Petty Politics Redux
A slight recalibration (although perhaps not the one that was wanted).
Yesterday I noted that Governor Ron DeSantis was avoiding a photo op with President Biden. This led to what I consider a grossly uncharitable reading of the post by many regular readers who jumped on me for both-sidings the issue and the like. Quite frankly, re-reading the post this morning, I think it took some effort to come to the conclusion that a lot of the readers did.
My main paragraph is true, although I would tweak it a bit. First, here’s the paragraph.
In our current political climate a Republican politician, especially one in a primary, can only see more downside than up in appearing with the president of the opposing party–especially in a context wherein said Republican would be forced to say nice things about said president.
This seems pretty accurate and I, personally, don’t see any both-sidings as I did not call out Democrats at all.
I also said this:
It is a troubling, but unsurprising, aspect of our current era that opposing partisans see downsides to being cooperative with their opponents even in the name of the public good.
This strikes me as also true, and in context was referring to a number of Republicans (DeSantis, Christie, and Ivey). I would say that my language is on the analytical side, but, again, where are the both-sidings?
The tweak I would make to the first paragraph, in hindsight, would be to emphasize DeSantis’ behavior as a primary candidate rather than just as a Republican.
Because, as Politico notes, After DeSantis no-show, Scott stands next to Biden in Florida.
“Thank you for being here,” Scott said, shaking Biden’s hand while donning an embroidered “45” hat, a reference to Scott being Florida’s 45th governor.
He also praised Biden and his FEMA leadership, saying the president “did a great job” preparing resources ahead of the hurricane and getting relief out fast.
Oh dear, not only did Scott (R-FL) appear with Biden, but he also said nice things. Indeed, he behaved the way would typically expect elected officials to behave in this context.
So, I was wrong to overly emphasize Republicans broadly, as empirically it ended up not being true. This is, I would note, counter to a lot of the objections in the comments yesterday that I was not appropriately excoriating Republicans. That is, this example also undercuts the, “But, Gavin Newsom” or “But, this other Democrat” examples in the comment thread.
Indeed, while I can see (kind of) how my use of “partisan” (which is inclusive of Democrats as well as Republicans) was triggering to some readers as a signal of both-sidings (although, again, the post is all about Republicans), I would argue that some readers are clearly all too willing to generalize All Republicans from the example, even if the Rick Scott (hardly a model of bipartisan bonhomie) appearance utterly undercuts the basis for all the criticism of my post.
At the very real risk of people further jumping down my throat, is it perhaps possible that what happened in the comment thread yesterday was readers engaging in the exact kind of partisan behavior I talk about all the time here at OTB? That is, seeing only the bad about the other side and only the good about their own.
Really, the point I was making in the post yesterday is that is quite clear that there are political downsides for primary candidates to appear in a friendly way with the president they seek to defeat. And I will admit that I could have said it more precisely.
Still, as such, this is correct.
I would note that at least part of the reason for this is that the candidate selection process in the US privileges partisan point-scoring and fundraising nonsense over public policy competence.
By the way, I do think that a Democratic governor competing in a heated primary to challenge Trump might also avoid a photo op with a President Trump. But, that, of course, is hypothetical. I will also agree that DeSantis’ brand is such that he is highly motivated to behave this way, and that the GOP media environment in particular rewards it. Maybe a Governor Biden in a similar situation would have behaved differently.
I will agree, by the way, that Democratic voters are more prone to want compromise and cooperation than Republican ones, at least that is what polling tells us. I think, too, Democratic voters often have a self-identity more prone to see compromise as good.
Although I would hasten to add that many Democratic voters aren’t too keen when people like Krysten Sinema or Joe Machin start insisting on their version of compromise. And, as noted in a comment thread recently, compromise on basic rights is a non-starter (I would note that in James Joyner’s post a week ago about Yglesias talk of the importance of compromise was roundly, and heatedly, criticized by a lot of commenters).
Note: I rarely use AP or other photos, but the above was just too perfect for the post.
