I get that @WalshFreedom or Weld or Amash want to take on Trump from within the GOP, but I'm not enthusiastic about any of these primary ideas. I *really* don't want this to mutate into a 3rd-party challenge, which will only help Trump.
In my view, 2020 is a binary choice. /1
Sure, I'd love to see Joe (or Amash, or Weld) rough up Trump from the right, but I'm not sure it will accomplish much. Who's the audience? What's the goal? Trump voters are a cult. They won't defect. And Trump now owns the remaining detritus of what calls itself the GOP. /2
Now, if the goal is to force Trump to divide his attention (and funds), make him completely melt down, and convince the last two people in America who don't get it that they must vote to turn the Electoral College to a Democrat in order to remove Trump from office...well, hmm. /3
What if the goal is to rattle Trump in a primary and then shave just enough of the vote in one or two states in the general to cost Trump the Electoral College?
I don't think that'll work. Moreover, it's not worth the risk of helping Trump. Easier just to vote D for a cycle. /4
And if the goal is to put up a "Republican" just to protect the GOP brand by saying "this is a real Republican here in the primary," count me out. I want no part of that. Trump is a national emergency. I'm not up for overly-clever strategies to rescue the GOP as a party. /5
I respect Joe for stepping forward, owning mistakes, and defending things conservatives care about. If he runs, I hope he drives Trump crazy. (Or, *more* crazy.) But I'm not in favor of anything that even remotely risks Trump squeaking out another Electoral College win. /6
And two other points. First, I can't very well tell Democrats to get their act together and rally around a unity candidate, and then bolt over to a parallel conservative challenge.
The goal is to defeat Trump, period. So I'm staying with my plan of voting Democratic in 2020. /7
Second, as a moral issue, I don't want anything that gives Republicans a safe harbor, where they can say they didn't vote for Trump - but knew they'd get him anyway. I'm tired of people who are okay with Trump but who also want to avoid the moral stain of voting for the man. /9
This is an existential crisis of government, and "I sat this one out," or "I wrote in Bill Weld" just doesn't cut it for me. Yes, it's your right to do it as an American, as is your right not to vote at all.
But I think 2020 is, to steal a phrase, "A Time for Choosing." /10
My heart wishes there were an alternative, but my head tells me there isn't one. Unless someone can show me the math where a primary challenge helps remove Trump, I think my position is the only logical path.
Carla agrees. /11x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is an outdated way of thinking about nuclear bombers.
Yes, they are recallable - a great thing to have in 1960. Today, not as big a deal. Here's why. Short 🧵
/1
During the Cold War, you assumed that a crisis could erupt into hemisphere-wide, all-out nuclear war. So you wanted a way to get at least some of your nukes out of the way early - and show the enemy your readiness. Bombers are A+ for that./2
Once ICBMs enter the picture after 1959-ish, however, we have a new problem: What if the enemy's massive first strike destroys the ICBMs and the sub pens, leaving the last few subs able only to destroy cities and trigger Armageddon?
Bombers wait for the order, is what. /3
I don't usually respond to critics, but this guy hauls me up short on what I get wrong about my insistence on absolute deference to experts.
A thread!
/1
Good point here about scientists who can't speak to the normals:
/2
And yeah, we should have maybe paid more attention to the problem of progressives who wouldn't let go:
/3
Franck is making the case for a solipsistic, self-regarding approach to voting, that is all about you and not about collective action. Sometimes in politics just as in foreign policy, you understand that you end up in alliances you don’t like for the sake of a greater purpose. /1
Franck reminds me of the political scientists years ago who scratched their heads about why people bothered to vote when no single vote can affect very much. But voting even when you don’t like any of the choices is part of civic maturity. /2
It is remarkably self-absorbed to think that your vote is a character-afflicting endorsement rather than a strategic choice. Voting when you like the choices is easy. Making a strategic decision when you don’t like the choices requires thought. /3
My (friendly) disagreement with @NoahCRothman reminds me of something that happened to me when I was doing a speaking engagement at a college. One of the faculty was - no, really - very Trumpy. And he made a comment to me that really encapsulates our political asymmetry. /1
He said: "Your contempt for the voters is palpable," because I was talking about The Death of Expertise and how voters vote based on not knowing stuff.
He felt that was very elitist.
"Your contempt is obvious as well," I said.
He was, uh, taken aback.
/2
He felt that *his* loathing of millions of Americans was rooted in a morally defensible hatred of anyone who votes for progressive positions on abortion, gay rights, etc. But *my* criticisms of people who think the ACA and Obamacare are different was unacceptably hostile. /3
Some Memorial Day reading about how much Trump, the man who would be Commander in Chief again if he gets the chance, disdains our military - especially those who gave their lives, who he calls "suckers and losers."
Gifting these articles:
🧵
The president has repeatedly disparaged the intelligence of service members, and asked that wounded veterans be kept out of military parades, multiple sources tell The Atlantic. theatlantic.com/politics/archi…
The military colleagues who saved my life knew what service means. Trump, in contrast, lets his personal insecurities endanger America’s national security. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I'm (a little) surprised at people who want to take issue with me and who insist that Americans, as a nation, really suffered through Afghanistan and Iraq, when the criticism I'm making is that we offloaded all that onto volunteers and then ignored them (and the wars). /1
I mean, normally, that might seem like a left-wing criticism, no? But I don't think it's either left/right, but just *true* in an empirical sense. A tiny fraction of the country serves in the military. We have not been a country "at war" in any meaningful sense since Vietnam. /2
People also seem to have forgotten the scale of the butcher's bill in Vietnam. Not only was no one drafted, but *20 years* of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan produced fewer than half as many casualties as Vietnam generated in *1968 alone*./3