In this special episode, each of the MPU hosts speaks directly to you about issues that have been on their minds over the Thanksgiving holiday.
by D.J. McGuire
Over the past year, it has become clear that the Stalinist regime in northern Korea has no intention of slowing – let alone reversing – its build-up of nuclear weapons and missiles. Yet with each act of provocation, Donald Trump responds by backing down or explaining away the danger (Time)…
As the Chinese Communist regime continues to constrain the people of Hong Kong while slaughtering the people of occupied East Turkestan, Trump refuses to make any criticism (Bloomberg)…
As the anniversary of 9/11 approached, Trump considered a full withdrawal from Afghanistan (New York Times)…
Just last week, Trump removed American troops from a position that would have blocked Turkey from invading northeastern Syria …
… and yesterday, when the Turkish invasion was far bloodier and closer to American troops than promised, Trump simply withdrew our troops from northeast Syria entirely (Washington Post).
Much of this could have been chalked up to the president’s narcissism and refusal to acknowledge when things go wrong, or to his long-held isolationist worldview (he’s been like this since the 1980s). More than a few are wondering about Trump’s investments in Turkey – after all, he has himself admitted to “a little conflict of interest” (New York).
There is, however, a simpler explanation: one that explains Trump’s slavish treatment of dictatorships and the continuing retreat of American power under his tenure in office.
I humbly submit before you this proposition: Donald Trump is a coward.
All of his talk about being “tough” is simply that – talk. When push comes to shove, and he has to do more than hire lawyers, lie to the press, or bully elected Republicans, he folds like a cheap suit. Rather than face the consequences of his business mistakes, he sought Russian funding to keep his empire afloat. Rather than acknowledge mistakes and accept the consequences, he lies, sues, and blames others. When he believes he is more powerful, he punches down. But when someone – anyone – appears able to square up against him, he appeases and surrenders, all the while pretending that he isn’t.
As a result, he is manifestly unfit for office. His refusal to acknowledge his own failings has led him to be used by tyrants repeatedly (see above). His psychological need to compensate for that has led to abuses of power and other high crimes.
As for the consequences to the rest of us, Max Boot put it better than I ever could:
Most of the time, the costs of the Trump presidency are inchoate — laws are broken, norms transgressed. But when it came to immigrant children in cages or Kurds in the line of fire, the costs are all too human and horrifying. Are you happy now, Trump supporters?
That last question is not for me to answer, of course, but I also ask it, with an addendum: Did you, Trump supporters, know you were supporting a coward? Is it worth it so long as he is “your” coward?
It will be tempting to presume this is just a debate among Americans – or even just among conservatives. It isn’t. Trump’s cowardice, to the rest of the world, is America’s cowardice. All Americans will share this stain, including brave men and women such as the special forces soldier who told Fox News, “I am ashamed for the first time in my career.”
Americans can wash ourselves clean, but only if we begin by cleansing the office of the presidency. Every day Donald Trump continues in that office incurs greater shame and greater danger. If he survives impeachment and wins re-election, the damage his cowardice will do to American interests, American prestige, and American lives themselves will grow exponentially.
by D.J. McGuire
The opinion expressed in the title of this post is almost certainly a minority position among the Bearing Drift editors and contributors. It is still my view, however. While I have multiple reasons, I will focus on the most recent one to come to light: President Trump’s attempt to strong-arm the popularly elected leader of Ukraine to smear an American political opponent.
That attempt was revealed last week, ironically by the Trump Administration itself, via the Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky (via Washington Post). For anyone who grew up in the Tri-State Area (North Jersey, West Connecticut, NYC, Long Island, and Downstate NY) – as Trump did – it reads as a classic Mafioso conversation: Nice country you have there, Volodymyr; be a shame if something happened to it.
What makes this worse – and more obvious – is that something is happening to Ukraine – it’s being invaded by Putinist Russia. Zelensky himself noted his country’s need for military support – right down to the specific missile type he thought would be most helpful for his military. Trump – who had already frozen Congressionally-appropriated aid for Urkaine, over the objections of his own Pentagon (WaPo) – responds with a request for two personal political favors.
