,
19 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I want to respond to this @JonahNRO article more thoroughly, and a lot of it has already been done in the responses to the original thread, especially my back-and-forth with @RadioFreeTom. Alas, it is 6pm on Friday, and my Monday slot is booked. So, Twitter. 1/
I'll also say that to those (not Jonah) who read a pro-Trump subtext: You haven't spent much time in my Twitter feed. There's little written about Trump at your average NT site with which I'd disagree on the merits. 2/
With that said, I think Jonah is an odd choice for this article, because I think he sort of exemplifies my option (a): A conservative who recognizes Trump's very real downsides, but hasn't declared war on him. He's gotten a fair amount of crap for this, to my read. 3/
That's why I don't understand the tension he sees between my wondering what the endgame is for the Bulwark and his suggestion that they could just see a moral duty in opposing Trump.Deciding/recognizing Trump is a bad hombre doesn't inevitably require becoming "Somali Pirates."4/
That's why I framed things as I did. As I see it, if you're a conservative who loathes Trump, you (a) wait him out, (b) leave the party or (c) do . . . whatever it is the Bulwark is trying to do. 5/
Some, like @RadioFreeTom, have decided the Republican Party is beyond redemption. That's sensible to me! That's my option (b). But that's not what's described in the article to which I'm reacting. Instead, it's described as a civil war, or guerilla fighters, or whatever. 6/
To my read, underneath that is a hope for a restoration, that Trump gets removed/defeated and then the GOP establishment can one day ride again. I see that in the various primary NeverTrump primary challengers that are suggested. 7/
And I definitely see it in the attempt to shame commentators who are insufficiently anti-Trump (I won't say "pro-Trump," because some of the people named, like @henryolsenEPPC, don't even strike me as "Trump curious", from my conversations). 8/
To my read, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, this is still a fight for control of the Republican Party. And that's where I become perplexed. Because if the goal is an establishment restoration at some point, this is a terribly self-defeating way to pursue it. 9/
Because if the civil war/guerilla war is successful, they take over a GOP that's incapable of winning a national election. The more establishment-y GOP candidates haven't performed that well; the GOP tends to win with a candidate who bridges the populist/establishment gap. 10/
That's why, to my mind, the best analogy isn't a civil war. It's a kamikaze strike. Or, as someone down-thread suggested: Some NeverTrumpers didn't just abandon ship; they are actively trying to sink it. 11/
Which, again, fine, I can see a moral argument for doing so. I'm just saying that you can't expect to have a functioning vessel -- or a crew to man it -- anytime soon. Underneath all of this is a very real rot in the modern Republican Party. The intellectual apparatus . . . 12/
doesn't much care for its voters.This was the actual point of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter with Kansas,"which I dismissed at the time but take more seriously today:The GOP functions by using social issues as bait for getting voters to enact a libertarian economic agenda. 13/
Over the course of roughly 2005-2016, the GOP base started to call the party out on this. And let's just say the behavior of the NT folk I view online dealing with Trump voters hasn't done much to suggest that I'm wrong here. 14/
And that gets to my final point, regarding @JonahNRO's point about past GOP civil wars. I genuinely think this is different, because most of the civil wars he points to involved the establishment winning, which it usually does. 15/
The one time he pointed to where people didn't make up was when Goldwater won the nomination. Goldwater lost in a landslide, so the establishment sort of had a decent point that "hey, guys, this was a bad idea." 16/
This time, the NT folk expected to have that argument on their side, but Trump nevertheless won. Since then, as noted above, its been actively trying to sink the ship. Which, at a base level I understand. 17/
But there's just not much chance of reconciliation with that, ESPECIALLY if NT succeeds in sinking the ship. This time it's different has a poor track record of prediction. But this time, it really is.
/fin
