GOP, RIP

Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump's nominee for director of national intelligence, testifying at her Senate confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on January 30. Francis Chung/AP Images

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once,” wrote Shakespeare. Several centuries later, Ernest Hemingway put it this way, in the form of a question: “The coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one?” For almost a decade, we’ve been watching the Republican Party die over and over. And not in a Deadpool way. It doesn’t rise from each death and return to normal. It just hobbles along, with less life, less relevance, and even less political force.

This all began with the party’s acquiescence to Donald Trump in 2016 and his hostile takeover of the Grand Old Party. His nomination marked the start of its death spiral. The deal that was sealed when the party leaders stuck with this misogynistic, racist, deceitful, and malevolent narcissist following the emergence of the grab-’em-by-the-pussy video. Another death.

After he reached the White House, the party’s elected officials generally thought they could reach an accommodation with Trump: Give us tax cuts, right-wing judges and justices, and the standard conservative fare, and we’ll abide your indecency and demagoguery. But with this arrangement affording Trump free rein (and free reign?), he was able to transform the Republican base into the MAGA cult for whom he became Dear Leader. By the time the Covid pandemic hit in the final year of his first term, Republican couldn’t criticize him without imperiling their own careers. He had turned the GOP into The Trump Show.  Everyone else was a minor character imprisoned in the Trump cosmos. None of the old Republican principle mattered. It wasn’t party over nation; it was person over party. Another death.

The 2020 election, for a moment, seemed an opportunity for the GOP to break away from Trump. But with the cult leader falsely claiming victory and pushing the baseless lie that the election was stolen from him, the party poohbahs gave him plenty of room to peddle his dangerous BS, wrongly believing that he would eventually come around and then, perhaps, go away. Fearful of his wrath—and that of MAGA primary voters—they refused to defend democracy. Another death.

Then came January 6 and Trump’s incitement of terrorist violence at the US Capitol. For a brief moment, GOP leaders (not that you could call them leaders anymore), including Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, decried Trump for causing the insurrectionist riot. Finally, they seemed to think, he had gone too far and deserved to be cast off by the party. There was even a nanosecond or two when it appeared possible that McConnell would vote to convict Trump during his second impeachment. But he and the others lost the little nerve they had left. They fretted that the MAGA base would rebel against the party and refuse to support its candidates with money and votes, should it side with the Constitution and dump Trump. Except for a few brave souls—remember Liz Cheney?—they rallied to Trump. Another death.

Subsequently, Republicans stood by their strongman in clownish makeup when he stole top-secret documents, when his business was found guilty of fraud, when he was found liable for a sexual assault, when he was found guilty of falsifying business records to hide his secret payments to a porn star with whom he had allegedly trysted, and when he was indicted for having tried to subvert the constitutional order and retain power. One death after another. With each one, the party grew weaker and Trump became stronger. A few misguided Republicans foolishly believed they could politely challenge him in the 2024 primaries. They learned that in a cult no challenging of the godhead is allowed. All that mattered in the GOP was Trump Uber Alles.

Which, with a few skips and jumps, brings us to these past few weeks. And more deaths.

The Republican Party has enthusiastically accepted the most dangerous and unqualified set of top-level government officials in the modern US history, and it has done nothing as Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk violate rules, norms, and laws to wage a cruel and vicious war on the federal government that has caused profound harm to millions of people overseas and citizens at home.

I know what some of you are thinking: duh! By now, it’s no surprise that the lapdogs and lickspittles of the GOP would utter no peeps of protest and that many would wholeheartedly cheer on the viciousness and inanity of this ideological war to boost oligarchy and impose autocracy. But we need not let the soft bigotry of low expectations prevent us from denouncing the GOP cowards and extremists at this perilous moment. Trump and Musk could not get away with their vile and destructive moves without the assent of their party. The GOP has turned Congress—which the founders created as a co-equal entity designed to check and counterbalance presidential power—into a body of brownnosers and kowtowers who dare not express independent judgment that inconveniences Trump and Musk.

There is no way that a large majority of Senate Republicans believe that talking head Pete Hegseth should run the Pentagon, that anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theory-monger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should lead the Department of Health and Human Services, that Putin apologist Tulsi Gabbard should oversee our intelligence establishment, or that MAGA provocateur and grifter Kash Patel should be FBI director. None of them possess the experience necessary for the post they have been handed by Trump. Each one has a long history of actions and comments that disqualify them for the job. And during their confirmation hearings, each misled or lied. Kennedy falsely insisted he was not opposed to vaccines. Patel lied about his advocacy for January 6 rioters. Hegseth claimed all the criticisms of his character had been anonymous smears, when the most potent one had come from his own mother. Gabbard was disingenuous about her previous support for Vladimir Putin and recently deposed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Look at how Aleksandr Dugin reacted to Senate Republicans' confirmation on Wednesday of Gabbard’s nomination:

Dugin is a Russian neo-fascist political philosopher who has been dubbed “Putin’s brain”—a onetime occultist and Nazi fanboy—and a leading cheerleader for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling it a necessary battle against “absolute Evil, embodied in Western civilization.” His fondness for Gabbard should scare the hell out of anyone who cares about US national security. Imagine a Russian fascist having a clearer view of the US director of national intelligence than the Trump toadies of the US Senate. It was almost astonishing to watch GOP defense hawks on the Senate Intelligence Committee fawn over Gabbard during her confirmation hearing last month.

