If Republican politicians are following incentives to be on party-aligned TV and other party-aligned media; to raise money from party donors; and to win primaries - that's a story about a *strong* party, with politicians in service, we might say, to Hannity and donors.
It is also, alas, a highly dysfunctional party because it doesn't place winning elections and governing as top priorities. But that doesn't mean it's weak.
This is a huge problem! We usually think parties = democracy in large part because parties normally want to win elections, which translates into wanting to be popular, and therefore they adopt popular policy positions and try to govern well while in office. The GOP? Not.
And I strongly agree with @davekarpf - I don't know how to fix the GOP either. It appears to either be stable, or perhaps just in a perpetual spiral towards more and more dysfunction.
@davekarpf I have some guesses about how this might reverse, but no idea how to get from here to there. But yes: It predates Trump, it made Trump possible, Trump made it worse, and there's no sign anywhere of it getting better. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Read the whole thread, but this is the key: Trump doesn't know how to get exec branch personnel to do what he wants. He's bad at what Neustadt called "persuasion." And it builds on itself - he's easily rolled, which creates the reputation that he's easily rolled. More...
Truman was wrong about Ike; Ike knew better than to just say "Do this! Do that!" and expect anything to happen, because he knew very well how political and bureaucratic authority worked. Trump is the one who really thinks that it works by saying "Do this! Do that!" It doesn't.
So for one thing: Like Nixon when he failed at persuasion, Trump tries to get around it by, in effect, cheating against the system (and therefore against the law and the constitution). Which is very dangerous to the system, and also dangerous to Trump.
I do think it's correct that moving ahead with impeachment would make impeachment more popular with people who don't like Trump but currently oppose impeachment.
But there's no reason to believe impeachment per se will make Trump less popular. Didn't work in 1998-1999. Didn't work in 1974.
This is a serious question about future presidents and deserves some thought. @YAppelbaum@fordm
Assume we're talking about a party-line vote (plus Amash) in the House, followed by a straight party vote or worse in the Senate. That's what it looks like now. (1/ )
@YAppelbaum@fordm Could hearings and investigation change that? Perhaps! But irrelevant, since those should happen with or without an impeachment context.* I think it's unlikely that the actual drafting and debate over articles of impeachment would change minds.
@YAppelbaum@fordm *Yes, there are arguments that impeachment hearings would be different. That wasn't the case in 1973-1974; I'm not convinced that it would be different now.
So let's stipulate a party-line impeachment and acquittal, which is I think what the advocates are in fact stipulating.
Quick electoral college thread: Went back to the oldest Polsby & Wildavsky Presidential Elections I own - 4th ed., 1976 to see their case for the EC. It's *badly* dated.
They argue mainly that the EC has tended to empower big cities and the diverse populations in large states. That's good, for them, because...
...it balanced off how the Senate (and pre-Baker v. Carr, the House) were biased in favor of one-party states, which tended to be either all-Anglo or ruled by all-Anglo parties.
The important context here is that we're dealing with a lawless presidency. (2/ )
All presidents try to stretch their formal authority; that's natural, and in many ways healthy. Energy in the executive! Ambition countering ambition! (3/ )
Hate to do it but with Rudy's "clarification" on Comey I'm afraid it's time for a dreaded THREAD about obstruction of justice.
Giuliani's defense of Trump firing Comey is that "It is undisputed that the President's dismissal of former Director Comey...was clearly within his Article II power." Correct -- but that's the problem!!!!
The whole reason that Obstruction of Justice is such a big deal *when the president does it* is because presidents have so many lawful powers they can do in pursuit of unlawfully preventing justice from being done.