'He's Destroyed Conservatism': The Republican Case Against Trump's GOP
By: POLITICO
Why do you think Trump was elected? Don't forget that Donald Trump defeated the GOP during the primaries. Republican voters chose Trump.
Everyone from the establishment wants to get rid of Trump. But Trump really was elected to get rid of the establishment. The Republican base is fighting the Republican establishment.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Stuart Stevens spent four decades helping Republicans—a lot of Republicans—win. He's one of the most successful political operatives of his generation, crafting ads and devising strategies for President George W. Bush, Republican presidential nominees Mitt Romney and Bob Dole, and dozens of GOP governors, senators and congressmen. He didn't win every race, but he thinks he had the best won-lost record in Republican campaign world.
And now he feels terrible about it.
Stevens now believes the Republican Party is, not to put too fine a point on it, a malign force jeopardizing the survival of American democracy. He's written a searing apologia of a book called It Was All a Lie that compares his lifelong party to the Mafia, to Bernie Madoff's fraud scheme, to the segregationist movement, even to the Nazis. He's pretty disillusioned.
While Stevens is one of the most prominent "Never Trump" Republicans, and It Was All a Lie is predictably scathing about the failures of President Donald Trump, the book does not blame Trump for the failures of the party he leads. It essentially takes for granted that Trump is as bad a president and a human being as his worst Democratic critics say—and that he constantly violates supposedly bedrock Republican commitments to free trade, family values, limited government and the Constitution. His point is that Trump is a fitting representative of the modern GOP.
It Was All a Lie is really about the party that spawned Trump and now marches in near-lockstep behind him—the party to which 67-year-old Stevens has devoted his career. The GOP's abject surrender to its unorthodox and unconservative leader was a surprise to Stevens, but he has concluded that he shouldn't have been surprised.
Stevens, a child of segregated Mississippi who has written powerfully about race in the past, says he always knew there was hostility toward minorities and immigrants and science within his party. But he thought that strain was a recessive gene, when it turned out to be the dominant gene. He was an unapologetic political hack whose job was helping Republicans win, but he always thought he was fighting for conservative policies and ideas, for a party that cared about something more than winning.
He doesn't think that anymore, and his conversion story is getting a lot of buzz. It debuted at No. 8 on the New York Times best-seller list, helped in part by an attention-grabbing op-ed in the New York Times, and he's been featured on National Public Radio, the New Yorker, the Ezra Klein podcast, and other outlets that Republicans consider the heart of the liberal media establishment.
The book makes it abundantly clear that Stevens feels shame about his role in perpetuating Republican lies, but it's not entirely clear whether he thinks he was lying, lied to, or just lying to himself. There are times when It Was All a Lie sounds less like an apology than an "if-only" book about how some good Republicans could have saved the country from Trumpism. Stevens writes glowingly about his clients who have never embraced Trump—like President George W. Bush, who he believes could have steered the party towards "compassionate conservatism" if the September 11 attacks hadn't changed history, or Utah Senator Mitt Romney, who has emerged as a lonely voice of Republican resistance, or popular moderate governors like Larry Hogan of Maryland, Phil Scott of Vermont and Charlie Baker of Massachusetts. His book is notably silent about his clients who have bent their knees to Trump—like Senators John Cornyn of Texas, Roy Blunt of Missouri, Rob Portman of Ohio, Charles Grassley of Iowa, or Dan Coats of Indiana, who became Trump's top intelligence official.
Politico Magazine senior writer Michael Grunwald first met Stevens 25 years ago when he was working for William Weld, a moderate Republican governor who was running a futile campaign to unseat Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, and who would later run a futile primary campaign to unseat Trump. Grunwald talked with Stevens last week about the evolution of the Republican Party, its "conspiracy of cowardice" under Trump, its prioritization of politics over policy, his secret effort to undermine Trump in the 2016 election, his disdain for Republican thought leaders like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, and his fears for the 2020 election, which he expects Trump to try to steal.
They also talked about some of the tensions within It Was All a Lie, and Stevens opened up about his disappointment with former clients he genuinely admired. This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
***
MICHAEL GRUNWALD: You've written a really provocative book.
STUART STEVENS: I told a friend: It's depressing, but it's short. He said: Yeah, so are suicide notes.
GRUNWALD: It must feel weird. You've had this incredibly successful career electing Republicans, you write a book saying it was all a lie—and suddenly you're a brave truth-telling hero.