The first is a bizarre request to “get to the bottom of” a mythical conspiracy theory involving Ukrainian officials and Democrats supposedly framing his campaign and Putin. David French explains the horror in National Review Online:
In fact, his commitment to this absurd theory is so complete that he apparently tossed aside his advisers’ repeated warnings that it had been debunked and allowed it to taint American diplomacy. This weekend, former Trump homeland-security adviser Thomas Bossert spoke on the record to ABC News and the New York Times and noted that members of the administration had “repeatedly” tried to convince Trump that there was nothing to the notion that a Crowdstrike server in Ukraine held the key to questioning the reality of Russian election interference.
Think of Zelensky’s position. His nation desperately needs American military assistance, and so he makes a direct ask for a key weapons system. Trump responds not with a reasonable request but rather with a question about a conspiracy theory, and then he urges Zelensky to work not just with the proper conduit for investigations of election interference, Attorney General Bill Barr, but also with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani — the same man who Bossert said would “feed” him “all kinds of garbage,” including that conspiracy theory.
Trump was thus placing immense pressure on the government of Ukraine to validate a thoroughly debunked theory, and in so doing to place an even greater strain on American politics.
Amazingly enough, this wasn’t even the worst of the call. After dropping this whopper, Trump went on to smear Joseph Biden – insisting that Biden demanded the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin to stop an investigation into Hunter Biden in 2016. The problems with that assertion are legion and well known: Shokin had stopped probing the owner of the firm for which Biden worked a year prior; the events under investigation were before Hunter Biden came on board; Biden was joined by nearly all the democratic world in demanding Shokin’s ouster (WaPo and Bloomberg).
In other words, the President of the United States used hundreds of millions in taxpayers’ money (in theory in the phone call and in practice by holding up Congressional appropriations) to strong-arm another nation into smearing his political opponents. As Tom Nichols put it (cited by yours truly last week): “If this, in itself, is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning.”
As if that wasn’t enough, Trump has spent the last week threatening to execute the sources of the information provided in the initial whistleblower complaint on this matter – itself an impeachable offense on multiple fronts, as Nichols noted in USA Today.
I will acknowledge that I am the loudest Trump critic here on Bearing Drift (and, as far as I know, the only conservative Democrat among the editors and contributors). I am also aware that even if the House chooses to impeach the president, the Senate is likely to acquit him. That doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t be taken. This kind of abuse of power must be resisted with every effort – even if the effort fails.
Donald Trump has attacked – and arguably destroyed – several of the constitutional “guard rails” that were supposed to limit him. He has used a fake national emergency to run roughshod over Congress’ power of the purse. He has defied court orders and Congressional subpoenas on a massive scale. He has used his EPA to cripple states rights in order to score political points against California …
… and now, it has been shown that he has been abusing the power of his office to roll a fellow democracy into smearing his political opponents.
The Founders specifically had behavior like this in mind from a president when they considered the Impeachment and Trial method of removing a president from office. Congress must use the tools given them by the Constitution to remove the threat of further abuses of power. This can only be done by impeaching, convicting, and removing Donald Trump.
by D.J. McGuire
House Democrats deciding whether or not to support impeaching President Trump have faced numerous pressures in either direction – usually, folks to their left all but demand, while those to their right forswear it.
One of the loudest impeachment-is-a-bad-idea factions has been the slowly dwindling but still influential group known as Never Trump Conservatives (of which, full disclosure, I still consider myself to be one). Then the Ukraine story hit (Washington Post):
In particular, there was concern about whether or not Trump tried to pressure Zelensky to rehash old and disproven charges surrounding the family of Joe Biden. That later became the explicit accusation (WaPo).
On one level, this was just one more log for the Trumpster-fire, as Trump supporters and opponents took their usual positions…
…except for Never Trump Conservatives, some of whom took the additional step of moving past their previous skepticism about impeachment.
For example, Max Boot (WaPo)…
Until now, I have been willing to accede to the judgment of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to go slow on impeachment proceedings that are unpopular with voters and could imperil the Democratic majority. But if the new scandal involving President Trump and Ukraine is as bad as it seems — and that is, of course, a very big if at this early stage — the House will have no choice but to impeach, consequences be damned.
…George Conway (WaPo)…
To borrow John Dean’s haunting Watergate-era metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow. Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late. As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.
