The Beard and Overalls Putsch

We should be talking about Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff's historic victories today, ensuring that incoming President Joe Biden has a Democratic House and Senate that can implement his priorities.

But we can't. Because a mob of pro-Trump extremists has stormed our seat of government, an attempted insurrection aimed at the violent overthrow of our democratic system.

This is the final fruit of Trumpian authoritarianism, eagerly abetted by the overwhelming majority of the Republican Party. Even now, Trump can barely murmur a peep against the "protesters", limply calling for peace while insisting that their paranoid fantastical grievances are in fact wholly justified and salutary. In this, he has been backed by huge swaths of his own Party, who own this blot on our national heritage almost as much as he does. Figures such as Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz deserve permanent disgrace. They cheered this on. They helped make today happen.

And of course, the limp response of the Capitol Police to these acts of White Supremacist sedition stands in such striking contrast to the heavy hand taken against Black Lives Matter protesters. We can't even fathom a similar display to this emanating from the left, because if it had come from the left the streets would run with blood. Yet even here the right plays victim, comparing a few instances of vandalism against  a violent anti-democratic putsch and suggesting that it's the left which comes out with explaining to do. If you think they've learned anything, they haven't.

The Beard and Overalls Putsch will not succeed. It will not stop our democracy. This will not be the day that the American dream dies. But make no mistake. There has to be accounting, and there has to be reckoning. The men and women responsible for allowing this to happen cannot be permitted to escape without consequence. Yes we need to heal. But part of healing means finally expunging the toxic, authoritarian, anti-democratic poison that has been allowed to course through the body politic for far too long.

Holding Mussolini's Jacket

I have to give Ted Cruz a little credit for coming up with a pithy description of his own historical legacy:

“[Cruz] told confidantes there was ‘no way in hell’ he was prepared to subjugate himself to Trump in front of tens of millions of viewers,” Alberta writes. “ ‘History isn't kind to the man who holds Mussolini's jacket,’ Cruz told friends in 2016.”

No, I imagine it isn't. And don't think we'll forget it.

The Independent Republican Conference

The Independent Democratic Conference is a group of six renegade Democrats who effectively let the GOP control the New York State Senate, despite its nominal Democratic majority.

I do not expect there to be an Independent Republican Conference in the U.S. Senate. It will be a 52-48 Republican majority (barring something truly shocking in Louisiana's runoff) -- a two-seat Democratic gain (pickups in Illinois and New Hampshire).

But what is plausible -- maybe -- is that a cohort of Senate Republicans might be willing to break from the past eight years policy of absolute, resolute, kneejerk party line voting and join with Democrats to insure there will be some actual oversight of the Trump administration.

Who are the likely candidates to take up that mantle?

The leader almost certainly would have to be Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE). He was one of the earliest, most consistent, and most outspoken critics of Trump from within the GOP (here's his column on Trump's victory, tealeaf it yourself). That's one -- not because it's guaranteed, but because if he doesn't take the lead I can't imagine any caucus forming. Who else?

The supposedly moderate Susan Collins (ME) is an obvious possibility, but she's never exactly been renowned for her backbone. It'd be a major change for her to start bucking her party on a regular basis. But if ever there was a time for her to grow an actual spine, it'd be now.

Lindsey Graham (SC) could be a possibility. He's likewise been pretty critical of Trump, and has some personal grudges against Trump's wing of the party. His colleague Tim Scott (SC), as the only Black Republican in the Senate, is a complete wild card on this -- I wouldn't normally slot him in unless Trump goes so avowedly White supremacist that he can't not say something.

John McCain (AZ) ... well, who knows what he's thinking these days. I don't have a lot of faith. Jeff Flake might actually be a more realistic shot from this rapidly purpling state.

Marco Rubio (FL) and Ted Cruz (TX)? Don't make me laugh. Both have raced to snuggle up to Trump after getting blown apart by him in the primaries.

Chuck Grassley (IA), Orrin Hatch (UT), and maybe Pat Roberts (KS) might be old enough to do the whole "elder statesmen" thing. None of them will suffer any repercussions if they don't, though.

