The Future Of The Republican Party Is Dismal, Deservedly So

Peter Wehner— a former speech-writer for Reagan and the two Bushes— had a serious warning for his party yesterday: Trump, who he termed an “institutional arsonist,” is threatening to use his core skills— peddling conspiracy theories, spreading lies, sowing distrust— against the GOP.” A poll found that while a quarter of likely Republican voters are ready to follow Trump to a third-party bid, a large majority of Republicans are ready to move on from. That could lead to what Wehner characterized as the potentially catastrophic political problem of Trump losing the primaries and, out of spite, wrecking Republican prospects in 2024. Awwwww…

Wehner warned that if Trump launched a third-party bid, the GOP could kiss any prospects of winning in Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan— 87 electoral votes— goodbye… along with any chance of winning the White House. “But,” he wrote, “even if Trump doesn’t run as a third-party candidate, he could ensure that Republican presidential and congressional candidates lose simply by criticizing them during the campaign, accusing the Republican Party of disloyalty, and signaling to his supporters that they should sit out the election. That course of action is more straightforward, and perhaps even likelier, than a third-party bid, but it would be just as devastating to Republican prospects.”

If Trump does decide to sabotage his party’s chances in 2024, no one should be surprised. After all, Trump has flirted with third-party runs before, including in 2000, and he refused to rule out a third-party run in 2015. “In 2015, Donald wasn’t initially being taken seriously by the GOP as a potential candidate,” Michael Cohen, who was an attorney for Trump before turning on him, told Semafor. “His threat to run as a third party candidate was to ensure people knew of his intent and that he would have no problem with destroying the party if they stood in his way.”

Trump has no attachment to the Republican Party or, as best as one can tell, to anything or anyone else. His malignant narcissism prevents that. Trump is an institutional arsonist, peddling conspiracy theories, spreading lies, sowing distrust. That’s his skill, and he’s quite good at it. But Trump is now causing growing unease among his past supporters and the GOP establishment by signaling that he may very well turn that skill against their party. Trump, as a former president who won almost 75 million votes in 2020, could inflict tremendous harm on the GOP if he turns against it.

Earlier this week, an individual in the radio-talk-show world, who requested anonymity so he could speak candidly, told me, “Many listeners are starting to call and email with dread over the prospect of him running third-party. There is absolutely a growing chorus of opposition to Trump— coming from former Trump supporters. It’s unmistakable.” As Trump dials up his threat to break with the Republican Party, the anger is sure to rise. So, too, is the fear that, in the words of Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr, “Unless the rest of the party goes along with [Trump], he will burn the whole house down by leading ‘his people’ out of the GOP.” When Trump was torching other institutions— America’s intelligence agencies, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the military, scientific agencies, the courts, Congress, media, those charged with overseeing our elections— Republicans cheered him on. They relished his attacks on the “deep state,” and they embraced his nihilistic ethic. That, in turn, gave rise to other public figures who share his tactics, and his ethic.

One example: Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene— who at various points in her career has embraced QAnon conspiracy theories, insisted that 9/11 was an inside job and that the mass killings at Sandy Hook and Parkland were staged, voiced support for executing prominent Democrats, attended white-nationalist rallies, and blamed wildfires on a Jewish space laser— has been elevated and showcased by House Republicans. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who made it a top priority to defeat the estimable Liz Cheney, has developed a close bond with Greene, a strong advocate for McCarthy in his fight to win the speakership.

“I will never leave that woman,” the New York Times reported he told a friend. “I will always take care of her.”

A party with so many layers of rot won’t abandon Trump because he is a moral wreck and a constitutional threat; it will abandon him only when he’s deemed to be a surefire political loser. Which he almost certainly is. But in many ways, Trump has the whip hand. If Republicans turn on him, he is likely to turn on them, filled with the burning rage of a thousand suns. As MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough put it, “He was willing to take down American democracy when he lost. Why wouldn’t he be willing to take down [Glenn] Youngkin or [Ron] DeSantis or any other Republican that won the nomination over him?”

In the movie The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne struggles to understand why the Joker does the things he does. Alfred, Wayne’s trusted butler, describes a bandit in Burma who couldn’t be negotiated with. He destroyed for the sake of destroying. In Alfred’s words, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

Donald Trump delights in watching the world burn. And now Republicans are belatedly discovering that their party, too, is part of that world.

