Kavanaugh is a wake-up call | Why Haley left
The Kavanaugh fiasco is an opportunity for an awakening on the left.
Despite the credibility of Kavanaugh’s multiple accusers, despite the fact that he lied unabashedly and incessantly during his testimony, despite the fact that there is no scarcity of conservative judges without a history of sexual misconduct who could’ve replaced Kavanaugh, Republican lawmakers and the Republican base rallied around the man and pushed him through.
The key dynamic of this political moment should be as clear as day: governance today is about the raw exertion of power.
Republican support for Kavanaugh didn’t plateau or decline as he became entangled in controversy — it steadily increased. Right-wing pundits and senators didn’t express reservations or ambivalence about Kavanaugh as questions about his character arose — they painted him as the real victim of the situation. The GOP didn’t even consider other candidates who would be just as committed to conservative principles as Kavanaugh, convinced it might convey weakness or self-doubt.
In one of the most dramatic moments of Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham slammed the hearing a sham and hissed at the Democrats: “Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it.”
Let’s set aside for now how sanctimonious this sounds coming from a prominent member of today’s GOP, one of one of the most radical and cynical political parties in American history. It’s worth just soaking in that this is where we are. Compromise and cooperation and good faith dialogue and respecting the spirit of institutional norms are dead. They’ve been gone a long time, but at this point it should be blindingly obvious, even to those who barely pay attention to national politics.
Democrats and the broader left need to be thinking deeply about this. They need to accept the reality that governance is happening through brute force, whether they like it or not. If the other party operates in good faith, then there is honor and political utility in reciprocating that. But if the other party operates cynically, then you need to adjust your strategy.
(This is not to say that compromise and cooperation in recent years were a great thing for the Democrats — since the Reagan era, Republicans reaped a great deal more than Democrats from those practices, for a host of reasons. But it is good for the stability and effectiveness of a political system for parties to try to operate within the spirit of its rules.)
The way Republicans get things done in politics today is by winning seats and using every tool at their disposal to exploit the power they have. To name just a few examples, in recent years they've used gerrymandering and voter ID laws to rig the electorate in their favor, threatened to destroy the nation’s creditworthiness to advance their political agenda, used their committee powers to meddle with the DoJ probe into Trump’s ties to Russia, and effectively stole a Supreme Court justice from the Democrats.
The Democrats don’t need to respond by acting unethically, but they do need to mirror the GOP’s disregard for procedural norms, and fight aggressively for reforms that expand the electorate. There’s a lot of talk on the left about packing the Supreme Court, redistricting, ending the filibuster, and statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. Of course, before they can do that, they need to start making serious gains on both the state and federal level.
Notes on Nikki Haley's surprise departure from the Trump administration this week
Why did Nikki Haley, Trump's ambassador to the UN, resign from the administration so abruptly that it caught several senior officials completely by surprise? At first, I found it puzzling — her rapport with Trump seemed stable, and she had managed to survive the turbulent opening chapters of the administration when turnover was particularly fast-paced.
But the more I thought about it, the more I came to appreciate that it's a politically savvy more: Haley is leaving on a high note, and right before things are likely to take a turn for the worse.
Haley was a shockingly influential UN ambassador for her first year or so on the job. Former secretary of state Rex Tillerson's disinterest in the public side of his job and his troubled relationship with the president created a power vacuum — and she exploited it. She took an unusually prominent role in public debates about North Korea, Iran, Russia, and human rights. She came up with the plan which arguably set in motion the entire unraveling of the Iran deal, and she was out front trying to generate a scandal around the presence of Iranian arms in Yemen last winter, in an attempt to damage Iran's credibility and possibly even make the case for war against the country. All the while, Haley was able to maintain an air of independence from Trump, by departing from his line on issues like Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and even subtly implying to the public that she privately rebuked him for his handling of the Charlottesville episode.
After Tillerson was replaced by Mike Pompeo this spring, Haley's public profile has diminished, and she hasn't been able to make as much of a splash. So she's not getting the political payoffs from the job that she once was.
But it's not just that Haley doesn't have as much power as she once did — she's also dodging dark times that lie ahead. The midterms are likely to be a bloodbath for House Republicans, and House Dems are preparing to use their majority to lead an investigative onslaught. Trump's legislative agenda will likely be dead after the midterms. The Mueller probe is progressing, its final report will be landing, and the scandals will mount. Should Haley run for office in the future, she can emphasize her accomplishments and disassociate herself from what are likely to be the most politically toxic and unproductive years of the administration.
Also .... she's got a lot of debt — and she can pay it off a lot more quickly with speeches, consulting, lobbying, or media gigs while plotting her next political move.
The Question
On Facebook I asked women to share their thoughts on the fact that Louis C.K. has been doing surprise sets at the Comedy Cellar in New York in recent months. I asked: "Do you think Louis C.K. should be able to return to public life as a comic, and if so, should it be under any specific conditions or constraints?"
I got a lot of interesting responses. Here's a snippet: "When men become excommunicated as a result of MeToo, they don't die - they continue existing in the world, often forming relationships, navigating shared spaces, and working alongside women. We need to face up to that, and decide how we're going to deal with it, even though it is easier and more comforting to us to impose a kind of exile on them."
What I'm reading
The Supreme Court is the scandal of American Democracy.
Glenn Greenwald on how Brazil's Bolsonaro-led far right won a victory far more sweeping than anyone predicted.
The UN says climate genocide is coming. It’s actually worse than that.
Looks like MBS had ordered an operation to lure Jamal Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia.
How The English Patient almost ruined my life.
Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation will delegitimize the Supreme Court — and that’s good.
Three long reads
Everything you know about obesity is wrong.
The Latin American left's shifting tides.
In 2018, culture is being evaluated for its moral correctness more than for its quality.
***
If you want to give me any feedback or just want to share some thoughts, you can reply directly to this email and I'll be able to read it — and respond.
If this was forwarded to you or you caught this online, you can sign up for this newsletter here.