Dean Heller (NV) might look at Joe Heck's defeat and feel the need to avoid a similar fate. Or he might think that Heck was undone by his late wince away from Trump.

The Democratic Party is in a routed state right now. It will recover, but it will take time. In the meantime, it'll be up to congressional Republicans to decide if they want to put brakes on Trump or let him run wild. Democrats are, for the short-term at least, out of the equation: the last eight years have shown that a unified Republican majority can completely, utterly, entirely shut out the Democratic minority if they want to.

The ball is in your court, Sasse.

"Crying" About Anti-Semitism Beyond the Dogwhistle

In the last Republican presidential debate, Ted Cruz took aim at "New York values" as a means of attacking Donald Trump. Several commenters leveled objections to the phrase, a controversy that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency covered with the following headline:

Ted Cruz says Donald Trump has ‘NY values,’ the Internet cries anti-Semitism.

I'll return to the details of Cruz's case in a moment, which is not clear-cut. But before we get there, something needs to be said about that headline. The Nation couldn't have framed it any better: the notion that Jews are always "crying" anti-Semitism; making mountains out of molehills and whining about imaginary anti-Semitism behind every rock is an ubiquitous feature of our public discourse. So much so that Jews have gotten very defensive about it; preemptively assuring others that they're not the sort of Jew who "calls everything anti-Semitic", that they absolutely understand we need to "tread lightly" around anti-Semitism talk. And so it is that, in contrast to the stereotype, Jews have in fact gotten exceptionally gun-shy when it comes to discourse about anti-Semitism, well aware that even the slightest whiff of the invocation will bring down a furious racket of "there they go again!" JTA's headline, intentionally or not, is demonstrative of just how much we've assimilated this narrative.

In any event, the question of anti-Semitism with respect to Cruz's comments is more complicated than it is given credit for by either side. Much of the discourse has centered around the "dog whistle" concept: that when Cruz said "New York", he meant (and his listeners heard) "Jew" (see, e.g., Jezebel's column "Ted, Just Say 'Jewish'"). People immediately made the link to Toby Ziegler's famous comment, in The West Wing's pilot, in response to a conservative lobbyist's derision towards Josh Lyman's "New York sense of humor":

"She meant 'Jewish'. When she said 'New York sense of humor', she was talking about you and me."

(Apropos my above point, I'd note that nobody quotes the next line: Josh quietly saying "You know what Toby, let's not even go there.").

I thought of that line too, but it was actually the second one that came to mind. The first was a statement by Colin Powell in response to Sarah Palin's denigration of the values of New Yorkers and other urban dwellers in favor of the "real Americans":

When [Gov. Palin] talked about small town values are good -- well most of us don't live in small towns. I was raised in the South Bronx, and there's nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx.

The Ziegler line is about dogwhistles; Cruz "meant 'Jewish'". But reducing the question of anti-Semitism or racism to what Cruz "meant" is a spectacularly thin way of conceptualizing the issue. The Powell quote, by contrast, gets at something more subtle: that whether there is a hidden meaning or not, the fact still remains that comments like Cruz's (or Palin's) are profoundly degrading -- and degrading to the specific sorts of people who distinctively live in places like New York. E.g., Jews. Or gays. Or Blacks. Or immigrants. And we might say that, at the very least, someone who really cared about Jews or Blacks or whomever would think in terms of the effects his statements would have on the group.

Whether there was an implied substitution of "Jew" for "New York" is in many ways a side issue. It is groups like the Jews, that is, the people who distinctively live in urban coastal centers, who are presented to the nation as worthy of scorn; and it is those people who will have to deal with the fallout. A dogwhistle sets out to harness anti-Semitism, this merely produces it anew. Surely, when Ted Cruz tells his audience that the value set which describe most Jews are contemptible, it is no far leap for people to accordingly conclude Jews are contemptible too.

