Republican Dysfunction
It is a bit of a mess.
A number of headlines today speak to an array of overlapping dysfunctions within the Republican Party. These are of different types.
One of the obvious areas of dysfunction is simply the kinds of things one sees when a grifter is the head of the party. To wit, via Politico: Trump campaign asks for cut of candidates’ fundraising when they use his name and likeness.
“Beginning tomorrow, we ask that all candidates and committees who choose to use President Trump’s name, image, and likeness split a minimum of 5% of all fundraising solicitations to Trump National Committee JFC. This includes but is not limited to sending to the house file, prospecting vendors, and advertising,” Trump co-campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita wrote in the letter, which is dated April 15.
[…]
Trump officials insisted that the purpose of the 5 percent request was not to raise money for themselves but rather to dissuade “scammers” from using Trump’s brand without his permission and diluting his ability to raise cash.
Color me skeptical about the alleged motivations. And, moreover, this is not a healthy way for a presidential candidate to treat members of his party. Not only can it drain resources from down-ballot candidates with fewer resources than the presidential campaign, but it actually is a bit of a disincentive for candidates to associate themselves with Trump, the party’s leader.
I somehow doubt this is enforceable. The article notes some possible routes to obtain compliance.
A related story in USAT states that Trump is funneling campaign money into cash-strapped businesses. Experts say it looks bad.
Donald Trump’s main 2024 White House campaign fundraising operation sharply increased spending at the former president’s properties in recent months, funneling money into his businesses at a time when he is facing serious legal jeopardy and desperately needs cash.
Trump’s joint fundraising committee wrote three checks in February and one in March to his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, totaling $411,287 and another in March to Trump National Doral Miami for $62,337, according to a report filed to the Federal Election Commission this week.
Federal law and FEC regulations allow donor funds to be spent at a candidate’s business so long as the campaign pays fair market value, experts say. Trump has been doing it for years, shifting millions in campaign cash into his sprawling business empire to pay for expenses such as using his personal aircraft for political events, rent at Trump Tower and events at his properties, which has included hotels and private clubs.
I am going to go beyond the “experts” in the headline and say that it is bad. I recognize that it is legal, but I don’t think it should be. It is clearly self-dealing.
But those kinds of stories aren’t even the main thing that caught my eye–they just add to the overall dysfunction of it all. What struck me were these stories:
- Via the Arizona Republic: Senate kick-starts Arizona abortion ban repeal after House Republicans block similar bill.
- Via WaPo: Speaker Johnson moves on foreign aid, possibly triggering vote to oust him. (See also, James Joyner: Johnson Risks Speakership for Foreign Aid).
- Via The Hill: Senate dismisses Mayorkas impeachment without trial.
Taken as a whole threes underscore to me that the contemporary GOP is clearly fractured. The GOP-controlled AZ House (as opposed to the GOP-controlled AZ Senate) is showing the split between the hardcore anti-abortion faction and one that is less stringent. Regardless of one’s views of the two factions, the AZ House faction that is currently winning is likely going to increase the odds that a pro-abortion rights constitutional amendment will be on the ballot, and national patterns have indicated that would be good for Democrats. As a general matter, as I noted the other day, Republicans are the dogs who caught the car with abortion and are now struggling with the political reality they have created.
The foreign aid issue also shows a division between more mainline Republicans (historically speaking) and the isolationist/nationalist/MAGA wing of the party.
The Mayorkas situation is an illustration of how the MAGA is driving nonsense that is pointless. See, also, James Comer and Jamie Raskin arguing over Biden’s impeachability (and Comer’s ongoing inability to say anything intelligent about it whatsoever).
The party is continually demonstrating itself to be in thrall to a grifter and allowing his, say we say nonlinear approach to reality and language, to influence significant parts of its behavior. Moreover, it clearly lacks anything approaching policy coherence or goals.