…Tom Nichols (The Atlantic)…
If this, in itself, is not impeachable, then the concept has no meaning. Trump’s grubby commandeering of the presidency’s fearsome and nearly uncheckable powers in foreign policy for his own ends is a gross abuse of power and an affront both to our constitutional order and to the integrity of our elections.
…and none other than Rick Wilson himself, in reaction to ex-Congressman David Jolly’s recommendation for an impeachment inquiry: “We’re in new territory, and this is clearly the only way to move this past the WH/Barr/DNI obstruction.”
I am not going to say we should expect impeachment to happen tomorrow. The Ukraine story is evolving; people are reacting; and where predictions are concerned, I’m terrible.
I am saying that one of the redoubts of the impeachment-is-mad argument appears to be coming down. Democrats in the House who have not yet decided to support it are less likely to hear Wilson et al warn against it. Indeed, they might hear encouragement for it from their right.
That makes impeachment more likely today than it was yesterday.
by D.J. McGuire
Well, they didn’t listen to me – or at least most of them didn’t.
Beset by admittedly strong recession concerns but unable to acknowledge loose monetary policy won’t solve the problem, the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee reduced its interest rate again, less than two months after the previous cut (CNBC):
Following its two-day policy meeting, the central bank announced that it would take down its benchmark overnight lending rate to a target range of 1.75 percent to 2 percent. That comes nearly two months after the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee went ahead with its first cut in 11 years.
Major U.S. stock exchanges dropped after the decision was announced.
Note that markets fell afterwards. Why? Because they wanted even deeper cuts. The president echoed the madness.
President Donald Trump, who has called Fed policymakers “boneheads” for not cutting rates enough, tore into Wednesday’s decision, saying Chairman Jay Powell and his colleagues have “no ‘guts.” Trump says the Fed is risking U.S. competitiveness by keeping rates substantially higher than most of the rest of the developed world.
Keep in mind what “competitiveness” means here: Trump is mad at the damaging effects of his trade wars on the American economy. Combined with the end of the Keynesian sugar-high from an ill-conceived tax cut, this has led to serious economic blowback. Trump wants loose money to fix all of that …
… except that it can’t. Expansionary monetary policy can’t fix the higher prices that come from the tariffs (in fact, if it does anything, it will make them worse). It can’t address the fact that the supposedly supply-side tax cuts of 2017 were designed so poorly that no supply-side effect came from them (the tax code is more complex, and the expiration dates on tax reductions created too much uncertainty).
Meanwhile, excessively low interest rates exacerbate the asset bubble and distort risk signals, favoring more risky assets over safer ones. In case you don’t take my word for that, here’s Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, one of the two FOMC members who opposed both rate cuts:
Additional monetary stimulus is not needed for an economy where labor markets are already tight, and risks further inflating the prices of risky assets and encouraging households and firms to take on too much leverage. While risks clearly exist related to trade and geopolitical concerns, lowering rates to address uncertainty is not costless.
Among the data points Rosengren cites to back him up is a bar chart tracking risky debts via a debt-to-earnings ratio. The ratio is higher than it was in 2007. Lowering rates will simply make that problem worse.
In short, the Fed has – once again – provided the wrong medicine to the American economy, the wisdom of its dissenters (Rosengren and KC President Ester George) notwithstanding. When the recession comes (and this week’s action will not slow it down), it will be much worse than it should be.
by D.J. McGuire
In an attempt to review a book on Justice Brett Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, The New York Times put up an excerpt that caused quite an uproar – including an omission that left Kavanaugh defenders livid. Margaret Sullivan had the details in the Washington Post.
The book authors, Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, wrote that they had found significant corroboration that Deborah Ramirez — a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s — had experienced an incident in which the future Supreme Court justice thrust his penis at her at a college party.
And they wrote that they had uncovered an account of a different incident involving Kavanaugh. Another classmate — now the prominent lawyer Max Stier — said he saw Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different party, where friends of his “pushed his penis into the hands of a female student.”
What wasn’t in the excerpt was a crucial piece of information: that the woman supposedly involved in the Stier-relayed incident wouldn’t corroborate the story, or be interviewed, and that her friends said she didn’t remember it.
