aligned itself with the liberal party in order to freeze out right-wing extremists.
Now Levitsky and Ziblatt are back with a new book, “Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point.” The Atlantic has a lengthy excerpt, and you should read it if you can. In the excerpt, the authors argue that our Constitution is broken, mainly because it is so difficult to amend. They point out that Norway, their lead example, adopted a constitution as undemocratic as ours in 1814 but amended it 316 times over the next 200 years in order to extend the franchise, eliminate provisions that had empowered a minority of voters over the majority, and the like.
The American requirements for amending the Constitution, by contrast, add up to a nearly insurmountable hurdle. In addition to a two-thirds vote by each branch of Congress, which is not unreasonable, the rules also mandate that three-quarters of the state legislatures approve amendments. As a result, we are stuck with undemocratic provisions such as the Electoral College, under which the president can be elected despite losing the popular vote, and the Senate, which super-empowers small states since every state gets two votes. Indeed, the 14th Amendment, which in some important respects reinvented the United States, never could have been passed at any time other than in the post-Civil War environment, when the North controlled the South.
“With the Republican Party’s transformation into an extremist and antidemocratic force under Donald Trump,” Levitsky and Ziblatt write, “the Constitution now protects and empowers an authoritarian minority.” They add:
In 2016, the Democrats won the national popular vote for the presidency and the Senate, but the Republicans nonetheless won control of both institutions. A president who lost the popular vote and senators who represented a minority of Americans then proceeded to fill three Supreme Court seats, giving the Court a manufactured 6-3 conservative majority. This is minority rule.
Currently the antidemocratic impulse is playing out in Wisconsin in a big way. Earlier this year, voters in Wisconsin elected Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Democrat, to the state supreme court, thus paving the way for the protection of reproductive rights and at least a partial reversal of the gerrymandering that has given the Republicans wildly disproportionate power in the legislature.
So what are Republican legislators going to do? They’re going to impeach her — except that they’re not actually going to remove her from office, since that would give Democratic Gov. Tony Evers the opportunity to replace her. Instead, they plan to leave her in limbo, still a member of the court but suspended from taking part in the court’s business. As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie puts it:
It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country.
We are heading off a cliff, moving closer and closer to authoritarianism in direct contradiction of the will of the majority. And as Levitsky and Ziblatt point out, there’s not all that much we can do about it since we can’t fix the Constitution without the cooperation of those who are benefiting from keeping things the way they are. God help us all.
Vivek Ramaswamy. Photo (cc) 2022 by Gage Skidmore.
Entertainment was hard to come by at Wednesday night’s Republican presidential debate. But to the extent that there was anything to savor, it came in the form of the attacks on Vivek Ramaswamy at the hands of Mike Pence, Nikki Haley and Chris Christie. What they needed to accomplish was to bury what was left of Ron DeSantis. Instead, they were so enraged by Ramaswamy that they focused their fire on him.
Ramaswamy was glib, smug, rude and arrogant. He also mouthed far-right talking points in a way that would do Donald Trump proud, coming out foursquare for everything bad, from coal to Russia. Although all eight candidates tried to duck a question about climate change (Haley was a wishy-washy exception), only Ramaswamy declared it to be a “hoax.” He alone would cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine, though DeSantis was heading in that direction.
Did Ramaswamy help or hurt himself? Who knows? I thought New York Times columnist David French put it well: “Everything I dislike about him, MAGA loves, and he looked more like Trump’s heir than DeSantis did.” Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo called Ramaswamy a “cocky little shit,” which wasn’t quite accurate: he’s actually pretty tall.
In case Ramaswamy is new to you, you might want to check out this profile in The New Yorker, written by Sheelah Kolhatkar. Ramaswamy, who made his fortune in biotech, has moved to the extreme right in recent years, something that hasn’t exactly endeared him to those who were once close to him. Kolhatkar writes:
I asked Ramaswamy if his burgeoning reputation as a conservative firebrand had taken a personal toll. He chose his words carefully. A family member no longer spoke to him, and he’d been ghosted by a close friend. Although he’d forged new relationships with conservatives, none of the connections had turned into friendships. “I feel like the public advocacy, or whatever you call what I’ve been doing in the last couple of years, has eroded more friendships than new friendships made up for it,” he said.
Being shunned because of your principles is one thing. Being shunned because of ambition is something else.
So who won? I thought the big winner was President Biden. Trump, too, I imagine, since he continues to dominate the Republican field and did not take part in Wednesday’s free-for-all. Other than that, I’d say Pence was the winner, sort of; he managed to get credit for standing up to Trump on Jan. 6 without being booed too loudly, as Chris Christie was, and he came across as a normal candidate — that is, if your idea of normal is an extremist who wants a nationwide ban on abortion. Another Times columnist, Ross Douthat, said of Pence’s performance: “Moral clarity, debating chops, a message frozen in amber in 1985 and a visceral hatred for Vivek Ramaswamy: It won’t get him the nomination but it made for some of the better theater of the night.” James Pindell of The Boston Globe gave Pence an A-plus.
A lot of people thought Haley did well, too. She projected as independent and even somewhat moderate, criticizing Trump for running up the debt. You’d think might hurt her chances of being chosen as Trump’s running mate, but she’s proven over and over that she’ll be whatever she thinks she needs to be.
Trumpers storm the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Photo (cc) 2021 by TapTheForwardAssist.
Heather Cox Richardson agrees with the argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits Donald Trump from seeking election because he directed and took part in an insurrection. There is, however, a problem with this argument, which neither she nor others have addressed: there first needs to be a determination that Trump did, in fact, engage in “insurrection or rebellion.”
He did. Of course he did. But he and his partisans deny it, even though it all took place in plain sight. So how would you actually get the 14th Amendment to kick in? It seems to me that a guilty verdict in either the Jan. 6 federal case or the Georgia case would do it. So would a congressional resolution (good luck with that).
So yes, if Trump is found guilty, he could be banned from running for office. Short of that, this strikes me as a pointless exercise.
Update: David French thinks the Supreme Court could intervene and declare Trump ineligible to run. Of course, that’s not going to happen, either.
