The Time to Resist Is Already Here
Now is not the moment for Democrats to resign themselves to what’s coming.
It’s not going to be the most significant thing at his confirmation hearing—but remember when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. dumped that dead bear in Central Park? What a time to be alive. Happy Friday.
Do Not Go Gentle
by William Kristol
What a cavalcade of kooks and creeps Donald Trump is trotting out for positions of trust and responsibility in the United States government! If the character and quality of the individuals running the most important government agencies weren’t a serious matter, one could almost sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
But there’s too much at stake to enjoy this dark comedy. We have an obligation to come to grips with what’s going on.
And so my colleagues, made of sterner stuff than I, have taken a look at Trump’s nominees—at Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence, at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for secretary of health and human services, and at Matt Gaetz for attorney general. I myself briefly discussed Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, a couple of days ago. And there’s plenty of reporting elsewhere on these individuals’ characters and views, if you want to explore some distasteful varieties of human behavior and loathsome examples of public character.
Will they progress from being Trump’s nominees to actually occupying important positions in our government? That depends first and foremost on Senate Republicans. So don’t be too hopeful. This is not a group that takes seriously their responsibility to see to it that our government is competently, let alone honorably, administered. As Marc Caputo and Joe Perticone report:
So far, there has been overwhelming deference to Trump’s nominations. Those Republicans skeptical of Gaetz’s ability to pass the confirmation muster seem to be doing so without taking a personal stand on his nomination. While more opposition could emerge as the advice and consent process is conducted, very few Republican senators appeared initially eager to cross a president they believe has a massive mandate to select his cabinet.
It’s hard to know what’s worse: to see the executive branch of a great democracy reduced to opera buffa Caesarism or to watch elected officials in the legislature who know better acquiesce with barely a murmur.
And what of the Democrats? Couldn’t they be doing a little more? They’re powerless, they say, to stop all this on their own, and that’s correct. But they could still fight, and make life miserable for their colleagues. Yet they don’t quite seem up for that. Caputo and Perticone write:
Senate Democrats, for their part, said they would oppose unqualified nominees like Gaetz, but argued that the task of actually stopping their confirmations would fall to Republicans . . . Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) cast Gaetz’s nomination as a test from Trump “to see whether Republican senators have a gag reflex or not.”
Come on, now. If Democrats wanted to demonstrate the Republicans’ lack of a gag reflex, they can consider that point amply proven over the last few days. Now it’s time to make clear to the public just why these nominees are so nauseating, so worth gagging at.
It’s true that the ultimate problem isn’t Gabbard or Kennedy or Gaetz or Hegseth. The problem is Trump. We’re stuck with him for the next four years. But for that reason, weakening Trump politically at the beginning of his term is important. The place to start is by doing everything possible to defeat a bunch of his nominees. That will require Republican votes in the Senate. But one way to get some Republican votes is for Democrats to create outrage at Trump’s nominees, who are so unfit for the offices they’re being named to. Democrats can make clearer the level of governmental degradation their GOP colleagues are willing to accept.
The Democrats seem to have moved so quickly through the stages of post-election grief that they skipped anger. But righteous anger is underrated! So I say to my Democratic friends:
Do not go gentle into that good night…
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
The Great Democratic Shrug
by Andrew Egger
Eight years ago, Senate Democrats responded to Donald Trump’s shock election with a burst of this-is-not-normal energy, taking theatrical steps like boycotting cabinet confirmation hearings and delaying confirmation votes to signal their staunch resistance to the new administration.
But this time, as Bill notes, there is little indication Democrats will pursue a similar strategy. Several Democrats on key confirmation committees told The Bulwark Thursday they plan to push for timely processing of Trump’s nominees rather than taking steps to gum up the works.
“I have no plans to boycott hearings,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the appointment of Trump’s attorney general pick Matt Gaetz. “In fact, I look forward to having them as quickly as possible—rather than this irresponsible talk about recess appointments. Every and any nominee ought to be considered in hearings and votes as quickly as possible.”
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), also on Judiciary, said he hoped to see “a fair, regular, orderly process of interviewing people in the respective committees.”
“I think, for qualified people, we want the president-elect to have qualified people in those positions,” Kelly added. “Qualified people. Serious people. And some of them that he’s nominated to date are not serious people. But I think people deserve a vote. I think they should get a vote. And I think the process should be orderly and expeditious.”
In part, the apparent change in strategy stems from a change in Democratic focus. Back in 2016, it mostly wasn’t the cabinet nominees themselves that were the source of Democratic ire—boycotts of guys like Treasury nominee Steven Mnuchin and HHS nominee Tom Price were a way for Democrats to protest early actions from Trump himself, like his travel ban from some Muslim countries.
This time, with Democrats acknowledging Trump has been normalized after a decade in politics, they seem to want to focus fire on his far more controversial early batch of nominees. That means spotlighting confirmation hearings, not boycotting them. Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin yesterday called for the House ethics panel that has been investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against Gaetz to preserve its investigative records for the Senate’s use.
Democrats may also be constrained by GOP senators’ warnings, following the lead of new majority leader John Thune, that procedural stalling of the appointment schedule would make them more willing to indulge Trump’s demands for them to let him make recess appointments.
“I think my message to them is, even if you hate these nominees—I voted no on every Biden nominee, just about, so that’s fine if they want to vote no,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told The Bulwark. “But do not shut down the Senate, because I think if they do that, if they go full-scale, we’re-gonna-grind-this-out trench warfare, then I think you’re gonna see the Republican leader say, well, then we’re gonna have to recess.”