Much of the right-side of Twitter (from Joe Scarborough out) pounced. Trump himself called on Kavanaugh to launch a “liable” suit. More importantly, even a large chunk of the Never-Trump-Conservative movement came to the Justice’s defense, bringing back the spirit of 2018 (of sorts) …
… and that’s where the NYT, by mistake, may have made it much easier for the Democrats to win next year.
It’s no secret that the Republicans have been spinning the Senate results in 2018 as a success. Trump in particular remembers the upper house gains fondly. That narrative relies on the initial Kavanaugh battle re-energizing the Republican base and sparking a rural red wave. Republicans would naturally hope a similar environment in 2020 could provide similar Senate gains (and re-elect the president).
There’s only one problem with that: the state-by-state 2018 results wouldn’t help the GOP in 2020.
By nearly all accounts, the presidential election next year will be decided by six states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Five of those states had Senate elections in 2018. Democrats won four of them. The GOP won Florida by a whisker and North Carolina had no Senate race (although the two parties largely split the House vote). If the Democratic nominee for president repeats that performance, they’ll end up with 290 electoral votes and victory.
Not even the GOP Senate is certain. If the Democrats can win the Senate seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine, and North Carolina, they can lose Alabama and still reach a 50-50 tie (broken by a Democratic Vice President, in theory). Senate Republicans in 2018 had two things going for them – a cycle heavy in pro-Trump states and a number of first term incumbents who needed Barack Obama’s coattails to win in 2012. In 2020, the map is less friendly, and it will be GOP first-termers who needed the anti-Obama backlash of 2014 to win on the hot seat.
Still, a re-run of the mythical 2018 victories will appeal to Trump and GOP leadership (but I repeat myself). If the NYT error convinces Trump et al to make 2020 a Kavanaugh sequel, it will likely be to the Democrats’ benefit.
This episode covers the fallout from the burned U.S. spy who had to be extracted from Russia, how the Trump administration is dangerously rewriting the norms of federal agency independence, and what to look for (and not look for) in the upcoming Democratic primary debate.
by D.J. McGuire
If you saw the President tweet about his plans to meet with the Taliban at Camp David and it angered you, that meant you recognized the Taliban as the enemy. That’s a good thing.
If you marveled at his naiveté in thinking we could make peace with the shelterers and allies of al Qaeda, than you and I are in agreement here. That’s a good thing.
If you responded to this by insisting – to yourself or to anyone else – “But the Taliban are terrorists” – then you recognize that they must be defeated, period. That is a good thing.
If you accept the logical conclusion that we cannot truly negotiate with the Taliban and expect anything but a complete de facto surrender to them, then you recognize we need to recommit to defeating them and bringing Afghanistan permanently into the democratic world. That isn’t simple, but it is a good thing.
If you recognize that we need to bring Afghanistan permanently into the democratic world, then you recognize we need to acknowledge our mistakes (letting Hamid Karzai steal the 2009 election is one of the big political ones). That, too, is a good thing.
If you recognize that the Taliban are a tough enemy, then you accept that the war against them must continue – its current length notwithstanding – until they are defeated. That may be difficult to accept, but it is also a good thing.
If, by contrast, you cannot bring yourself to accept that commitment – if you’d rather the war just “end” – then Trump inviting the Taliban to Washington to sign a “peace” deal is the inevitable alternative. That is not a good thing.
If, however, you are ready to accept the hard truth from which your outrage flows – that defeating the Taliban and liberating Afghanistan are right and necessary things to do – then you must ensure both the president and his would-be Democratic challengers know it, too. You must make clear that any promise to “end the war” without winning it is, in fact, losing it. You must remind Biden, Sanders, Warren, et al, that any claim to be the antithesis of Donald Trump is badly undermined if they agree with his isolationism in Afghanistan, and that would not be a good thing.
If you really, truly, are upset by what the president nearly did, you will want to make sure neither he nor his successor try to do it again, for that would not be a good thing at all.