STEVENS: Yeah? I must have missed the hero part.
GRUNWALD: Well, you write the big mea culpa, and suddenly all these people who fought you love you.
STEVENS: I don't look at it that way, dude. You know how painful it is to admit some of these people were right?
GRUNWALD: You're brutal when you talk about the Republican Party right now. You compare it to Bernie Madoff, to the Mafia, you even have a bunch of Nazi Germany comparisons. What's been the reaction of the people you used to work with?
STEVENS: I really don't talk to most of those people. Look, I wanted to be careful not to make the book a bill of indictment against individuals, because that's a cop-out. If I'm saying it's a collective problem, and I want to start with personal responsibility. It's countermessaging to say this person did this, that person did that. Look, these people know who they are. They all know Donald Trump shouldn't be president. They all know something wrong has happened in the party. For the most part, they're just quiet about it. You won't hear them defend Trump except as a necessary evil.
You know, it really struck me when I read the memoir by [the late German Chancellor] Franz von Papen, it's exactly the same message you hear today. In 1953, he was still trying to justify Hitler: "You have to understand, the Bolsheviks were a threat, we had to counter them." Of all the books I read to write my book, the Franz von Papen thing haunts me the most. It's not to say that what happened in Germany is going to happen here. But the idea that you can't talk about that—well, I think you have to talk about that. The parallel is so striking.
GRUNWALD: That's pretty harsh. What's the specific parallel you're talking about?
STEVENS: You have good people letting evil happen. For the most part, these Republicans aren't bad people. If you moved in next door, they'd be a great neighbor. But that was true of a lot of segregationists I knew growing up in Mississippi. They wouldn't have used a racial slur for a million dollars, but they wouldn't stand up—"Oh, we need to be slow about change." And what is Germany but a story of people who faced a moral moment and failed? You had a powerful political aristocracy that thought they could control this necessary evil for their own purposes. They thought they could harness it. Like the atom, or something, and they ended up with Chernobyl. All these Republicans who know Donald Trump is a disaster will try to justify it, because they got something they wanted. Mitch McConnell thinks Trump will be remembered as his fool, and I think the odds are pretty good it's going to be the other way around.
Republicans always say that you can't negotiate with terrorists; well, Donald Trump is a terrorist, and the Republican Party decided to negotiate with him. How has that worked out? He's destroyed conservatism. He's the most anti-conservative president of my lifetime.
GRUNWALD: You talk about personal responsibility in the book, but I never got a clear sense of what you think your personal responsibility was for all this. What did you do wrong?
STEVENS: You know, I ask myself that all the time. I worked for people I liked and admired, people I wanted to win. I didn't work for the Jesse Helmses of the world. Really, there are two Republican parties, even now. There are some great governors; we don't talk about that much, but I worked for a lot of them: Tom Ridge [of Pennsylvania], Bill Weld. I do regret not thinking more about the reality of this dark side of the party. When I worked for Mitt Romney, I thought, and I still think this is right, that we were fighting the Newt Gingrich side of the party, which is now the Trump side of the party. And we won. So it's hard for me to say I wish I had done this differently or that differently.
POLITICO
Tags
Who is online
144 visitors
Trump ain't a Dixiecrat. Trump ain't a Reaganite. Trump ain't TEA Party. Trump is so anti-establishment that Democrats are having to defend the Republican Party. Just look at the all the Republicans that were included in the Democratic Convention.
There is a HUGE difference between Republicans and Trump sycophants. The former can govern a country, the latter can do nothing but destroy a country. Today's conservatives are for the most part fascists who have lost all sense of the Republican Parties values. For example, whatever happened to fiscal conservatism, family values, valuing religion and God. Someone please tell me how Trump is Godly or Christ-like? Hint: nowhere in the Bible does an Angel or Christ "grab 'em by the pussy."
Yeah, what happened to those traditional establishment Republican appeals for votes? Republicans try to buy votes just as Democrats do.
In 2016 the Republican base wasn't buying what the Republican establishment was selling. The Republican base selected Donald Trump to be their candidate. The Republican establishment has been scared shitless since the 2016 primaries.
Ronald Reagan has been removed from Republican politics just as Democrats have removed Franklin Roosevelt from Democratic politics.
I think that is an indisputable fact.
Do you believe Joe Biden will reestablish trust in the political establishment?
Public distrust in the political establishment has become systemic. IMO Trump's election is a symptom of that public distrust.
