Part of why the Rep Cheney fiasco is such news is that political courage doesn’t really exist anymore, so something like a member of Congress picking intraparty fights & thereby losing a temporary position 99% of Americans couldn’t describe is the closest approximation we have.
Being a member of Congress is basically a golden ticket to the good life so long as you don’t get caught breaking lots of laws that people care about - and even then, that’s no guarantee of punishment. Even disgraced members tend to be just fine.
The fallback option is always making a zillion dollars as a lobbyist. How much courage does it take to upset the apple cart when that’s your safety net?
And in the era of social media, there are always going to be groups of people who make someone who takes a political stand into a hero. You won’t die some sort of outcast for doing something unpopular.
So, sure, you may looks your drinking buddies at the Capitol Hill club. You may have to remind people to refer to you as “Senator” as an honorific when you’re just a lobbyist with a bigger house in the Hamptons.
But what people like Cheney are really risking are a) their access to temporal power and b) their political ambitions.
Giving those things up don’t quite strike me as Profiles in Courage moments.
That isn’t to say there aren’t any. I think that Sen Romney’s dogged commitment to his values (hate him all you want) in the trenches everyday has been courageous. I think plenty of what happened in GA post-election was commendable too (even if part of the media story was BS)
And I think that much of Cheney’s criticism is right and that, insofar as political courage is concerned, the GOP proved itself sorely lacking in the wake of the election, as I wrote about back in December: theamericanconservative.com/articles/profi…
But the fawning, breathless way the NeverTrump crowd and plenty of democrats/the mainstream media have talked about this whole situation is really just too rich for my tastebuds.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@charlescwcooke’s brilliant piece on Rebekah Jones, supposedly a COVID whistleblower in Florida, exposed her as a fraud & a charlatan.
You may be wondering how the grift went on for so long. My hunch: unscrupulous media attention.
I thought it was time to revisit.⤵️
First, quick background.
@GeoRebekah earned media fame after she was fired for, purportedly, refusing to “fudge” the #’s on COVID deaths/cases in FL. But as Cooke explains none of her story was (or even could be) true. She never had access to data at all: google.com/amp/s/www.nati…
But that of course didn’t stop mainstream outlets from rushing to report how big, bad Governor DeSantis had punished this poor whistleblower supposedly trying to do her job.
That’s, at least, how anyone would read the coverage from @CNN.
Anyone earnestly interested in helping our republic would be trying to improve one or the other of the two political parties that will exist and matter in our lifetime, not launch quixotic vanity campaigns for a third party.
That’s what really gets me about all of this. These people - from Bill Kristol and Evan McMullin to the anonymous oped guy - saw another faction wrest control of the GOP and rather than try to make it better they picked up their ball and went home *that same campaign cycle*
It’s short sighted and petulant and self-important. And it reveals that those jumping ship are infinitely more interested in holding onto temporal power than they are anyone’s long term best interest or the principles that (continue to!) shape political parties.
I'm going to create a bot that simply reminds David Frum that he is, in fact, David Frum every time he tweets some jacked up bullshit about the Middle East
I'm no fan of cancel culture - as I've written about before - but I do think it's probably fair to say that maybe we shouldn't take advice about Middle East policy from the dude who wrote the speech convincing Americans that invading Iraq was a good idea?
Think a lot of this comes down to the difference between the hard antinatalism of environmental radicals vs. the soft “ew, what woman would risk her career to raise babies” antinatalism of (mostly young, educated, progressive, white, female) online types.
What’s most interesting to me is the bleed-over from the former to the latter - the idea that environmental considerations make it some kind of moral evil that some (many! most!) women want to have children.
Which, as I think Zaid pointed out recently, seems more a defensive crouch allowing a certain variety of (again, mostly white, career-driven, progressive in her 20s/30s) woman to feel she’s got the moral high ground for being mad that her mom dares suggest she think about kids.
Also this parenthetical is incredible: “(Pressley told The Post she had “no opinion” on whether planes brought down the World Trade Center.)”
Another amazing line: “In July 2020, ASOG gave a two-hour briefing to seven members of the House Freedom Caucus, Ramsland told MyPillow founder Mike Lindell for his movie about alleged election fraud.”
This is the sort of take, dripping with condescension, that serves as a reminder that lots of columnists don't spend time outside of their political bubbles.
The focus on "wokeness" is so prevalant because it resonates with everyday Americans. People, broadly, think it's bs.
This is what WaPo opinion has become: "...it is now the term for tagging Democrats. It’s like calling them ugly. Or stupid. Or uncultured. Of course, once the GOP and its largely White-male membership co-opts a popular term, one may presume its cultural power is about to fade."