I will say that being isolationist (and anti-foreign aid) is a real position (although I think it is the wrong one). The problem is that the party as a whole doesn’t agree, yet it has to power to utterly gum up the works on some very critical decisions.
“If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…….and we will deserve it.”
I’d like to give the person who said this credit, but his actions in the years hence say he doesn’t deserve any credit.
This is what happens when political systems evolve in such ways that there is no functional way to actually “punish” a party for dysfunction, especially when said systems are optimized to perversely reward the most extreme elements of the party in the short term.
Again, and I know it’s heretical to say this (at least when it comes to most OTB commenters), but this is a systemic failing more so than a party’s moral failing. Given the right factors, this could easily have been reversed with the Democrats spinning out of control.
@Matt Bernius: [This is not a disagreement, it is an elaboration]
I think the structural problems are due to disintermediation because of the internet. I think Democrats had their own disintermediation crisis with Bernie, and those who pay attention to politics realize that they created a big, big problem because of it.
Parties had things that they used to regulate the process. Endorsements, super-delegates, and so on. They wanted voter influence, that’s why they use primaries, but they don’t have to. All this deregulation (in an organic, not legal, sense) and disintermediation means the system is vulnerable to certain kinds of attacks that it wasn’t so vulnerable to before.
I think that we – humanity – are going to develop some antibodies to these kinds of attacks. At least, those of us that survive will.
Why that’d be like an alligator impersonating a crocodile!
@Matt Bernius:
The system allows (maybe even rewards) this kind of dysfunction, but it also not a coincidence that it’s the party that draws believers (i.e., believers in tradition, traditional authority, a mythical past, religion, cults of personality, blatant grifts, etc.) that has gone completely off the rails.
The presence of systemic factors doesn’t mean the absence of moral ones.
@drj:
One particular moral failing of the current right is their denial of the principle of fairness, specifically that others have as much right as they have to determine the future of their country.
Their faith trumps other people’s rights.
In a way, the current GOP is a Leninist party, a political vanguard that forcibly draws the rest of society (kicking and screaming, if need be) to some sort of promised land – although a reactionary promised land, rather than a progressive one.
I don’t see a similar (clearly immoral, IMO) pattern among the Democratic Party. A large part of the current Democratic coalition simply wouldn’t stand for it.
@drj:
I could have more clearly indicated that I don’t think this is an “or” situation.
I’m going to admit that when I first read this, I did not translate that acronym to “joint fundraising committee,” and thought, “that sentence needs a comma after ‘Committee’.”
We are not the greatest democracy in the world.
We are not a reliable ally.
@Matt Bernius:
As someone who began his political life as a Republican, you could not be more wrong. I chose to stop voting Republican, because of its moral failings. Doing so did not kill me. No system controlled my choices. I was horrified by racist attacks Obama and the turn towards extremism, and I left. Relative to the actual tough decisions of life, this was nothing.
Others could do the same. They will survive just like I and many others did. They choose not to because they lack sufficient personal integrity and ethics. It really is that simple.
No system is forcing any voters to continue to co-sign racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and Putin with their votes. They are far more responsible for their choices than any system. That’s just an excuse, and a lame one.
Letting adults who have viable alternatives shift the lion’s share of blame for their choices to systems is textbook enabling.
An abused and powerless child is the victim of systems; he has no alternative. I will even concede that a starving mother who commits theft is facing systemic problems. An adult deciding for whom to vote is not a victim, and not without choices. “I have to take affirmative steps to vote for fascism — as opposed to voting for the other guy or just not all — because [insert lame excuse here]” is weak tea.
There is no evidence for this claim. The most politically “extreme” viable candidate to run for the Democratic presidential nod was Bernie Sanders, and he was explicitly rejected by the party twice. If Bernie Sanders was, like Trump, a virulent racist and thug on top of being somewhat socialist, he would not have sniffed the Democratic nomination.
You misspelled “theft”. If people give you money for a specific purpose, and you spend it on yourself instead, that is theft. These are not expenses that would have been incurred somewhere else if not spent at Trump properties.
