And, back in Trumpland, A Republican intellectual explains why the Republican Party is going to die
Zach Beauchamp reports in Vox:
Avik Roy is a Republican’s Republican. A health care wonk and editor at Forbes, he has worked for three Republican presidential hopefuls — Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Marco Rubio. Much of his adult life has been dedicated to advancing the Republican Party and conservative ideals.
But when I caught up with Roy at a bar just outside the Republican convention, he said something I’ve never heard from an establishment conservative before: The Grand Old Party is going to die.
“I don’t think the Republican Party and the conservative movement are capable of reforming themselves in an incremental and gradual way,” he said. “There’s going to be a disruption.”
Roy isn’t happy about this: He believes it means the Democrats will dominate national American politics for some time. But he also believes the Republican Party has lost its right to govern, because it is driven by white nationalism rather than a true commitment to equality for all Americans.
“Until the conservative movement can stand up and live by that principle, it will not have the moral authority to lead the country,” he told me.
This is a standard assessment among liberals, but it is frankly shocking to hear from a prominent conservative thinker. Our conversation had the air of a confessional: of Roy admitting that he and his intellectual comrades had gone wrong, had failed, had sinned. . .
Do read the whole thing. I had a thought about this while I was linking to the story on Facebook. I wrote there:
Interesting thought [referring to the title of the article – LG]—and it makes sense: the division in the GOP is now absolute: it is not united and I think it cannot unite. Democrats have learned to work with diversity, which is hard to do when all one knows is an absolute sort of right/wrong, good/evil, on/off mentality. Working with diversity requires holding off on judgment, treating interactions with that sort of postponed view of the current state of the relationship, just as Schrödinger’s cat was neither alive nor dead, but in a superposition of states: in the interactions among an effective diversity there is interacting without really jumping to judgment, an interaction that is working toward understanding, trying to figure out, exactly, what will happen that is the best outcome, not knowing quite how it will work, until it is finally resolved and one knows—just as one finally knows about the cat by opening the box. Some projects involving diversity succeed, some fail, but you don’t know which your project will be so you have to work toward the understanding that will make it be a successful one. You *never* get an good outcome if you just turn on your heel and walk away. At least in a more diversity-tolerant group you will *sometimes* get a good outcome. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
So I think the guy quoted in the article is probably right.
One thing that astonishes me, given Donald Trump’s quite overt (and well documented) mendacity, some in the right-wing media and some in the GOP base still talk about Hillary Clinton “lying.” But they pretty much removed lying as a personal or disqualifying failure when they supported Donald Trump for president. They know he lies like a Persian rug, but they do not see lying as something to get upset about. So why do they think it’s so bad for Hillary to stretch a truth or two? Something’s going on there, but it bears no semblance to rational thought (or of trying to come to understanding).