The upshot of telling a national audience of partisans that "New York values" are bad values is eminently predictable, and it is not salutary -- for Jews or for many other minority groups disproportionately concentrated in and identified with our urban centers. And so we're left with two possibilities: Either Cruz thought of that. Or he didn't.

Sleeping in Fear, Part II

The other day, I noted the abject paranoia of some Texans convinced that a U.S. army exercise in the southwestern United States was a cover for a military takeover leading to the seizure of their guns and their internment in FEMA concentration camps. My snarky comment was that perhaps this fear would give these residents more empathy towards the far more reasonable fears that many people of color have towards the armed governing authorities, which pose a far less speculative threat to their lives and livelihoods.

But I also admit sharing Digby's sentiments, which were to marvel at just how disrespectful this is towards the men and women who serve in our armed forces. This conspiracy-mongering relies, at its root, on the presumption that the young people who volunteer to risk their lives in defense of America will, at the drop of a hat, just elect to destroy their own country as tools of oppression and despotism. That is a statement of contempt, and entirely undeserved contempt, and it really is shocking that prominent politicians from a party that perceives itself as "pro-military" would indulge in such ugly sentiments.

Don't Worry About Ted Cruz

If you're a Democrat and you're worrying about potential Republican presidential nominees, there's an interesting hydraulic relationship. Generally a moderate is both more worrying (because they're more electable) and less worrying (because they're, well, moderate). Hardliners have it in reverse -- it is terrifying to imagine them as President, but one calms down when it becomes clear they'll never be elected. The most worrisome, of course, are those who can successfully present as moderates while nonetheless actually being really conservative.

Scott Walker has concerned many Democrats for this very reason; he has managed to win several elections in a blue-tinted state even while being quite right-wing. Fortunately, there is now good evidence that Walker isn't exactly prime-time ready. Liberals were driven crazy by the media's refusal to acknowledge Paul Ryan as a creature of the far-right (and for acting as if he's handsome, when he is very clearly a White Walker). But I haven't heard a lot of buzz around Ryan this time around; maybe his moment has passed.

The current darling of the far-right is Texas Senator Ted Cruz. On the metric of "how would he do as President", he's an easy case -- the guy is a lunatic who would make for a catastrophe if placed in charge of the country. The question is whether there is anything that would make him more electable than his extremist profile would suggest. And after much thought, I've decided the answer is no.

Let's dispense with one obvious possibility: Cruz's Latino heritage. I don't think this will meaningfully help him amongst Latinos. Despite what the media might think, Latinos, like Black people, are not retarded kittens -- they vote, the same as most of us, on the basis of a judgment regarding how a given candidate matches up with their political and policy priorities. Cruz's policies (especially on immigration) don't line up with most Latinos, and they know it.

As for everyone else, here is my proposition regarding Ted Cruz, on which I welcome your input:

Ted Cruz : Presidential nomination :: Robert Bork : Supreme Court nomination.

Ted Cruz (like Robert Bork) is a very smart man. But he is also a supremely arrogant man. This distinguishes him from, say, Sarah Palin, who is supremely arrogant but also dumb as a post. But Cruz, like Bork, thinks so highly of himself that he can't even pretend to present himself as mainstream. Bork was successfully Borked mostly because he was allowed to hang himself -- Bork was so confident that his constitutional vision was correct that he presented it completely unadulterated, and Democratic Senators were happy to let him wax lyrical. The result was a nominee who was terrifying to the general public. I have no doubt Cruz will do the exact same thing. He is, I think, incapable of pivoting to the center even as a matter of image. His inflexibility on this is part of the reason why many in his own caucus hate him -- Cruz loves to get up on his grandstand and is happy to do so even when it hurts his own party. So far, it has helped him just fine, since he's in a solid red Senate seat. But when trying to appeal to voters in Virginia or Minnesota or Nevada? Yeah, best of luck.

Ted Cruz is a smart man who would make a terrible President. Fortunately, he'll make a terrible presidential candidate too.

Better Than Newt

This strikes me as a reach:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told his Republican colleagues that the shutdown has improved the GOP's position in a closed-door lunch on Wednesday, according to the Washington Examiner.