@Matt Bernius: “Again, and I know it’s heretical to say this (at least when it comes to most OTB commenters), but this is a systemic failing more so than a party’s moral failing. Given the right factors, this could easily have been reversed with the Democrats spinning out of control.”
People keep saying this, as if it were self-evident.
@DrDaveT: He would have held fundraisers somewhere, and would have had to pay the [hotel/ballroom/venue] to do so. That’s what they are “billing” for, so it does squeak in under a probable explanation.
@Barry:
To be fair, people keep saying that it’s not as if it were self-evident too.
Then again, I think most people who are saying that this could have been the Democrats (like myself and Steven, among others) tend to emphasize the structure versus agency side of social science formulas (Steven, feel free to correct me on that).
Again this isn’t to say that agency isn’t part of that formula. But I firmly believe that our individual and group agency is more often than not shaped by underlying structures.
@Matt Bernius: You are right. Contemporary Republican partisanship definitely has an underlying structure:
Religious extremism and monetary greed + selfishness, dishonesty, moral backsliding, and declining decency. The most toxic brew we’ve ever seen in modern US politics, and we’ve seen some doozies (the fringe left is continually yikes).
@Matt Bernius: I’ll just weigh in here to note that I’m old enough to remember actual Stalinist-type people advocating for the social “corrections” that Ho Chi Mihn and Pol Pot were advocating and implementing. They weren’t Republicans.
Clinton, Gore, and others tacking to the center were an outgrowth of how radical some on the left were becoming. The difference between then and now is that the current “right” is not seeing that its positions are damaging its future yet.
And that right wingers may just be naturally fascistic.
ETA: Hadn’t read DK comment yet, but he reinforces what I’m saying in his comment “(the fringe left is continually yikes).” Indeed, they are–and were back then, too!
@Matt Bernius: I agree with your position.
Structure creates opportunity.
It may well be that the reactionary right is more fertile ground, but I think if we look globally, it is simply the case that there is a lot of agitation and activity in that sphere. Our system has made it easier than some others for the right-wing reactionaries to capture a chunk of government.
The notion that the left, broadly defined, is immune to such pathologies, however, strikes me as unfounded in anything other than faith, hope, and self-identity. It isn’t as it all left-leaning governments and movements in human history are always moderate, tolerant, and morally superior to all the alternatives.
@Steven L. Taylor:
But Matt’s point wasn’t about the left and the right, but about the Democratic and Republican parties. (And I assume as they are currently existing, not as what they could theoretically become.)
We often get to hear about the weakness of political parties in the US system compared to other advanced democracies, and even that parties in a US context are perhaps best understood as coalitions of primary voters.
Especially since Nixon’s Southern strategy, there is a qualitative difference between Republican and Democratic electorates. Also in a moral sense.
I simply can’t see the current Democratic coalition go authoritarian. It would go against the nature and identity of significant segments in this broader coalition.
(To which I should add that right-wing laissez-faire liberalism (as opposed to left-wing liberalism) is often more about upholding the social status quo than liberty as such.)
@DK:
Exactly right. We have free will, we have agency. ‘The structure made me do it,’ could be an apologia for Nazis, Stalinists, Maoists, etc…. No one outside of the poli sci department knows what the hell is meant by talk of structure. Structure is an abstraction, and faced with the need to reform the structure, 99% of people will shrug and walk away. (This was my concern with the emphasis on structural racism.) It’s not that systems and structures aren’t part of the problem, of course they are, but we remain free to make choices and moral pressure must be maintained on individuals to act decently. In fact, how does one go about changing systemic issues absent motivated individuals? What’s the engine for change if not individual free will?