The regular commentariat seemed to be in a particularly foul mood yesterday haha.
Maybe it was that giant full moon?
@DK:
It allowed for “blue” comments.
Super.
🙂
.
What compromise? Specifically, what issue could we compromise on?
We’re dealing with people who cheat and lie without the slightest compunction. People who – as we see with DeSantis – cannot appear on the same stage with POTUS even in a time of crisis. These are people who threaten violence and the overthrow of the government.
Dear Republicans, kumbaya, let’s find common ground. And then what happens? They do not compromise, they don’t even negotiate.
This is fantasy. We are not engaged in politics, we are engaged in a fight against a cult of personality, in effect, a religion. Religious fanatics do not compromise because to compromise is to sin, to betray Jesus H. Trump. This does not begin to end until Republicans get their crucifixion and subsequent Lost Cause II mythology.
(BTW, we do have long and heated debates over the tactical or strategic mistakes on our side, and occasionally debate actual issues.)
@Michael Reynolds:
Indeed. Since you are responding to some other posts than the ones I wrote.
So you meant “Republicans” when you wrote “opposing partisans” rather than “Democrats and Republicans”? It seems an unusual use of the term. Speaking only for myself I read it as the latter and that’s entirely why I saw you as engaging in ‘siderism.
Republican Rick Scott wearing Democratic blue is a glutton for punishment from the MAGA sect.
I fear I started the ball rolling yesterday. On re-reading yesterday’s OP I will gladly concede that you said, “In our current political climate a Republican politician, especially one in a primary, can only see more downside than up in appearing with the president of the opposing party–especially in a context wherein said Republican would be forced to say nice things about said president.” And that your three examples, DeSantis, Christie, and Ivey were GOPs. But I still find your title and subtitle bothsides.
I apologize for coming off as criticizing you, our host. I was really reacting to the raw nerve left from reading seemingly hundreds of MSM analyses, columns, and editorials blaming bothsides “partisanship”, “extremists”, and “polarization”, fleshed out with examples of almost entirely Republicans behaving badly. Very few pundits are willing to recognize that our root problem is Republicans. And no one acknowledges the effect of money. It’s true that Roe was overturned because the Court is polarized and politicized, and manipulated by an unrepresentative Senate, each of whose members faces a partisan primary to keep their job. But mostly it’s because the Federalist Society and Republican fellow travelers spent an estimated half billion dollars to make it so.
I fear I gave you a bit of flak for other people’s sins. I apologize for not making it clear I was responding to the general situation, not you, specifically.
@Mister Bluster:
Never mind the shirt color. The fact that Scott appears friendly with Biden will render him accursed for all eternity.
@Mister Bluster: When I saw Scott’s ball cap with “45” on it I thought it was a plug for the former guy. I’ve never seen a governor sporting his number in the list of previous governors before. Is Scott trying to do a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” here?
@Mr. Prosser:..Is Scott trying to do a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” here?
Far be it from me to read the minds of Republicans.
In 2020 I remember walking to the library on Forest Ave. for my participation in the Iowa caucases. Going through my head was Warren or Buttigieg. Biden wasn’t even on my radar. Like, at all. Push come to shove he was my fallback to my fallback option.
Participating in a D Iowa caucus is an experience. It’s basically a series of ranked votes where the loser gets eliminated and it plays out in real time. It is a process to get to the end. I highly recommend.
I’m originally from Minnesota where we vote in a primary very late in the process so literally no one cares about the outcome.
I don’t think Biden is a bad guy or a bad President. He’s at least adequate. He doesn’t actively suck at his job. Not my preferred choice, but he isn’t screwing the pooch on his job.
He is an adequate place-holder. I have very little to dislike about him. He is a steady and serious hand who will not initiate WW3 with China or whoever out of personal pique.
Steven, you (and James) are incredibly patient and generous.* I do wonder why folks seem so willing to misread you — while reading your mind. And give you the least benefit of doubt.
