If you’re continuously stunned by the behavior of gerrymandered GOP representatives in the world of Citizens United, don’t be.
Here’s how to think of them:
They are no longer public servants.
Improving public outcomes is not their goal. Nor do they do better in life…
1/
…by serving the public interest.
In fact, if they serve the public interest, they will likely be primaried. And lose.
Think of them as the servants of certain private interests. See that they are in public office to use public power to benefit those private interests.
2/
That’s why public outcomes consistently fall in the places they control (such as gerrymandered red states like Ohio), while certain interests seem to always gain.
When those public outcomes fall, it doesn’t impact them at all.
Because they’re in districts they can’t lose.
3/
But when those private interests are happy, these private servants stay in power…and advance.
That’s basically the career path of people like Jon Husted. (Now Ohio’s Senator). Disastrous public outcomes but pleased and enriched private interests.
We lose. He advances.
4/
To call what they’re doing “policy” isn’t the right word. (Sometimes they call it “policy” to pretend they’re public servants)
It’s just a giveaway: public power and public assets enriching private interests.
Once you see that that’s their role, everything flows from there.
5/
Stay angry at it. But no longer be stunned or surprised at their behavior.
They are there to hand over public power to private interests.
That is what they will do.
And they will be rewarded for doing so, and punished for serving public outcomes.
Once you see that.
6/
…their behavior is 100% predictable.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Two sets of institutions— each central parts of the infrastructure of a functioning democracy—find themselves facing a similar dilemma.
Higher ed institutions, and law firms.
1/
In case people question the centrality of these institutions’ roles in our democracy, know that Trump and Vance fully understand:
That’s why Vance has declared universities and professors the enemy to what he and his allies seek to achieve.
2/
And it’s why Trump has declared war on some law firms—because he knows that, in our system of justice, robust representation of both sides (including the side holding the government or political figures accountable) is essential. Without that balance, the system collapses.
3/
Beyond the egregious security breach involved, the Signal scandal also puts on full display:
1) the appalling dishonesty of these people (lying with gusto even after incriminating evidence is out in the open);
1/
2) their sheer incompetence/arrogance (they essentially invited Goldberg to release the messages with all their trash talk and bald-faced lies);
3) the inability of most GOP legislators to call out anything—
2/
including something this egregious;
4) and the fact that Trump does not appear to be in charge of his own administration, or briefed on their actions, even when it involves the military
3/
I chatted with a PA Dem strategist who wears the opposite of rose-colored glasses about last night’s surprise upset in PA.
He was not involved in the race.
A few quotes:
1/
“[F]rom a ‘sign of the political winds,’ the victory last night was significant for several reasons: first, turnout was quite high for a random March date.
Second, this turf has been Republican since the Civil War…”
2/
“….it does NOT include the city of Lancaster (which is quite blue)—that’s different than some of these “Obama-Trump” regions that may be inclined to switch back — there’s no legacy of Democratic victories in this part of Lancaster County.”
3/
Another day, another institution caves to the threats and shakedowns of Donald Trump.
And the pattern is clear: the more powerful institutions are, the more likely they are to comply.
1/
My law school classmate and friend @DavidLat shared on his substack an email from the chairman of the firm Paul Weiss (Brad Karp), where he described the situation the firm faced:
2/
“Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients…
3/