As for leftie equivalents, I have no problem beating up on crazy lefties when I think they are undercutting their own case, but what’s the worst to come out of the American Left in the last 50 years? Trans women in sports? LatinX? Unionized coffee shops? Campus nitwits bleating about safe spaces? Eye-rolling neologisms? Pronouns? Veganism? Come on. The Left is obnoxious and frequently stupid, but they aren’t stockpiling weapons in the hope of a race war.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Unless someone has a gun to your head, you are responsible for what you think and do.
@DK: I think it’s plausible to assert that Bernie’s candidacy, and the poor sportsmanship he displayed over things like superdelegates, etc. contributed to the loss in 2016. I’m not a “one-cause” guy, but I think it contributed.
@Jen:
Sure, but there’s no way he’d have paid that much. Some fraction (half?) of the expense is legit use, and the other half is graft. Assuming nobody was willing to donate space at cost, or even gratis, which isn’t impossible.
@drj:
I don’t think anybody is disagreeing with this point. But some of us are noting that things haven’t always been as they are now and that (as the hedge funds note) recent performance is not indicative of future tendencies.
@Matt Bernius:
I think some people are falling into the explanation/excuse confusion. When some people hear an assertion that structural factors are causally important in a pattern of behavior, they hear that as an assertion that the people exhibiting that behavior aren’t culpable for it. That’s not how I interpreted your comments.
[ETA — I hadn’t seen Michael’s response yet when I wrote that, but it illustrates exactly what I was saying. You proposed an explanation; he heard an excuse.]
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Sure but it’s also not like Hubert Hrumphry openly embraced Jerry Rubin, the Yippies, or the Black Panthers and he was the far left flank of the the Democratic party at the time. A fair share of Republican members of Congress are not only embracing uber-far-right flame throwers, they are actively standing by them beside them, and encouraging them.
@Matt Bernius: “Given the right factors, this could easily have been reversed with the Democrats spinning out of control.”
I’ll elaborate a bit now. What factors would have to change?
We’d have to see a 90% or more shift in the politics of the rich, so they are strongly biased in favor of liberalism.
We’d have to see a similar shift in the *news* bias of the mass media. Screw who their reporters vote for, these guys are quite happy with running thousands of stories about how Biden’s age, while ignoring flat out dementia (and horrible physical condition) with Trump.
We’d have to see that same media no longer idolize white right-wingers as Real True Christians.
We’d have to see that same media no long treat White Male as norm.
We’d have to see that same media take civil rights seriously.
…and so on.
Does anybody here see that happening soon?
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I’m not disagreeing that in some alternative universe the Democratic Party could have gone authoritarian.
I’m not even disagreeing that quite a few current Democratic Party bosses could go authoritarian. But not enough Democratic voters would follow them.
But I do believe that some people are willing to go authoritarian if the circumstances are right, while other people would never go authoritarian.* The latter are – currently, at least – all part of the Democratic coalition.
But I do wonder why is it so remarkable to say that the “Fuck you, I got mine” party attracts more assholes than the bleeding heart liberals?
I think that Michael Reynolds is definitely overdoing it with his “the only excuse is a gun against your head,” but I must agree with him that structural incentives are not an exculpation.
Perhaps the claim that Democrats are, on average, better people than Republicans loses some of its harshness if one realizes that virtue is often learned,** rather than something which one is born with. Some people put in the work (maybe just because their parents made it happen), while others didn’t – or perhaps even couldn’t due to circumstances beyond their control. (Briefly put: perhaps you become what you practice.)
* Cf. Who goes Nazi? in Harper’s August 1941 issue.
** There may be something to Aristotelian ethics, after all.
Making stupid and foolish actions illegal is typically unwise.
Many things in the world are best not done and also better not made illegal, as the unexpected consequences are often unpleasant, and criminal statutes rather then to be applied in fashions beyond your desired targets.
@DrDaveT: It is only theft if the purpose is defined in such a way as to clearly not include. That is unlikely. Perhaps fraudulent, although such is very difficult to prove.
Stupid, short-sighted and likely contributing to increased chances of failure, yes.