Cruz paid for a poll conducted by Chris Perkins, of Republican polling firm Wilson Perkins Allen. The poll found results similar to those run by national firms this week, which showed Republicans taking the majority of blame for the shutdown. Only 28 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, according to findings from Gallup released Wednesday.

However, Cruz argued that because the shutdown resulted from a disagreement over Obamacare, not spending in general, Republicans are in a better position now than they were in 1995, according to the Examiner.

Cruz's poll found that 46 percent blame the 2013 shutdown on Republicans, while 51 percent blamed the 1995 shutdown on Republicans, according to the Examiner.

The public hates us, but not as much as they hated Newt Gingrich does not an effective rallying cry make.

When Friends Get Too Close

Poor Ken Cuccinelli -- his friends are his worst enemy. First one of his supporters makes an anti-Semitic joke while introducing him at a rally (to Cuccinelli's credit he immediately condemned the remark). Now he's taking great steps to avoid being associated with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) -- a goal with which Cruz is not exactly cooperating:

In the clearest sign yet of the potent effect of the government shutdown on the Virginia governor’s race, Republican Ken Cuccinelli avoided being photographed with Ted Cruz at a gala they headlined here Saturday night—even leaving before the Texas senator rose to speak.
[...]
For his part, Cruz heaped praise on his “friend” Cuccinelli and argued passionately in a 54-minute speech that their party can still win the messaging fight over the shutdown if the people just speak out loudly enough.

“Ken is smart, he’s principled and he’s fearless,” said Cruz, in a line that may give the left fodder for attack ads, given how the campaign has gone. “And that last characteristic in particular is a rare, rare commodity in elected life. There are so many elected officials in both parties that desperately crave the adulation of the media and the intelligentsia.”

That sequence honestly made me laugh out loud -- I can just imagine Cooch backstage muttering "shutupshutupshutup!"

Cruz, of course, does not shut up.

Standing Against the Tide

Ted Cruz's filibuster of futility has come to a close, but his office claims that the people are behind him: nearly 3,000 phone calls, as of late last night, mostly supportive.

I'm not saying I doubt the figure or the distribution, but I'm curious if a Senate office has ever released figures that said their boss got "almost 3,000 phone calls, mostly calling for his head on a spike."

In related news, just 14% of Americans support defunding Obamacare via government shutdown, versus 65% opposed.

Auto-Filibuster

On Friday, Kevin Drum stated that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was in a bit of pickle due to the particular procedural posture of the government funding bill. Cruz, of course, wants to stop the funding of the Affordable Care Act. Now, the normal Republican tool to stop anything they don't like is a filibuster. But procedurally Cruz can only filibuster the bill before cloture is called, and before cloture is called the bill is still the House bill -- which is to say, still defunds Obamacare. Once cloture passes, then Harry Reid will offer an amendment restoring funding to the ACA, but both the amendment and the final bill itself will only require 50 votes to pass. Oh no! Whatever will Cruz do?

I wish I had the foresight to put this on paper, because I promise I predicted the right answer: he'll filibuster his own bill, the one that actually does defund Obamacare. This may mark the first time a Senator has filibustered a bill that he fervently supports, but many things about this debate have been unprecedented.

Once he heard about that possibility, Drum thought it would come off as "ridiculous". I'm not exactly sure that's true -- the niceties of Senate procedure won't interest the average tv viewer, who will generally view the matter as Cruz trying to stop Obamacare from being refunded. The wonky procedural posture that leads Cruz to be filibustering what is essentially his own bill will be chalked up to that strange institution the Senate, just as Harry Reid often is seen voting against his own bills in order to preserve a later motion for reconsideration.

Of course, that doesn't mean the ploy will work -- it still would result in a government shutdown for which Republicans would assuredly be blamed, and they do not want that (and resent Cruz for foisting it upon them). But that Cruz was nutty enough to try this gambit I had no doubt about.

UPDATE: And now he just voted to consider the bill he just spent 20 hours railing against.