What are Republican politicians doing to protect their careers? Some are simply buying into the Traitor Greenes and Gatezes and preparing to go down with the ship or be part of the fascist takeover. Others are in a. State of denial, imaging they can pretend everything is normal and that their seats won’t be impacted by Trump deciding to burn down the GOP. After all, if they can survive the proposals to put a 30% sales tax on everything or of privatizing Social Security and Medicare, maybe they can remain standing in a Republican armageddon. And some will. Some districts have virtually no Democrats and no independents to even worry about. About 40 Republicans know they can skate back into office no matter what. Their districts are drawn that way. These Republicans could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and be reelected: Robert Aderholt (AL), Rick Crawford (AR), Bruce Westernan (AR), Andrew Clyde (GA), Marjorie Traitor Greene (GA), Russ Fulcher (ID), Mike Bost (IL), James Comer (KY), Brett Guthrie (KY), Hal Rogers (KY), Steve Scalise (LA), Mike Johnson (LA), Mike Ezell (MS), Mark Alford (MO), Sam Graves (MO), Eric Burlison (MO), Jason Smith (MO), Adrian Smith (NE), Dan Bishop (NC), Patrick McHenry (NC), Kelly Armstrong (ND), Brad Wenstrup (OH), Gym Jordan (OH), Josh Brecheen (OK), Frank Lucas (OK), Dan Meuser (PA), John Joyce (PA), Glenn Thompson (PA), Jeff Duncan (SC), Diana Harshbarger (TN), Scott DesJarlais (TN), David Kustoff (TN), Nathaniel Moran (TX), August Pfluger (TX), Ronny Jackson (TX), Jody Arrington (TX), Morgan Griffith (VA), Carol Miller (WV), Alex Mooney (WV) and Harriet Hageman (WY). But not many others. The weekly conference meetings would be simultaneous KKK rallies.

By while some contemplate the party fallen to pieces, others are just trying to just keep pretending that nothing has changed. I saw a NY Times story yesterday about Republicans in Congress arguing with each other about earmarks again. Stephanie Lai reported that “While the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-right Republican group, called last summer for reinstating a ban on earmarks that took effect in 2011, one of its members, Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, secured $25.2 million for projects in his district. In an interview, he too said the changes put in place to make the practice more transparent had made him ‘more comfortable’ with partaking in the age-old congressional ritual. Even as Republicans, newly empowered after taking control of the House, call for deep government spending cuts and accuse Democrats of profligacy with taxpayer dollars, a growing number of them have joined Democrats in helping themselves to larger amounts of cash for their states and districts in the form of earmarks— now rebranded as ‘community project funding’— that allow lawmakers to direct federal money to pet projects.”

A review by the New York Times of the nearly $16 billion in earmarks included in the $1.7 trillion spending law enacted in December— more than 7,200 projects in all— revealed that earmarks requested by members of both parties skyrocketed over the last year. And while Democrats secured a greater amount of spending on pet projects overall than Republicans did, the increase in GOP earmarks since last spring was larger.

Compared to spending legislation in March, the number of earmarks in the December bill rose by more than 2,200, costing $7 billion more, with Democrats outspending Republicans by $2.3 billion. Republican members secured 85 percent more in spending for pet projects in the latest funding package than in previous one, whereas Democrats’ increase was 70 percent.

…Republican lawmakers claimed eight of the 10 most expensive earmarks, with Representative Brian Mast of Florida, securing the largest: $447 million for an ecosystem restoration project in South Florida.

At the same time, Republicans’ growing appetite for earmarks did not translate into broader support among them for the spending bill itself; in fact, the number of GOP lawmakers who secured funding for their requested projects but still opposed the appropriations package measure increased substantially. The disconnect reflects the intensity of the party’s anti-spending fervor and how many Republicans have sought to distance themselves from the must-pass funding bills that keep the government running, even as they profit politically from their enactment.

…“Earmarks are a fundamentally corrupt practice,” said Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who did not request any earmarks. “I think they are the gateway drug to out-of-control government spending and the debt that is crushing future generations.”

Despite past calls on the right for an earmark ban, there has been no move to impose one since Republicans took control of the House. And it remains unclear what, if anything, they may do to limit the practice.

…For now, the practice appears to be gaining currency with at least some segment of the otherwise fiercely anti-spending GOP. Thirteen more Republicans requested earmarks in the latest spending bill in December than the previous one in March, the Times analysis found.

Earmarks in the latest bill were devoted to a wide range of efforts, including $1 million for a Mississippi fish-eating bird control program, and $4 million for a Little Saigon Landmark project in Washington state that would create a Vietnamese cultural center, housing and a shopping center.

Other projects caused rancor among Republicans.

Representative Mary Miller, Republican of Illinois, criticized a $3.6 million Department of Transportation project for a hiking trail named the “Michelle Obama Trail” in Georgia and a $3 million earmark for a New York Historical Society and American LGBTQ+ Museum partnership project, calling them “woke nonsense.”