Not sure I understand this essay without a reference to gerrymandering. The use of this SCOTUS sanctioned device to create politically safe Congressional races invites extremists from both parties, and I include in that term MAGA members. Crowding out candidates who understand that politics is the art of compromise has harmed Congress immeasurably, resulting in once impossibly extreme right wing initiatives, such as the advancement of the powers of the president. It is gerrymandering that undermines democracy (and causes other kinds of harm). Trump has exploited that at the state level, using his enormous Federal powers to compel Greg Abbott and other Governors to redistrict mid-term. If the Congressional districts were more competitive, it might reduce the MAGA threat.
Interesting article. Not particularly surprising. It has been clear that Republicans who break with Trump are going to be in very difficult circumstances.
Two questions for your next Q&A piece:
1) Do you think that Powell will stay on as a Fed board member once he is no longer chair? The norm has been for the chair to resign from the board once his term is up. However, given Trump's antagonism, there is speculation that he will stay on just to deprive Trump of another appointment, at least for a couple more years.
2) Do you see any possibility that Alito and/or Thomas retire from SCOTUS after the mid-terms to free up one or two more seats for Trump appointees? Since there is very little possibility of the Democrats taking control of the Senate, it would give Trump a clear path.
Verlan and Hyrum Lewis reject the idea that “Left” and “Right” emerge from any underlying philosophical essence, worldview, or dialectical unfolding of history. Instead, they argue that the political spectrum is a myth—a misleading mental model that Americans project onto politics rather than a real, coherent ideological structure. How does this "Trump GOP Makeover" fit into the Lewis's "tribal" view of politics? What impact might this have on basic constitutional freedoms like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion?
Totally agree that the middle tends to get killed as parties coalesce, sadly. For context this piece should have included the total attrition in Congress overall and among Democrats. Also how often and how many Democrats break from their pack. It's impossible to tell if the Republican convergence reported here is an anomaly or just business as usual.
No matter what the Republican party does in the future, and no matter how it departs from Trump’s achievements on substance, the Republican party will remain, always and forever, the political entity that carries forward Trump’s “legacy.”
Just to take one example, the Republican party can decide that mass immigration from brown countries is good after all, so long as the nation’s ownership class retains access to a labor pool that funds our social welfare programs without ever benefiting (though those programs do benefit the ownership class more than anyone else). Trump’s in-office opposition to immigration and general hostility to nonwhites won’t matter anymore, because the party will decide that depriving laborers of social benefits, and making the Republican party a viable political force for ever after, is all that matters for the Trump “legacy.”
Once Trump has gone from the scene, and the Republicans proceed to appropriate his “legacy” for whatever purposes happen to suit reactionary social and political purposes at any given moment just as they do to every successful Republican leader from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, their opponents must never fall into the trap of pretending that Trump’s name stands for any discernible trans-partisan political virtues. It never did, and it never will.
I hope you will do a similar deep dive on Democrats who supported Biden's policies, especially with re: TPS (1.3 million added) and the border surge (3-4 million processed, awaiting adjudication, 1-2 million known "gotaways"), and who are still around to reimplement these misadventures when the time comes.
Biden will never be president again though. So wouldn't we need to first look at the next potential Democratic presidential nominees and their immigration policies? And compare where Congressional Democrats stand with those?
I think we should (1) Educate ourselves as what our current laws are and get an agreed upon count of all non-citizens according to status—legal & non; (2)Learn how we got here with legal immigration policies that have swelled numbers and favored certain ethnic groups (when there has never been a mandate for unlimited numbers in the 1965 reform the intent of which was to give worldwide accessibility to the privilege of U.S. citizenship but was subsumed into unlimited family unification) and amnesty laws which hark back to a different time; (3) Determine in our own minds what number of legal immigrants is sustainable commensurate with our goals for health care, housing, education and our current national debt/economic security (4) Figure out why the 1986 I-9/E-verify in exchange for amnesty failed, are we wedded to a large "under the table" workforce to keep the cost of construction and vegetables within reason; (5) What should happen to the large number of migrants who have relied on our lack of enforcement (and DACA): Is it equitable to let them stay and prosper ahead of the millions in a queue who followed the law? If they just ran for luck under the Biden debacle? If they have broken laws--such as SS identity fraud, driving licenses? If they have American children, If they have been here five years? 10 years? on and on … (6) Assuming we want to have a generous but manageable immigration policy, how much “enforcement” can we stomach. There will always be children in bunny hats (and more people all over the world who deserve to live in the peace and prosperity that comes from good governance.)
Almost all of our politicians (save Trump) have ducked these issues for decades and will continue to do so until we citizens direct them. As best I can tell from most of these comments, everyone wants a pain free, sane immigration policy. I don’t think there is such thing.
I feel Rosemary is laying out a sane rational to deal with a real problem. It is too easy to polarize and be critical of anything that is not total revolution. I know because I catch myself doing it. I might add that we should give major consideration to the marginalized among us ie. victims of racist policy, ethnic cleansing, etc. (our country has lots of areas for improvement). When we consider 'generous' immigration, we should have done more fore our marginalized U.S. citizens (in my opinion).
Had thought of Trump as a man of patience, your last line sort of implies that.
Every sort of political alignment eventually fails, this current Republican Party will either change without Trump or lose power relatively quickly. He can't govern from outside the Presidency, though will probably give him points for trying. Whoever is President would do well to just ignore him, including no prosecution.
Not sure I understand this essay without a reference to gerrymandering. The use of this SCOTUS sanctioned device to create politically safe Congressional races invites extremists from both parties, and I include in that term MAGA members. Crowding out candidates who understand that politics is the art of compromise has harmed Congress immeasurably, resulting in once impossibly extreme right wing initiatives, such as the advancement of the powers of the president. It is gerrymandering that undermines democracy (and causes other kinds of harm). Trump has exploited that at the state level, using his enormous Federal powers to compel Greg Abbott and other Governors to redistrict mid-term. If the Congressional districts were more competitive, it might reduce the MAGA threat.
