Skip to main content

Postcards from What We Can Hope is the End of an Era

John James is running for Senate in Michigan. A Black Republican — one of the few — he is trying to unseat Gary Peters, a moderate Democrat with a reliable but low-profile record.

The campaign James is running — or is being run for him —seems to say more about the current state of the Republican party than about the candidate himself.

James is fighting ferocious headwinds, not least the determination of Michigan voters — embarrassed by their debacle of 2016 — to continue the all-out assault on Republicans they began in the 2018 midterms. In that election, James ran for our other Senate seat, against Debbie Stabenow, and was soundly thumped. If the polls are to be believed, he has little chance of winning this one either.

He is also fighting the total intellectual and moral collapse of his party. The poverty of ideas, the disinterest in governing, the systemic corruption, the arrogant incompetence, the wanton abuse of power — all have been laid bare by the pandemic. There is now no such thing as a national-level Republican politician with either conscience or principles, and everyone knows it. Even they know it. The only way they can win a major election is to steal it.

So if there’s even a shred of substance, either to James’s character or to his intellect, it may never count for more than the scarlet ‘R’ next to his name.

Not that any such substance is in evidence. His appearance aside, he is in every other way a garden-variety Republican hack. But at least on the surface, James has assets that might have helped in another election, or another party, or another era. He’s tall, handsome, and athletic, all of which — along with his military record — he makes a big deal of.

His logo features a silhouette of an attack helicopter. One of his TV ads has him training in gym clothes with two equally well-muscled white guys. The optics are appealing, sort of, but the messaging is, as you’d expect, vapid.

With so little to recommend him, James is trying to go negative against Peters, but Peters hasn’t given him much to work with. The kind of slime that used to work so well has been rendered meaningless in the Trump era.

Peters, on the other hand, can draw on the entire Trump presidency to smack James around. And James didn’t make it easier on himself when he said on camera that he was backing Trump “2,000 percent,” a mistake that appears prominently in virtually every Peters mailing.

But most of the mailing is being done by James. Or is it? Not a day goes by that I don’t get some slickly-produced, oversized postcard in the mail, telling me horrible things about Peters — the same horrible things each time. Why they waste these expensive mailings on me, a registered Democrat, speaks to either wishful thinking or a bad database.

But what’s interesting is that John James isn’t mentioned in them. Nor is the word “Republican.” These postcards are, as we say, unbranded. They’re all about attacking Peters, not promoting James.

They focus on only two points, neither of which is even eyebrow-raising, much less scandalous. They want us to believe both that Peters’ supposedly spotty attendance record in the Senate, and his having said something nice about the Green New Deal, somehow makes him unworthy of office.

One series of postcards depicts Peters as “The Invisible Man,” using dubious statistics to imply that he’s excessively absent from his job — which has, inevitably, been publicly and thoroughly refuted.

But from this tidbit of misinformation, the postcard then extrapolates, less than logically, that Peters has done “Nothing to prepare us for Covid. Nothing to help our economy. Nothing to protect workers.” Pot, meet kettle.

This is what passes for a smear these days.

But wait, there’s more. Another series of postcards ominously informs us that the Green New Deal — a dog whistle for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib — “costs Michiganders $40,000 per household annually” and over 150,000 jobs. Plus it raises our gas and electric prices.

Note the present tense. It’s as if the Green New Deal were a real thing, destroying our way of life in real time. But then the postcard delivers the coup de grace, pointing out that in 2019 Gary Peters was quoted as saying that the Green New Deal was — wait for it — “…very exciting.”

Even if you weren’t curious about what came before the ellipsis in that quote — and what minor-league skullduggery it obscures — you would have to wonder at how lame the messaging really is.

This is, after all, the party that made negative campaigning into an art form. This is the party of Lee Atwater and Carl Rove (disciples of whom now inhabit the Lincoln Project, and would rather you didn’t remember that). This is the party that brought you Willie Horton, John McCain’s Black baby, and the swift-boating of John Kerry. And this is the best they can do?

James could, of course, still win. So could Trump. But it’s hard to escape the feeling that there isn’t much left in the tank. The Republican playbook, so cynical yet so devastating for so many decades, doesn’t seem to have the bite it used to.

I would like to think this is, at least partly, because Americans have finally wised up to the dissonance between what Republicans promise and what they deliver. Global pandemics can do that.

But it’s more likely that Trump is just so transparently disgusting that it’s hard for anyone with either a heart or a brain not to be disgusted.

Too bad disgust is not an option for an ambitious pol like John James. Because like most Republicans these days, he has the stink of Trump all over him, and it may never come off.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Can the Abortion Issue Slip Any Further Under the Radar?

  One of the many chilling ironies of the war on abortion is that the states most insistent on women having babies, no matter what, are also the ones with the least to offer those babies once they’ve had the bad luck to be born there. And it’s important to understand that these states are getting increasingly insistent on women having babies, no matter what. Goaded and guided by abortion abolitionists in legislatures, law firms, and courtrooms, Republican governments are, one way or another, actively blocking off any avenue that doesn’t lead to a woman of any age getting pregnant, giving birth, then getting pregnant again. Rinse and repeat. If the woman dies in the process, she’s easily replaced. The idea seems to be that women are a sort of production line, whose purpose is to generate usable babies. The way they get pregnant is irrelevant to the discussion. If they were impregnated by, say, an uncle, or a rapist, or a clergyman, the laws of these states ca...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...