Well, not all of them–but a handful of them at least. And maybe not at the very beginning of the Trump presidency, but at least by impeachment trial. In case you don’t know, the Lincoln Project is a group of a conservatives/Republicans (most seem to be political consultants) who are helping to defeat Trump and congressional Republicans who have enabled him. Greg Sargent, a liberal WaPo columnist, interviewed John Weaver, one of it’s members. Actually, it’s more accurate to say Sargent grilled Weaver–taking the role of someone who is skeptical about their intentions. If what Weaver says is genuine and accurately reflects the group, I really feel an affinity towards this group–specifically in a commitment to the U.S. Constitution and rule of law. I’ll see more, particularly about the interview, in the comments section.
On whether LP is “breaking permanently with the GOP embrace of voter suppression, gerrymandering and other anti-democratic tactics.”
On whether LP will “remain committed to concrete expansions of voting rights after Trump is gone?”
Weaver’s reason makes sense to me: “This will force it (GOP) to “actually compete for votes,” Weaver told me, adding that the GOP will be a “better party for the country if everyone participates.” If not, Weaver said, “it will die.”
It will die or it will give up on liberal democracy–and it seems like they’ve chosen the latter.
Weaver also later says he wants the GOP to lose big, as this will lead to an “internal reckoning.” I feel strongly about this, too. Indeed, I tend to the Republicans will have to lose big in this election and the next if a healthy conservative party is to be renewed.
On “whether the Lincoln Project accepts the GOP’s own role in laying the groundwork for the moment. That includes the “Southern Strategy,” toleration of the Confederate flag, and a less blatant anti-immigrant sentiment that Trump made more explicit.
I agree that admitting they helped give rise to Trumpism–and expressing contrition–is crucial to remaking the GOP, although I tend to think it’s better to dump the GOP/Republican brand and come up with a new name for the conservative party.
On whether the LP will “revert to a traditional GOP donor-friendly advocacy posture, one that drives opposition to the Democratic economic agenda?
His initial answer did enough to pass the smell test for me:
The key word is “obstruct.” Maybe I’m too gullible (or I’m projecting the way I’d approach the situation), but it seems consistent to oppose obstruction that was primarily politically driven.
But then Sargent asks specifically about the possibility of Biden raising taxes, and Weaver
I guess that’s believable, but on some level I wish he just stated clearly that he would oppose Biden’s policies that he didn’t agree with–but he would also oppose Republicans who used an obstructionist approach. I do not expect the LP to support progressive or even center-left policies. This would be unreasonable to me. I’d have more faith and trust in their group if they said they’re not abandoning their policy positions.
At the same time, I’m pretty sure this would lead to a sizable group of progressives from opposing the group and maybe increasing suspicions against them. They have to be very careful how they talk about this subject, and in that light, I think Weaver did a good job.
Did you see that interesting Washington Post story on the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump? The analysis is pretty good.
I don’t think I read this one before. Thanks for the link.
There could be some truth to this. It does seem like several of the ads are primarily designed to needle Trump. I’m a little ambivalent about that, as it seems childish and of a little value. On the other hand, if it causes Trump to make mistakes that politically hurts him, there’s obvious value in that.
These testimonials resonate more with me–personally, I find them heartening. I probably disagree with these people on several key policies, but I find a strong connection with them anyway. That is a good feeling.
But beyond that, I feel like these would be persuasive not only for just Republican voters, but for independents, particularly inattentive voters. For the former, I think it’s extremely important to hear other Republicans, especially white Republicans, to voice these things. I think it can spark a chain reaction. For the latter, I think it can undermine uncertainty about whether criticism against Trump is mostly partisan. The same applies when prominent conservatives or members of the Trump administration speak out against him.
I know I said this already, but Weaver is 100% right on here, and it makes me feel more confident about this group. The key is totally defeat Trumpism and those politicians who ascribe to it. They are a threat to America, and they’re not conservative at all, at least not the principles that American conservatives have long espoused.
By the way, here’s a sample of the needling style I talked about:
The one thing I should add. I saw a tweet from Karen Stenner, a psychologist who done research on certain individuals who are drawn to authoritarian leaders. Here’s what she said:
I would guess laughing at Trump makes him look weak?
I no longer have any idea what’s persuasive to whom. That such a polarizing figure can still have people on the fence is a mystery to me, but I admit one reason I appreciated this article was it explained why these organizations may or may not be effective in turning the fence-riders.
At the same time, I am trying my utmost not to have any expectations at all heading into November. I was devastated by unrealized expectations four years ago and I can’t go through it again. Meanwhile, there have been a few more Lincoln Project columns in the Washington Post since the one you shared, so if you’ve missed those you might want to do a Google News search, if you’re intrigued by further commentary on this topic.
If you lump in confusion about who and what to believe into being on the fence, then I can understand how someone could be in this position. (shrugs)
I think I understand. And on some level, I think it’s a wise approach. On the other hand, to not have any expectations–or any good sense of large numbers of people are responding to Trump and Biden–that leads to a lot of anxiety for me. But I doubt there’s anyway to really overcome this problem.
Here’s a deal–or true, if you will–between the Lincoln Project and congressional Republicans that they’re targeting:
These congressional Republicans will promise to work as hard as possible to ensure the security and integrity of the upcoming elections. At the very least, this would include publicly pushing back hard when Trump, Barr, and others question mail-in ballots, call the election “rigged,” and do anything to get foreign help.
In return the Lincoln Project will agree to a “cease fire”–and if the congressional Republicans really do well in protecting the Republic, maybe they might even help them get re-elected.