Biden can make all the establishment appeals and promises he wants to. But Biden damned well better make the establishment work. The establishment response to the Great Recession only made things worse. Political finger pointing and scapegoating have been the traditional establishment response for failing to satisfy the unrealistic political expectations the establishment creates.
Biden has to be willing to do what he says he will do, using whatever it takes to get it done. The public is less receptive to half measures. Biden has to be willing to break the law, ignore Congress, ignore the courts, and throw anyone under the bus. That's what Trump has been doing and the establishment hasn't stopped Trump.
Yet.
I think people are getting sick of the rule of law and common decency being ignored.
The BLM protests are doing what Trump is doing.
After three months of protests (and riots) are we to believe that the establishment rule of law and common decency is what the public is demanding?
What percentage of the public supports rioting, in your opinion?
Yes, scared of an incompetent moron wearing their party label destroying America and western democracy. And they are rightly scared of Trumpism which is quickly making the US look more like Russia than the shining city on a hill our founders imagined for us. Our founders established the "establishment" and while it's not perfect, it does keep our nation moving forward and keeps us relatively safe from threats both foreign and domestic. The rabid supporters of Trump who claim the establishment have failed them and left them behind have only themselves to blame and blowing it all up simply because they are bitter doesn't solve anything but creates more problems and hurts more Americans. They are slitting their own throats just to get what they imagine is a snake off their chest.
You mean cronyism like Betsy DeVos? Louis DeJoy? Jared Kushner? Ryan Zinke? Elaine Chao?
You're equating being a leftist democrat with supporting rioting. I know you'd like to believe it is so, but your wishful thinking really doesn't equal fact.
By your logic, all right-leaning Republicans supported the "Unite the Right" rioters in Charlottesville. I mean, the rioters were conservatives, confirmed by the name they gave themselves, so all conservatives must support their methods, yes? Including vehicular homicide. And their racism and antisemitism, too.
You mentioned cronies. I named a few. I can provide more to illustrate, if you need the picture made more clear for you.
The peaceful protests are doing what Trump is doing, too.
You think moving the US embassy to Jerusalem was violent or illegal? The establishment was decidedly upset because Trump upturned the apple cart of established convention.
How is moving the US embassy different than changing the role of police?
You're the one who says Joe Biden needs to be as willing to break the law as Trump has been. Now you're moving goalposts.
Yes, the people are fed up and appalled with what has become of the Democrat party.
And political parties have perverted what the founders established. The founders of the country did not create a Constitution to protect a political establishment.
Trump has been challenging established political conventions by any means possible. The cold war legacy of relationships with Russia, the purpose of NATO, and the use of proxy wars are all established political conventions. The traditional response of the political establishment has been to become war-hawks to protect established conventions; escalating conflicts have been political tools used by both parties. Trump wasn't elected to shore up those political conventions. Trump wasn't elected to do what the political establishment always does.
If a President only follows established convention then does it really matter who is President? If a President is supposed to protect the established conventions of either party then a generic Republican or generic Democrat is all that is needed. A President that refuses to challenge their own party is only a functionary that rubber stamps what the establishment decides.
A claim that Donald Trump hasn't confronted and challenged the Republican Party wouldn't withstand scrutiny. Is Joe Biden prepared to confront and challenge the Democratic Party?
I see you don't like having your own logic applied to yourself. How surprising.
Trump hires and appoints cronies. While you claim that some people like cronyism, you ignore his. Why is that?
They express right-wing views.
You express right-wing views.
You just don't like playing by your own rules.
I'm not a member of any party. But I know cronies when I see them, and I know when people who are complaining about another party's cronies are ignoring the ones within their own.
Do you honestly think that you personally can disparage Democrats, leftists and progressives daily
and not make yourself appear to be a right wing person?
Dude, moderates don't talk that way about the extremes, only the extremists do.
Answer me this,
when a white person makes disparaging sexual remarks about Michelle Obama and Patrick Ewing
aren't they roundly condemned as sexists and racist?
So is it sexist and racist when a "Black" person says that shit?
Just asking for a friend.
Anti-statism: smaller, less-intrusive, less-benevolent government (via redistribution of wealth).
Ugly anti-feminist rhetoric is a hallmark of the right wing.
These are your words.
You've also called women "ugly hos". So, you know, not really sounding like that was a joke.
How about your hatred of the left wing? Dems, liberals, facists ruined Virginia, blah-blah-blah.