If that anger, disappointment, and frustration are still with you, then you know the war in Afghanistan must be won rather than ended. That won’t be easy, but it is a good thing.
by D.J. McGuire
“Stop us if this sounds familiar” – Ed Morrisey, Hot Air
That particular quote begins Morrisey’s examination of a new report from the lead inspector general for Operation Inherent Resolve (the name for the anti-Daesh operation in the nations of Syria and Iraq). Here’s the rest of the opening paragraph.
The US declares victory and goes home after a massive victory against an insurgency, only to see it metastasize in the vacuum left by our departure. That’s how we got ISIS in the first place after Barack Obama’s pullout from Iraq in 2011, and according to a new Pentagon report, that’s how we’re getting them again.
In this case, “again” refers to Syria, where “(t)he reduction of US forces has decreased the support available for Syrian partner forces at a time when their forces need more training and equipping to respond to the ISIS resurgence” (Glenn Fine, Principal Deputy IG, via CNN).
In other words, while Trump was declaring victory (as late as last month) and continuing a withdrawal that was so wrong-headed it cost him Jim Mattis as Secretary of Defense, Daesh “solidified its insurgent capabilities in Iraq, and was re-surging in Syria.”
Or, as Morrisey put it (emphasis in original): “There’s not much to say other than we told you so. (Or even more accurately, James Mattis told Trump so.)” For what it’s worth, similar sentiments came from yours truly back then.
Today, our allies in Syria are facing a “re-surging” Daesh and a triumphalists Ba’athist tyranny while Donald Trump pulls our forces out and pretends he’s won.
For those unaware, this was the issue that led me to vote for Clinton, the first – and to date, still only – vote for a Democratic presidential nominee I ever cast. I was convinced Trump would abandon the Syria people.
No one told me how bad being right would feel.
by D.J. McGuire
The day after the United Nations General Assembly voted to declare the Chinese Communist regime to be the rightful holder of the Chinese seat at the United Nations (removing the Chiang Kai-shek regime of Taiwan), President Richard Nixon took a call from Ronald Reagan, then Governor of California. Tim Naftali reported on a particularly odious piece of the call in The Atlantic.
The day after the United Nations voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China, then–California Governor Ronald Reagan phoned President Richard Nixon at the White House and vented his frustration at the delegates who had sided against the United States. “Last night, I tell you, to watch that thing on television as I did,” Reagan said. “Yeah,” Nixon interjected. Reagan forged ahead with his complaint: “To see those, those monkeys from those African countries—damn them, they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes!” Nixon gave a huge laugh.
The particular reference was aimed at a delegation from Tanzania which, according to Naftali, “started dancing in the General Assembly” when the body voted as it did.
When an icon is revealed to be flawed – and, being human, we’re all flawed – the first instinct is to ignore it, then to minimize it. For those of us who see Ronald Reagan as a successful president – and I still do – these are mistakes which would compound on Reagan’s 1971 error. There are three reasons in particular.
First, minimization makes no sense. Unless there is another recording somewhere in which Reagan called Pierre Trudeau a “frog” or aimed ethnic epithets at the European nations that also enabled the CCP to seize the seat (Naftali notes that Nixon’s own State Department pointed the finger at Britain and France), then this particular criticism was not only racist, but particularly racist toward Africans. It is an odious statement and should be called as such. It is a stain on Reagan’s legacy and a sign of his flaws.
Secondly, it can inform on Reagan’s foreign policy – and not in a good way. Reagan’s anti-Communism galvanized the democratic world and enabled the Cold War to be won with minimal actual conflict. That doesn’t mean it was mistake-free. The Reagan Administration badly underestimated Nelson Mandela – who, contrary to the panicked assertions of the apartheid regime in South Africa, marginalized and effectively froze out the South African Communists. Historians need to examine – if they haven’t already – how much of our Angola policy could have been different had we paid more attention on the ground, rather than look to the first anti-Communist with South African backing. Is it possible a different anti-Communist leader could have been more effective in transitioning to a political battle in the 1990s, rather than maintaining the civil war?
Such lack of attention is obvious in other Cold War flashpoints outside of Europe. In Afghanistan, the reliance on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia propped up unreliable faction leaders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar rather than Ahmed Shah Massoud. The former enabled the Taliban to take power and al-Qaeda to establish a presence there in the 1990s. The latter fought the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance until the day they killed him – September 9, 2001. Reagan was out of office when Nicaragua was able to vote out Manuel Ortega, but his successor largely abandoned Central America to its own devices, allowing Ortega to retake power in 2006. He is still there as Nicaragua slides into tyranny and destabilizes its neighbors again.