Putting the Pentagon, HHS, the intelligence community, and the FBI in the hands of this quartet threatens the nation in a myriad of ways. Many, if not, most Republican senators realize this. Several Senate Democrats tell me that there is one explanation for the complete cave-in: fear. These Republicans are scared of political retribution should they dare question Trump on his nominees or on any other front. And while that fear has existed for years, it is now sharper with the threat of Musk pouring tens of millions of dollars behind a GOP primary challenger. I know some observers have speculated that elected Republicans are also intimidated by the threat of violence from Trump extremists. (They all know that after he voted to convict Trump during the J6 impeachment trial, then-Sen. Mitt Romney had to pay $5,000 a day to protect his family.) And Trump’s pardon of the J6 brownshirts does suggest future political violence is a real possibility. But my hunch is that careerism, a lust for influence, and general cowardice explain their absolute submission.

It is a sad state of affairs when McConnell—who has done so much to enable Trump and Trumpism—becomes the conscience of the party. The former Senate majority leader was the lone Republican to vote against Gabbard, citing her “history of alarming lapses in judgment.” McConnell also was the only GOP vote against Kennedy. In a sharp statement, he noted that as a survivor of childhood polio, “I will not condone the re-litigation of proven cures, and neither will millions of Americans who credit their survival and quality of life to scientific miracles.” He excoriated Kennedy’s “record of trafficking in dangerous conspiracy theories and eroding trust in public health institutions.”

It’s no coincidence that McConnell is unlikely to run for reelection next year. And his inconsequential votes against these two prompted the obvious observation: Had he stuck to his guns during the J6 impeachment, it is possible that he would not have had to denounce and vote against such troubling nominees.

Yes, there’s been nothing shocking about Republican behavior in the first weeks of Trump’s march to authoritarianism. But these recent days show us again that the GOP will roll over for anything Trump wants. Trump could not annihilate American democracy without the Republicans’ complete surrender—and he has it. We are unfortunately witnessing that a cult with power can get far more done than a political party that plays by the rules. The GOP has become nothing more than a collection of frightened lackeys and opportunistic flunkies. Its passing deserves no mourning but for the fact that its collapse renders it easier for Trump and Musk to turn America into a dystopian feudal state. Even the death of a coward can have consequences far beyond his own demise.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

Our friends in the mainstream media make it easier for Trump and his crew by refusing to consistently and steadily describe their extremism in clear terms. Here’s an example I’ve complained about before.

The first headline above, courtesy of the New York Times, calls Kennedy a “vaccine skeptic,” as the newspaper often does. The second, from the Wall Street Journal, describes him as a “critic of vaccines.” Neither is accurate. He is an opponent of vaccines, who has said none are safe or effective and who has participated in campaigns to end vaccination. Calling him a “skeptic”—which can have a positive connotation—or a “critic” downplays his radical and dangerous stance. It’s the normalization of a very abnormal crackpot.

It’s been an intense stretch, and I’m giving the Our Land gang President’s Day off. (Actually, it’s in their union contract.) We’ll see you later next week. Enjoy this holiday. Who knows when Trump will decide to change it to President Trump Day. You think any Republican senator or House member would vote against that?

And the next Our Land Zoom get-together will be February 25. The last one, held the day after the inauguration, seemed sorely needed and functioned as something of a support group. A month later, we probably could use that support even more. So please join us.

As most of you must know by now, these gatherings are only open to premium subscribers—those of you who kick in a few bucks a month so we can keep this newsletter going. It’s a basic truth: Without the support of premium subscribers, Our Land would not be here. So these generous readers not only receive a host of extra features—additional items on the news, behind-the-scenes reports on the media, the Dumbass Comment of the Week contest, the interactive Mailbag (you write in; I respond), hot or medium-warm takes on books, music, films, and TV shows; and the one-and-only MoxieCam™—they also can bask in the satisfaction of knowing they are responsible for the continuing existence of Our Land. During this moment of crisis, independent kickass journalism needs all the help it can get. If you appreciate my work and this newsletter, I hope you will join this noble crowd. We really do need you. You can sign up here.

On the day of the Zoom shindig, premium subscribers will receive an email with a Zoom link. At the appointed hour, just click on that, and our highly trained bouncers, who earn extra money as part-time meditation coaches, will let you in. See you soon.

Just as there is too much news these days, with the Trump-Musk war on government opening up new fronts every day and Trump himself launching multiple outrages on a daily basis, there are far too many stupid remarks to catch and assess. The judges cry for mercy. And they ask that you keep in mind that it has become impossible for them to operate a comprehensive evaluation of the firehose of idiocy transpiring every week. The nominations and winning entries are those they’ve managed to fish out of the raging flood. On to the contest!

“There’s nothing to buy,” Trump said this week of Gaza. “We’re going to take it. We’re going to hold it." Trump keeps spewing dangerous nonsense about Gaza, noting the United States will “own” the territory. And it seems…normal. But how does one these days “take” a territory considered by 146 states to be part of the State of Palestine and that 2 million people call home? How can you do that without sending in troops? Lots of troops? Wouldn't that be, say, an invasion? How would that square with international law? Ditto the forcible removal of its Palestinian inhabitants. Trump discusses Gaza as if its abandoned property or a vacant lot the United States can seize control of…just because.

Glenn Greenwald, the former lefty columnist who has become a maniacal critic of liberal Democrats and a pal of Trumpists, finally woke up to reality. At least partially. In response to the Trump-Musk shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the watchdog agency that polices the misconduct of banks and other financial firms, he tweeted:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the very few tools ordinary Americans have to fight against the onslaught of abuses from massive corporate power. How is it consistent with the stated MAGA agenda to empower ordinary Americans to cripple it or shut it down?

Heretofore, it was impossible to imagine that a movement led by Trump would sell out to corporate and financial interests, right? This is a complete shocker. Actually, this was to be expected. How naïve was Greenwald that he believed the MAGA agenda incorporated robust regulation of the financial sector. He only had to read Project 2025 to see what was in the offing: “The next conservative president should order the immediate dissolution of the agency.” To suggest the MAGA agenda was ever truly pro-consumer or pro-worker is delusional.

In recent years, the conspiracy theorists of MAGA land have embraced the granddaddy of modern conspiracy theories: the JFK assassination. They have taken up an obsession that once was mostly advanced by people with left-leaning proclivities. And the reason is simple: The Trump-right belief that a nefarious Deep State has been plotting against Dear Leader for years has led its adherents to expand the list of Deep State skullduggery to include the murder of President John F. Kennedy. After all, if this evil cabal schemed against Trump in such a diabolical fashion, then, certainly, it killed Kennedy.

There are many variants of the JFK assassination conspiracy theory, but most include secret CIA involvement. Thus, as part of their war on the supposed Deep State of today, Trumpers cite the assassination of the 35th president as evidence of its vileness. Two years ago, for example, the aforementioned Greenwald applauded Tucker Carlson when Carlson, misciting supposed evidence, declared the CIA was behind the assassination, and he praised Carlson for being one of the “very few media voices willing to question the US Security State.”

This is a long wind-up for the presentation of this week’s trophy. The recipient is far-right Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who was appointed to head a new House task force on the “declassification of federal secrets” about the assassinations of JFK, Robert F. Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as about UFOs, 9/11, the origin of Covid-19, and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Declassifying government secrets on these matters is a good idea, but Luna has already declared that she is not an unbiased arbiter and aims to prove her belief that there was more than one shooter involved in the JFK assassination. (The Deep State!) And she did not get off to a good start with her opening press conference.

“What sort of witnesses would you expect to have at your hearings?” a reporter asked. Luna replied:

Based on what we’re actually looking to do with the JFK investigation, we’re looking at actually bringing in some of the attending physicians at the initial assassination and also people that had been on the various commissions that had been looking into, like the Warren Commission, looking into the initial assassination.

One problem: Everyone on the Warren Commission, which President Lyndon Johnson established to investigate the killing, has long been dead. The last surviving member was Gerald Ford, and he passed away in 2006. For anyone who has pondered the Kennedy assassination, this is a well-known fact. Luna’s statement led to a rather funny community statement on X. For such an inauspicious launch, she took the prize.

There was much mail about the crisis underway and the Democrats’ (slow?) reaction and my recent piece on the D’s inability (so far) to counter the Trump-Musk narrative.

Floura Hatch sent in this question:

If you were in a position like a Democratic senator and/or representative, what would your advice be? How would you approach social media and TV networks to help people understand what is at stake here?

I’ll claim the prerogative of quoting myself from two weeks ago:

They should have a war room that operates 24/7 to generate and voice loud and smart opposition to the Trump-Musk onslaught. They need to be coordinating messaging and running a nonstop firehose of social media. A never-ending string of fiery speeches on the House and Senate floor, obstructionist tactics, the exploitation of every possible forum and platform. Their best and most media-savvy members—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Chris Murphy, say—should be denouncing and decrying on a daily basis. Instead of licking wounds, Democrats ought to be showing some fight, conveying the perilous reality of the moment and presenting themselves as a fierce and united bulwark against this treacherous attack. It’s not about moving to the left or to the right. They need to rush to the barricades.

George Monroe emailed:

Your insightful premise in this article is painfully correct. We can yet win, but not with facts and logic. It must be done by moving emotion. America's beautiful story is not well known or much understood by the ignorant voters whose level of awareness is now controlled by Trump and his supporters. We have to simplify the true story behind the creation of our democracy and its benefits. It must be told over and over and over, in every possible way, illustrated by examples of the positive benefits won by inspired actions of many at great personal risk.

You hit it on the head, George—with one caveat: Anyone who calls voters "ignorant" is going to have a tough time conveying a message to them. 

Greg Watson observed:

I wonder if the Democratic Party is going to be able to do what is needed. Look at who got selected to lead the DNC. There were a couple of very good candidates ready to take on the battle for the working class. Instead, we have someone who puts out a one-page document using donkeys as points listing what Democrats did this week. I think we may need a new party made up of the young progressives who appear to have the energy and charisma to fight the battle. It seems that taking on MAGA requires taking every opportunity, no matter how small, to thwart, counter the narrative, and get out of any normalization of what they are doing. It may mean a thousand cuts and then hit with an upper cut when the opportunity arises.

I'm withholding judgment on the new DNC chair, Ken Martin. But I fully concur that the Dems need to kick ass. Every single day. 

Philip Ratcliff emailed

The billionaire owners of the Washington Post and the LA Times prevented those newspapers from endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Most of the media are owned by Republican-controlled corporations such as Sinclair. Don't expect resistance to Trump from the corporations. The journalists who work in the media are statistically more progressive than conservative. They can expose Trump's sinister agenda only up to a point. 

I agree that media ownership is a big problem. That's why I work 48 hours a day!

Robert Berlow had a suggestion:

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, along with Fox, are in control of the media. What we need is a new Fairness Doctrine, by statute if not constitutional amendment (since this SCOTUS might have First Amendment issues with such a law). Fox and Musk get to lie with impunity. They say what a lot of people want to hear to justify their bias. I love your stuff and subscribe, but my neighbors on either side don’t want to hear it. But if Fox were required to have you on, there’d be counterpoint.

The other night I was watching CNN.  Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, lied about USAID. The host asked him for proof which he said he’d provide. Fat chance. Moments later, Andrew Natsios, who was George W. Bush’s head of USAID, responded, saying it was BS. What are the odds Fox has Natsios on if Mast repeats his lies there? So we need a fairness doctrine that applies to all media.

It was wrong for President Ronald Reagan to kill the Fairness Doctrine, which compelled television and radio stations to provide equal time to opposing viewpoints. But I don't see how we can bring it back. It only applied to broadcast stations, on the theory government could create rules for entities that were "renting" the airwaves from the public. Cable stations don't use a public resource in that fashion. Any government effort to create regulations for them would violate the First Amendment. You're right; you would need a constitutional amendment. And I don't see the popular support for that. We need to find other ways to change the media landscape.

Martha Ture had a similar concern:

As most Fox watchers and Joe Rogan fans do not read or believe the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal, how does the story get told to them?

Let’s assume that the NYT, WaPo, and the WSJ are sufficient. Still, this is the million-dollar question: How to reach voters, especially “low-information voters,” who make up a large chunk of the undecided pool? I've spoken to a fair number of political and media analysts who believe the biggest challenge for Democrats and progressives is to get their message in front of voters who might lean their way but are not already with them. There are lots of conversations going on in Democratic and liberal circles about how to do this. I don't know yet if answers have been found. 

Scott Reed emailed:

Coming of age in the 1960s, I learned that USAID projects were neocolonial fetters binding other countries to debt, austerity, and access by anticommunist operators. Sure, they do some good, but they do it in a bad way. I understand that allowing the administration to take down USAID opens the door for eliminating less-evil organizations, but why are we suddenly so supportive of USAID's work?

USAID provided millions of people in Africa with malaria nets last year. That's a lot of good. PEPFAR, the multi-billion-dollar program that prevents and treats AIDS, has saved the lives of 25 million or so people. I have friends who work on USAID projects that bring clean water, food, and health care to people who would otherwise suffer or perish. There may be problems with USAID—past and present—but from what I see it is doing far more good than not. 

“Why are you working so hard.”
“It feels like the world is burning, Moxie.”
“The world is burning??!!”
“Relax, it’s just an expression.”
“Can the world really burn?”
“Well, actually, yes, it—"
“What? How? What would we do? Where would we go?”
“No, no, I meant to say, no it can’t.”
“Good. Time for our walk?”
“You bet.”