Well, this is depressing. I've been hoping that Republicans would just implode from overwhelming meanness. Guess that was a pipe dream.
Interesting article. Not particularly surprising. It has been clear that Republicans who break with Trump are going to be in very difficult circumstances.
Two questions for your next Q&A piece:
1) Do you think that Powell will stay on as a Fed board member once he is no longer chair? The norm has been for the chair to resign from the board once his term is up. However, given Trump's antagonism, there is speculation that he will stay on just to deprive Trump of another appointment, at least for a couple more years.
2) Do you see any possibility that Alito and/or Thomas retire from SCOTUS after the mid-terms to free up one or two more seats for Trump appointees? Since there is very little possibility of the Democrats taking control of the Senate, it would give Trump a clear path.
Verlan and Hyrum Lewis reject the idea that “Left” and “Right” emerge from any underlying philosophical essence, worldview, or dialectical unfolding of history. Instead, they argue that the political spectrum is a myth—a misleading mental model that Americans project onto politics rather than a real, coherent ideological structure. How does this "Trump GOP Makeover" fit into the Lewis's "tribal" view of politics? What impact might this have on basic constitutional freedoms like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion?
Totally agree that the middle tends to get killed as parties coalesce, sadly. For context this piece should have included the total attrition in Congress overall and among Democrats. Also how often and how many Democrats break from their pack. It's impossible to tell if the Republican convergence reported here is an anomaly or just business as usual.
There is nothing "business as usual" about this Congress or the federal government under Trump.
No matter what the Republican party does in the future, and no matter how it departs from Trump’s achievements on substance, the Republican party will remain, always and forever, the political entity that carries forward Trump’s “legacy.”
Just to take one example, the Republican party can decide that mass immigration from brown countries is good after all, so long as the nation’s ownership class retains access to a labor pool that funds our social welfare programs without ever benefiting (though those programs do benefit the ownership class more than anyone else). Trump’s in-office opposition to immigration and general hostility to nonwhites won’t matter anymore, because the party will decide that depriving laborers of social benefits, and making the Republican party a viable political force for ever after, is all that matters for the Trump “legacy.”
Once Trump has gone from the scene, and the Republicans proceed to appropriate his “legacy” for whatever purposes happen to suit reactionary social and political purposes at any given moment just as they do to every successful Republican leader from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan, their opponents must never fall into the trap of pretending that Trump’s name stands for any discernible trans-partisan political virtues. It never did, and it never will.
I hope you will do a similar deep dive on Democrats who supported Biden's policies, especially with re: TPS (1.3 million added) and the border surge (3-4 million processed, awaiting adjudication, 1-2 million known "gotaways"), and who are still around to reimplement these misadventures when the time comes.
Biden will never be president again though. So wouldn't we need to first look at the next potential Democratic presidential nominees and their immigration policies? And compare where Congressional Democrats stand with those?
I think we should (1) Educate ourselves as what our current laws are and get an agreed upon count of all non-citizens according to status—legal & non; (2)Learn how we got here with legal immigration policies that have swelled numbers and favored certain ethnic groups (when there has never been a mandate for unlimited numbers in the 1965 reform the intent of which was to give worldwide accessibility to the privilege of U.S. citizenship but was subsumed into unlimited family unification) and amnesty laws which hark back to a different time; (3) Determine in our own minds what number of legal immigrants is sustainable commensurate with our goals for health care, housing, education and our current national debt/economic security (4) Figure out why the 1986 I-9/E-verify in exchange for amnesty failed, are we wedded to a large "under the table" workforce to keep the cost of construction and vegetables within reason; (5) What should happen to the large number of migrants who have relied on our lack of enforcement (and DACA): Is it equitable to let them stay and prosper ahead of the millions in a queue who followed the law? If they just ran for luck under the Biden debacle? If they have broken laws--such as SS identity fraud, driving licenses? If they have American children, If they have been here five years? 10 years? on and on … (6) Assuming we want to have a generous but manageable immigration policy, how much “enforcement” can we stomach. There will always be children in bunny hats (and more people all over the world who deserve to live in the peace and prosperity that comes from good governance.)
Almost all of our politicians (save Trump) have ducked these issues for decades and will continue to do so until we citizens direct them. As best I can tell from most of these comments, everyone wants a pain free, sane immigration policy. I don’t think there is such thing.
I feel Rosemary is laying out a sane rational to deal with a real problem. It is too easy to polarize and be critical of anything that is not total revolution. I know because I catch myself doing it. I might add that we should give major consideration to the marginalized among us ie. victims of racist policy, ethnic cleansing, etc. (our country has lots of areas for improvement). When we consider 'generous' immigration, we should have done more fore our marginalized U.S. citizens (in my opinion).
? Biden isn't president
You robitically recite the neo-Nazi Fox talking points lies
Excellent piece -great reporting.
You gotta read this. Sam Freedman has written a chilling and detailed profile of Stephen Miller, the dark heart of the Trump regime. https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/the-most-dangerous-man-in-america
DJT’s congressional members have had enough and they are heading for the exit(s).
Had thought of Trump as a man of patience, your last line sort of implies that.
Every sort of political alignment eventually fails, this current Republican Party will either change without Trump or lose power relatively quickly. He can't govern from outside the Presidency, though will probably give him points for trying. Whoever is President would do well to just ignore him, including no prosecution.
Gabe, I'd like your opinion on what this total take over could mean for the future of the Republican Party. Where do all the Liz Cheneys go now?