The Marginal Revolution guys were recently interviewed about their 20 year anniversary. Tyler made a comment that might be relevant to your recent frustration.
Tyler said something along the lines of: A lot of blog readers are motivated by their desire to take you down a peg. To get one over on you.
I don’t recall if Tyler made status attributions for this.
I do recall him saying that given this motivation, a blogger should lean into it on occasion — give readers some opportunities to indeed take you down a peg (in their mind at least).
Sometimes I wonder if James does this. I don’t get a sense that you do. I’d welcome it!
*Gestures vigorously at the patron and donation tabs at the top of the page.
(1)
When, exactly, does Republican candidate selection prioritize public policy competence?
For there to be a comparison of this with any Democratic candidate.. this has to actually happen more than zero times.
If not, with this as with any other, “BothSidezing” is the act of wishcasting a positive trait into Republicans solely for the purpose of shoehorning reality into a rubric that requires both sides to possess a trait that only Democrats actually have.. because horserace is more important than impartially discussing a trait and its possible effects.
And yes, that was the back end of the comparison.. I think the whole thing was “opposing partisans.”
(2)
Sinemanchin are Reagan Republicans — talked about enough on other threads — corporate corruption plus social liberalism. But hey, they got their bag, so they’ve got that going for them.
You wrote this:
“It is a troubling, but unsurprising, aspect of our current era that opposing partisans see downsides to being cooperative with their opponents even in the name of the public good.”
Try this:
“It is a troubling, but unsurprising, aspect of our current era that Republicans see downsides to being cooperative with Democrats even in the name of the public good.”
And this:
“It is a troubling, but unsurprising, aspect of our current era that Democrats see downsides to being cooperative with Republicans even in the name of the public good.”
Which of those three seems the most true?
Nothing is more galling than seeing Manchin or Sinema described as moderate because it implies that the rest of the Senate Ds are raging lefties. Manchin is a conservative. Period. Sinema is a weather vane who, like so many others in Congress, seems to like the attention and the perks more than actually trying to accomplish anything of substance. And speaking of the media putting a thumb on the scale, how does the WaPo justify a headline (paraphrasing) BIDEN WON’T MEET WITH DESANTIS, which of course implies that it was Biden’s choice rather than making clear that DeSantis is playing partisan games? You can’t compromise (or negotiate) when one of the two parties believes compromise is weakness.
@Charley in Cleveland:
Well, I didn’t label them one way or the other. But I would note that they are (in Machin’s case) a D and in Sinema’s case an I (who was a D who caucuses with the Ds).
And it drives a lot of people crazy when they seek to compromise.
I am noting this because people want to make sweeping generalizations when they want and then they want to parse things out and play No True Scotsman when they want. All of which makes for a moving target, especially if one is trying to be analytical.
And yes, if that was the WaPo headline is shameful.
@Kazzy: If it makes you and everyone else happy, here is the post that I think everyone really wants.
Republicans bad! Very, very bad! Oh so very bad. Can you believe how bad they are.
Democrats good.
The End.
(Certainly it has the advantage of being easier to parse).
@Mimai: I appreciate you saying so.
My frustration wells up on occasion on precisely that issue: how about reacting to what I wrote (and what I have written for years) and giving me at least a neutral reading before deciding I have committed some cardinal sin?
I mean, do any of the regulars doubt my overall position on the state of the Republican Party?
I get it. People are made at the Rs and they are mad at the MSM and if I or James do anything that sounds positive for Rs or has an echo of some pathology of the press, then we are easy to fuss at, far easier than those other targets.
This isn’t to say that I couldn’t be clearer, but maybe it would be nice for people to remember that we both do this for free and are just trying to intelligently discuss politics for a general audience. I tend to enjoy the conversation, and I certainly expect people to disagree, but sometimes it can be maddening when people just go off like I (or James) am the enemy.
Here’s a thought: if someone isn’t sure what we mean, of if we leave something off that someone thinks it important, how about asking/commenting instead of, I dunno, calling us “deluded”?
