Say what you want. Getting out, or through, this mess is going to take courage, the real thing, by more than one person.
Regardless in what particular position a politician is in, defiance of 47 carries with it profound risks. By defiance, I mean a Republican taking a position opposite that of 47 in anything.
Someone who does that can count on (1) a severe bashing by 47; (2) probably a phone call or two promising, if that person got there by election, to be very sure that the next term won't be won unless they face a primary opponent that 47 backs; and (3) other, far more palpable threats, such as death to themselves or loved ones.
All of those things have happened. People watch and they learn. They know they no longer have any real choice in how they vote, but they're helpless to change this rockslide of attitudes. So they submit in advance: they keep their mouths shut, avoid the press like the plague, and continue to vote the 47 party line.
So when we roll our eyes when we read someone take a position that we feel is ridiculous--most likely it is--we can count on that person weighing opposition against all the trouble that it would bring.
We know that they in fact may not personally feel good about supporting 47. From the point at which 47 gained his first Republican nomination, though, opposition was dangerous and particularly futile. My book club managed to get commentator Charlie Sykes at one of our meetings recently (we discussed his book, How the Right Lost Its Mind), and since he's a conservative (a real one, not reactionaries who have utilized that fake title), he has spoken to enough Republicans to know that most of them don't think much of 47. They can't stand him.
But that has left them with a choice: Hide behind his suit coat, or come out with their real feelings and attitudes--which deeply risks giving up their day jobs. Or there is the other option, announce that you won't run anymore, then run out the clock telling the 'truth.' But not risking one's position cheapens the objections taken. Easy for you to say, people tell themselves quietly.
It's been done by some notable folks. The latest is North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who strenuously objected to the ongoing intervention in Venezuela. "Amateur Hour is over!" He shouted from the Senate floor, and how we wish it was. But he's the one who's over, and there was no response from 47. There didn't have to be. Nothing was diminished, nothing halted. Another voice shouting, cast into the wilderness, fading as fast as it erupted.
We haven't heard from him since. It's not likely that we will, either. And whatever he does say, it will be reported along with the moniker, "....who is not running for re-election...."
Remember John F. Kennedy's book, Profiles in Courage, stories of Senators who courageously took difficult stances, even though they knew the probable consequences? He only found 12 of them. Granted, the book was written in 1956, but I dare you to find someone after that. It's not a long work.
The point exactly. Courage in politics, as in just about everything else, is a rarity, because there is enormous risk without knowing what comes next. Thom Tillis isn't likely to be noted for his courage, at least not from here on out, because he's not taking the ultimate risk after he ripped the party leader, however appropriate it may have been. So, too, Bob Corker from Tennessee or Jeff Flake from Arizona, two other Senators who did the same in 47's first term.
I'm not condemning them. It's a lot to ask of anyone. It took work and sweat and usually more than a little luck for people to make it to Congress, usually years of preparation and positioning, so to gamble and perhaps throw it away wouldn't be glanced upon with a great deal of wisdom, either. For one's entire career to be placed on a single vote doesn't seem very fair. But the people elected him or her to make the kinds of decisions that nobody else wants. Bad luck arrives for them, too, but they're supposed to rise above it and shrug it off. Instead, so many have remained hidden in the weeds.
Leadership, or the lack of it, is defined in those moments. And we need leadership now, badly, this minute, as the very republic itself teeters on the edge of being swamped by authoritarianism.
Corker or Flake or Tillis couldn't meet that test, couldn't burn the ships in the harbor, as Hernando Cortez did before he took his men inland in Mexico to take on the Aztecs. Someone else will have to. I see few candidates. Nobody knew that we would need someone bigger than others have been to manage this, to stare 47 in the eye and say 'no more,' but that's what it's going to take. I thought it would be Kamala Harris, but she played it safe instead of going in for the kill, and her chances got killed off.
A switch in political attitudes will no doubt put this to a stop, at least temporarily. But that will take leadership to organize and gather and sustain. Milling around, muttering to each other, waiting in the lobby for an announcement by either Republicans or Democrats won't do it. It will have to take someone to be the greatest stand-up person while it still can be done, while 47 doesn't run away, having jettisoned blood so he can take treasure.
Said Ferris Bueller's teacher: Anyone? Anyone?
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment