As another of my colleagues, Juliette Kayyem, wrote recently, the January 6 hearings offer an off-ramp to Trump-ambivalent Republicans. But not enough of them are taking it. Many Republican leaders have talked themselves into the position that the policy views of Democrats are so dangerous, or Trump’s policies are so good, that it is more important to support him than it is to defend the basic process of democracy.
This is partly a product of an era when the parties are further and further apart on policy; partly a product of an era of affective polarization, in which partisans are driven as much by hatred of their political adversaries as affinity for any cause; and partly a result of diminished attachment to democratic ideals among voters around the world.
Once you’ve decided that your specific policy planks are more important than ensuring that the fundamental system survives, however, the result sooner or later is a government that has no interest in the will of the people. Imagining this doesn’t take much creativity: After the 2020 election, Trump tried to ignore the will of the people and remain in power. He was stopped only by the courage of people such as Rusty Bowers. If even Bowers is willing to back Trump again, despite his eloquent condemnations, the outlook for popular democracy is very bleak.
David Graham, "The Comment that Reveals the Depths of the Republican Party's Collapse"
The comment in the title referred to is Rusty Bowers' statement, as reported by the Associated Press, that should Trump be the nominee in '24, he will, alas, vote for him. Bowers, of course, was a compelling witness on Tuesday concerning his resistance to a pressure campaign by Trump to break his oath and go along with his plot to overturn the Arizona election results. How to explain how a man who seems on the one hand to have such integrity can support another man who has none?
I don't know Bowers, but he reminds me of some conservatives I know who live in a very, very small, very tightly structured formulaic world that makes it very difficult for them to deal with complexity. Within that small world, life is simpler, and for some with a scrupulous superego, it's possible to be both principled and foolish.
Many people mistake moral rigidity and/or moral absolutism for integrity. It's not. It's better to have some moral principles than to have none. But it's better yet to have a well-developed conscience, which is the cognitive capacity to think through morally complex issues rather than to just apply simplistic formulae. Bowers appears in this instance to have two operative rules or moral formulae: First, be faithful to your oath. Second, always be loyal to and support the GOP candidate once nominated. He can mechanically apply both rules and not be bothered by how they contradict one another.
So a person who seems to be morally principled can be both admirable in some situations and foolish in others. Is Bowers a fool? I won't go that far because (1) I don't know Rusty Bowers, and he might have reasons for saying he'd vote for Trump again that I'm unaware of. And (2) he hasn't actually voted for him again yet. What matters is what he actually does, and, like Mike Pence, when it counted most, he did the right thing when pressured by Trump.
So for now, let us all be grateful that if it was Bowers' formulaic moral rigidity that caused him to resist Trump, it was enough to stop him from stealing Arizona. It's more than we could have expected from many other politicians, and for that he should be remembered, not his statement about what he might do two and a half years from now.
Leave a Reply