We now know that democracy and freedom were just as important to anti-Communists in Africa, in Asia, and in Latin America as in Europe. Many knew then, too – including folks in the Reagan Administration like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliot Abrams. This 1971 conversation should force us to ask how much that was reflected at the top.
Finally, it has vital importance to the arguments we have today. For nearly all Never Trump conservatives (including myself), Reagan is the political model of what Trump is not: optimistic rather than cynical, opposed to tyranny rather than admiring it, welcoming to immigrants rather than fearful of them. This incident, even from 48 years away, gives supporters of Trump the chance to claim a piece of Reagan’s mantle. The more conservatives outside of Trump’s orbit refuse to condemn the racist statement, the easier that claim will be.
For all of Ronald Reagan’s successes, whitewashing his mistakes is never worth it. That Trump backers could use his predecessor’s private racist statement to validate his own public racist statements and policies simply makes the price of ignoring the past all the more unacceptable.
by D.J. McGuire
I was away from home – at a science fiction convention in North Carolina, no less – when the President of the United States demanded four members of Congress leave America for “the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came” (CNN) – never mind that three of the members were born in the United States. It should surprise no one that all four of them are not white.
What did come as a surprise was the near complete silence of Republican elected officials on the matter. As far as I know, as of 4:30 PM on Monday (as I write this), one Congressman from Texas and a state legislative leader in Wisconsin make up the entire group of Republican “electeds” who have raised their voices in criticism. The rest are fully engaged in Operation Ostrich.
How on earth did it come to this?
Greg Weiner discusses cause and effect in The Bulwark. His thoughts are quite close to mine, especially here:
There should be lines that this or any president cannot cross without incurring criticism from his own side. That’s because the boundary between neutrality and tacit consent—between their failure to condemn and the suggestion that they condone—may be faint, but it exists. Enabling, like pornography, is difficult to define, but sensible observers generally know it when they see it. Among of its markers is the refusal to use one’s influence to improve a situation one purports, at least privately, to deplore.
How this can’t be a line for so many Republicans just utterly baffles me. These were people who spent no time at all howling rage at primary challengers, bloggers, and anyone else who critiqued their views on taxes … or spending … or even nomination methods. Yet the leader of the party engages in, as Weiner calls it, “bigotry—call it ‘racism,’ call it ‘xenophobia,’ or call it ‘the kind of behavior that forces conservatives into such distinctions,’ ” without nary a peep.
The closest thing we get – even on my other blog, Bearing Drift – is a pox on all houses post from my Bearing Drift colleague. Don’t get me wrong; he was at least willing to rule out voting for Trump in 2020 – a solid step above the deafening silence from Republicans as a group.
Still, the idea that “identity politics” was exclusively a Democratic invention simply does not stand up to historical review. No Democrat was behind the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Democrats opposed the WASPish nativism of the Whigs and Know Nothings of the antebellum era. The fellow who ran for President in 1884 opposing “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” was Republican James G. Blaine. Identity politics has been part of America – and a tool used by both Democrats and by their opponents – since the First Party System itself.
More to the point, there is a serious difference between members of an ethnic group using their political power at the polls to address majoritarian-imposed inequality and the outright racism in which the president indulged on Sunday. Again, back to Weiner:
…there is nothing inherently unwise in choosing to stay on the sidelines rather than be sucked into the unrelenting conflict between Trump and his critics. If anything, one of the president’s uglier influences has been to draw everyone into perpetual combat, and the Reluctant Trumpers’ refusal to rush the field for every play is often prudent.
But there are moments when their voices are needed and when their silence is consequently indistinguishable from acquiescence. If this is not one, it is difficult to conjure what might be. Xenophobia of the kind Trump expressed is a particular offense against American values. Moreover, its normalization is especially dangerous amid the creeping spread of ethno-nationalism.
Republicans need to ask themselves if they would be rationalizing their silence if they were not in the same party as Donald Trump.
If not, they need to get to the real question here: Should they really stay in that party?