Moderates don't complain vociferously about marginal things.
Your anti democrats rhetoric does not define you as a moderate or a leftist,
the only conclusion being you are clearly a right winger and proud of it.
I see. So you are going to keep redefining 'right wing' as we go.
Oxford on 'right wing' : " The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."
You do not have the pay grade to redefine 'right wing' as 'not conservative'.
And that is not 'right wing' in the unique and unstated definition of 'right wing' that you have invented?
No it wasn't.
Then here is my suggestion going forward. Don't challenge people to name one right wing position you hold. Instead, make the above argument which would suggest that you are an independent thinker and do not simply follow a party line or a single ideological viewpoint.
Hey, this has nothing whatsoever to do with me. You laid down a challenge to name one right wing position you hold and I delivered. It was your mistake.
Equating taxation with "wealth redistribution" is right-wing, and we can see this frequently in your comments. Objecting to a minimum wage is right wing. You say you're not against abortion, but you have certainly made many disparaging comments about it in the past. Laissez-faire capitalism, of which you seem to be a proponent, is right wing.
More misogyny. It wasn't a joke.
I like it young lady. Nicely done.
Thanks, iggy.
Which doesn't have anything to do with protests. You've changed playing fields and left goalposts behind.
Yes, Biden needs to be willing to do what he says he will do by any means possible. Otherwise Biden will only deepen growing public distrust in institutions and government.
If Joe Biden is a kinder, gentler President that puts the country back on the wrong track then we will likely see more disquiet. Biden won't quell the public unrest and protests we are experiencing with political pablum. Joe Biden doesn't have the talent for that type of oratory as did Barack Obama. Joe Biden wasn't a go-to spokesman for the Obama administration. President Joe has to deliver results, he doesn't have what it takes to talk his way out of problems.
Biden won't have the luxury of tossing sand and doing a political soft shoe. Tough times requires a tough President. Biden says the country needs to do things differently. Okay, so stop talking about it and get it done. And what gets done better not make things worse.
What is the point of making such a juvenile comment?
You're the one attempting to equate legal protests by the BLM with "what Trump is doing", saying that Biden must be like Trump and be "willing to break the law." Protesters aren't breaking the law. You're backpedaling.
Everybody wants fewer abortions, MUVA. Including those who are pro-choice. But the pro-choice (which generally would be liberals, leftists) don't generally disparage those who make that choice. That's a right wing position.
Do you think I was incorrect to deem your comment:
As juvenile?:
As for your question on fairness. Ask JR, PJ, et. al. about my willingness to opine on that which I disagree.
The following is now simply my personal opinion and not a declaration of truth
That established, in my opinion, the 'left' members (as a whole) generally make better arguments than those on the 'right' (as a whole). And, of course, as I see things, there are 'left' members who make crap comments and 'right' members who make excellent, well-conceived arguments.
But in general regarding the 'right', I am truly tired of the lame, bullshit 'rebuttals' that have almost no thoughtful value and typically are just snark, meta, partisan one-liners, deflection, strawman arguments, etc. In my personal experience I see far more of that from the 'right' than the 'left'.
Your comment about Michelle Obama is, IMO, a perfect example of a truly crap comment devoid of thoughtful commentary.
Then you should have attributed it to Rush Limbaugh
and probably followed it with a /s
instead of making yourself sound like a ( blank ) again.
Really? You keep responding as if you were annoyed...
How many times do you have to respond to the same comment?
Thanks for your opinion, but I will pass on your opinions of me also...
Trump is a Right-Wing Populist. Sanders is a Left-Wing Populist. Populism comes around every generation or so because it's human nature to "buck the system". It's never been an effective way to govern. Here's a quick timeline of populism in US history -
I have not checked the polling for 2020, but in 2016 the most important factor for Republicans in selecting a candidate was that the individual appeared to have "strong leadership qualities"
The most important characteristic for Democrats was that the candidate
"care[s] about the needs and problems of people like you"
Specific to the Seed:
While some true conservative Republicans are in opposition to Trump, his base really is not concerned about a legacy of conservatism.
They mainly want a "Strong Leader".
While the "proper" Right may attack Trump as not being a "real" Republican, it will not have much impact on his base.
If you want to weaken the resolve of his base you would need to attack Trump as a "weak" leader, not as a poor conservative, nor as a gofer for Putin .
Easy to do nowadays with the economic hit and stress induced by COVID-19 (and its handling here in the USA).