@Mimai:
BTW, I am not sure what it would look like to purposefully do that.
But, FWIW, I think the readers/commenters over the years have definitely challenged me, and taken me down plenty of pegs, at least if that means causing me to think further, and maybe revise, my views. I really do think that understanding is an iterative, ongoing process.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Missed opportunity to frame this as a hypothetical. Those tend to go over well.
As the royal family says, “never complain, never explain.” That’s become my online persona mantra.
As the royal family says, “never complain, never explain.”
@Steven L. Taylor: Or, when ONE SIDE does something bad (such as refusing to meet with the President for optics) you could merely comment on what the ONE SIDE did.
So the post you could have written could have simply been, “THIS SIDE did something bad. Look how bad they are!” and just left the other out entirely.
Crazy thought, I know. But, believe it or not, you don’t have to always write about… er… both sides.
@Kazzy:
Which is what I did in the post.
I understand I didn’t do it the way you would have preferred.
@Steven L. Taylor: Well, Dr. T – you made me feel your pain. It was not my intention to accuse YOU of mislabeling Manchin and Sinema, my gripe is with the mainstream media, which seems to always label Manchin as “moderate.” I should have been far more precise. And in re the WaPo headline, I am again cringing. It was the NYT, not the Post, that headlined a story, “DeSantis and Biden Won’t Meet in Florida During Tour of Hurricane Damage.” In a 16 paragraph story, one had to read up to graph 8 to find out that DeSantis didn’t want to meet with the president, clumsily claiming a presidential visit would disrupt recovery efforts. The next paragraph explained that DeSantis had never made such a representation during phone conversations with the WH. Might be better if reporters could write their own headlines. Anyway, my apologies, Dr. T. Keep up the good work!
@Steven L. Taylor: You’re wondering why people accused you of doing something you did. I’m trying to help you understand that.
The problem with describing Republican behavior in detached analytical terms such as “petty partisanship” isn’t that it is insufficiently harsh, its that it is simply false. Untrue, contrary to fact.
The current behavior of the Republican party is shocking, unprecedented, and illiberal of a type no one has seen in our lifetimes. There isn’t any way to use the conventional political analysis to study it.
Conventional political analysis assumes that parties have objective policy goals such as prosperity, improved infrastructure and governance which allows for mutual satisfaction.
But we don’t have that.
We are facing a revolutionary faction which rejects even the most basic common ground, and rejects the legitimacy of any outcome that doesn’t leave them in charge. Their sole policy goal is the complete disempowerment and defeat of their hated enemy.
No other goal matters.
The only proper framework to analyze say, the latest manueverings of the Wisconsin legislature is in terms of zero-sum cold warfare. There isn’t any sort of negotiated outcome possible, there isn’t any compromise because the Republicans have as their starting position, no possibility of such.
There isn’t anything they want, other than to defeat and render powerless the Democrats.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I’ll just note that I said you were deluded if you think the behavior of DeSantis is due to what we call partisanship or pettiness or even politics. It’s like saying Trump’s Covid behavior was due to partisanship. When in fact he screwed up the perfect partisan chance to appear gracious and to score photo ops like Obama with his arm around Christie. No, there’s something else going on with the GOP as a party.
But I apologize for saying you were deluded. There’s no defense for writing that, and I know it’s not the case. I definitely can be a petty and unfair person, and I’m sorry about going too far and insulting you. That was very unfair and wrong.
The other frustrating part of this is that even when Democrats do a compromise — a Democrat allowing a Republican appointee from prior administration to continue as head of their agency, for example — 110% of the time, Republicans not only ignore that compromise, they assert that thing they agreed to the day before is now an item politicized In Favor Of Democrats.
Republicans since before Obama [since Newt, really] are all bad faith all the time.. and are proud of this incompetence.
The political science lexicon for the modern Republican party really should be Not Agreement Capable rather than just Polarized.