Politically speaking, that might not be quite the threat that Thune and Hawley seem to think it is. But keep in mind, Senate Democrats might just be tired. You can only maintain white-hot indignation for so long. Facing down the prospect of another four years of Trump, many Democrats are slipping back into the comfortable language of business as usual in the Senate rather than rushing to battle stations.
“I’m not going to predict what’s going to happen,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told The Bulwark yesterday while boarding a Senate elevator. “But what I do know is the Republicans own everything, and so if they have concerns about any of the Trump nominees, they should do something about it.”
Should Democrats help bring these nominees to a quick vote? Hirono threw up her hands in a shrug of bemused resignation, and the elevator doors closed.
Quick Hits
YOU JUST HAVE TO LAUGH, AGAIN: “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could not sell voters on the strength of the economy,” Politico reports. “Now, Donald Trump is poised to enter the White House with booming markets and solid growth. Expect him to reap the political rewards”:
The long-term consequences of the highest inflation in four decades are still dragging down consumer sentiment, and Trump fueled that pessimism on the campaign trail by relentlessly arguing that the economy was in a freefall. With the election over, he’s likely to have a much easier time convincing Americans that times are actually pretty good.
Meanwhile, the New York Times notes that consumer confidence has surged among Republicans and cratered among Democrats practically overnight—a reversal that pretty much always happens after an election where parties switch power. Confidence ran significantly higher among Republicans than among Democrats for the entirety of Trump’s first term, and the reverse was true for the entirety of Biden’s.
TROUBLE IN PARADISE? Anybody who’s spent any time observing Elon Musk over the years knows he can come on pretty strong. And his self-appointed post as Trump’s new right-hand man is starting to rub others in Trump’s orbit the wrong way, NBC News reports:
Musk has been so aggressive in pushing his views about Trump’s second term that he’s stepping on the toes of Trump’s transition team and may be overstaying his welcome at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s home in Palm Beach, Florida, according to two people familiar with the transition who have spent time at the resort over the past week.
Of course, Musk won’t actually be in trouble until Trump himself starts to sour on the twitchy billionaire. But the backhanded compliments are starting to creep in: “Elon, what a job he does,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago gala last night. “He’s great, he happens to be a really good guy. You know, he likes this place. I can’t get him out of here.”
Cheap Shots
I see this a little differently, and it comes down to that "rage, rage" part. Sometimes (often) rage is impotent. And maybe even counterproductive.
I want Dems and assorted sane folks to use any practical tools available to stand in way of Trump's agenda. When Trump pushes toward another episode of grotesque, irresponsible lunacy, I want the opposition to go on record that it's grotesque, irresponsible lunacy.
But there's a reason "The Resistance" is a punchline in Right-wing circles, and it's not totally wrong. Simply making a display of overwrought outrage/anguish at Trump's every move is not productive. And it also gets old fast, quickly becoming a "boy who cried wolf" thing. If The Libs are just going to wail about everything Trump does, the broader public will tune them out and probably chalk it up to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
So, I wouldn't mind seeing Trump's opposition take a more detached attitude this time around. The electorate now knows exactly what Trump represents, and the hard truth is that ~50 of voters chose that. If you rage at everything he does, do not imagine you represent some silent majority.
Once again, I want Dems to take all *practical* steps they can to stand in Trump's way. I'm counting on it. But as for messaging, I see it more like this: "We gave it everything we had to express that Trump is the wrong path for this country. The people voted otherwise, and now we'll all get what they voted for. We'll be powerless to stop most of it, though we will do our best. Just know that Republicans own ALL of this, and we will be here as the decent, responsible alternative when it becomes clear (once again) that they're unworthy of power."
Quick hits on today's offering -- kinda meh, as in "heard it before, whatcha gonna do?".
1) It isn't that those on the left lack anger. It is that they realize that the power of decision has been taken from them, in a system that rewards winners disproportionately. (I'm tired of hearing the word "mandate," as if it were a black-and-white 90-10 outcome, when instead it was a close presidential victory with a narrowly divided Congress and tens of millions of citizen taxpayers wanting something else). Regardless of the merits, people collectively voted for change, so that is what we all will get. The guardrails all are down now. They are okay with that. Likewise it's okay to admit that we will collectively have to deal with the fallout of it. America chose willingly to touch the hot stove. It now must feel the heat and accept the burn.
2) Like all of you, I've given this a lot of thought, and I've come around to JVL's stated position on it. There are issues that warrant taking to the streets to protest if necessary, but regarding cabinet appointments and other things that fall into the realm of the prerogative of the winners, let them burn it down if that is what they choose. But make them own it, and do not help them to reassemble or give them an exit ramp from accountability. They wanted total power. Now they will get it. They need to accept all the consequences of that. Do not help them out of that posture, even if we all must suffer some measure of hardship as American looks to Argentina and El Salvador for inspiration rather than the best and brightest within. The only way to get rid of MAGA now is to let MAGA alienate as many people as possible, with no one else to hide behind as an excuse. Buyer's remorse is now the name of the game.
3) Not sure that the current great economy thing will work for MAGA as well as people expect. I've heard from many who say that they are going into a shell on personal spending, with so much insecurity about the future, politically and otherwise (including not wanting to "reward" MAGA supporters for the win). Necessary spending only in a time of caution -- also passive resistance economically. I can see a recession on the horizon in about two years, just in time for the next midterm elections. If the game isn't rigged by then, backlash to the established order is likely.
4) Similarly not sure how many times we all have to say it, but apparently still more ... if Russia is openly applauding DJT's cabinet appointments, they are not in America's best interests. Simple math, for those who take the time to think it through and figure it out.