That Trump’s actions are self-dealing and almost certainly draining money away from more effective spending, an aspect of general harm to the very political movement that so adores him.
You would do rather better to address the systematic issues of lack of effective party control of Brand.
In meantime, be cheered that Trump’s short-sighted vampiric cons are likely aiding your chances in an electoral cycle where you risk being on a razor’s edge of having him return – saved hopefully from that by the bumbling chaos of Trump financial vampirism and the Abortion issue.
@drj:
I would add political professionals and funders to that definition. In the Republican Party the pros make a “populist” pitch to convince the voters. But the funders set the actual agenda. And the funders are the elites “populists” rant about. This produces a deep schizophrenia within the party which drives much of the craziness. We can hardly expect the party to have a firm grip on reality when it depends so thoroughly on lies. This really isn’t bothsides.
@drj:
I think you are misunderstanding his point, but he can chime if I am mistaken.
Somewhat definitionally, the current Democratic Party is not behaving in an authoritarian manner. I would concur with that.
@Michael Reynolds:
To be clear, that is not the argument.
@lounsbury:
I dunno. It is a good idea that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. It is both a stupid and foolish thing to do.
@Steven L. Taylor: Intoxication is something one can define in a reasonably precise way. And generally reasonaly grounded to establish in a factual manner in legal contexts.
Comparison of driving under influence with ‘self-dealing’ is making an apples to carrots comparison.
“Self-dealing” is an abstraction. It is not so easy to precisely define in legal terms – as I can speak to in working on contracting in investments. What seems easy when you are making mere abstract statements is not.
There can equally be valid reasons for self-dealing in servicing contracting – although evidently such are not here in Trump’s case.
focus on political structures and the gate keeping, not on more criminal rules.
@DrDaveT:
I worked in politics, and even the events at people’s homes had costs, some rather high. The event site–if provided for no charge–still needs to be logged as an in-kind donation, with the amount based on the cost at a similar venue. The bills for these events would run tens of thousands of dollars, and this was nearly three decades ago.
Late to the party here, but to support Matt’s point, we are seeing Democratic overreach at the local level here in San Diego.
There are no viable Republican candidates for Mayor – it’s just not happening, so our Democratic incumbent is feeling quite emboldened to do any number of “radical” things, having consolidated power so fully.
Some examples: Huge stretches of major roads have had street parking removed in favor of bike lanes, enraging locals who have housing that doesn’t include parking spaces. Lowered building rules for ADUs have caused a huge increase in backyard apartments all over the city, exacerbating the parking problem. The mayor now supports an initiative that would allow 8-12 unit apartment buildings in SFH residential lots’ back yards, which would materially change the character of historic neighborhoods permanently, and he claims would help resolve our housing shortage. Large apartments are being built all over the city with a fraction of the (formerly) required parking spots as long as they are being built along existing bus/train lines.
All the forced reduction in car capacity has not resulted in an increase in public transportation, however. The bus near my house comes every 30 minutes and would only take me to a hub/transit center where I could catch another train/bus to my destination – often a 75-90 minute journey, replacing a 12 minute drive.
Folks like us who paid north of $1.5 million for our homes are now called NIMBYs and characterized as selfish for wishing to preserve the value of our homes. And that has become partisan here.
We need a responsible opposition party, and the party of Trump has let us down, even locally.
There are plenty of situations in which structural factors — incentives, disincentives, perceptual blinders, etc. — lead to deforestation, extinctions, poverty, pregnant women being turned away from emergency rooms, and other bad outcomes, without relieving anyone of responsibility for contributing to those consequences. So the statement, “No one outside of the poli sci department knows what the hell is meant by talk of structure,” is both snarky and inaccurate. Nor can you count on “moral pressure, ‘ such as having an epiphany that slavery is evil after reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin, to be the sole vehicle for creating better outcomes.
@Lounsbury: It would not be hard, at all, to limit the amount of money one could funnel into one’s own businesses as a candidate.
Indeed, banning it outright would not be difficult.