Thread by @TimAlberta

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about today, re: Will Hurd, the GOP, and impeachment...

Recently, Mark Sanford, perhaps Trump’s fiercest intra-party critic, told me *he* had yet to see sufficient evidence to impeach; that if he were still a House R, he would be voting no.

1/

That took me by surprise. After all, Sanford and Justin Amash had distinguished themselves not only as the party’s most vocal dissenters, but also as the most intellectually consistent members of the House GOP. If Amash thought it’s a slam dunk, I figured, Sanford would too.

2/

When I prodded Sanford a bit, we entered an interesting territory of thought on the whole matter — namely that, in his view, impeachment is a fundamentally un-conservative measure. (“Conservative” in the Burkean tradition, not the MAGA version.)

3/

What Sanford was saying, in so many words, was that despite his loathing of Trump—which is well established—he would not reach for the radical, revolutionary tool of impeachment unless there was a gun billowing smoke that could be seen for miles.

4/

In an academic, philosophical view of politics — and of conservatism itself — this makes sense.

The only problem? Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton!

5/

We didn’t go deep into differences he sees between the 2 impeachment cases. I wish we would have; it was a hurried conversation.

But it left me thinking about Trump’s takeover of the GOP and how it shapes the thinking (perhaps subconsciously) of even his harshest detractors.

6/

Will Hurd does not respect Trump. He thinks the president is erratic and unsophisticated and in many ways foundationally unfit to hold his office.

He also seems to believe — I’m reading between the lines here — that Trump has abused his power.

So why not vote to impeach?

7/

Maybe Hurd, who is retiring but young & talented & ambitious, wants to run in 2024 and knows he’ll never shed the scarlet letter (w/ Rs) of impeaching Trump

Or maybe he came into this with an open mind and despite disgust w Trump’s actions does not see an impeachable offense

8/

The difficulty is that Republicans have so thoroughly subjugated themselves to Trump that even if/when an honest, respected statesman-type like Hurd makes a decision that shields the president, it’s nearly impossible to believe it was done for the right and defensible reasons

9/

No Republican can rightly expect the benefit of the doubt anymore. Hurd is smart enough to know that. He realizes most will find him insincere and politically-motivated. And maybe he is! Maybe he’s plotting his future and sees too much risk.

But then, what about Sanford?

10/

Sanford has no future in politics—he is finished.

And he *loathes* Trump—more intensely than any Republican I’ve met.

But he wasn’t there on impeachment. He had not seen enough evidence—even though he HAD seen enough with Clinton 20 years prior.

How to make sense of this?

11/

Short answer: You can’t.

An enduring scar of Trumpism on the GOP: There will be no distinguishing the honest from dishonest, reflective from reflexive, fair from unfair.

Certain moments reveal how people have far more in common than they’d ever admit. This is one of them.

/end