Skip to main content

Ronna McDaniel and the Ten Syllables of Doom

Any capable writer would have looked at the words “legitimate political discourse” and said “Uh Ronna? Can we talk privately?”

Of course, the writer might’ve been less than capable. Or ignored altogether. Neither would come as a shock.

But let’s assume there was a real copywriter on the job. You wouldn’t want to go to market without one, especially when you’re a political clown like Ronna McDaniel, and what you’re trying to market is conspiracy and sedition.

Still, you can see how it happens. They’re in this meeting of the Resolutions Committee of the Republican National Committee. Ronna is RNC chair, so we guess she’s driving the effort.

The purpose of the meeting is to write a censure resolution. They’re there to cobble together some sort of logic, no matter how tortured, that can justify the censure of Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. Everyone on the Zoom call knows this is nuts. They all know it puts things on record that have no business being there.

Yet someone — and I wonder if we’ll ever know who — has insisted on this strange shunning, of two of their own.

So picture these committee members, people who once thought themselves respectable citizens. Pillars of their communities, valued members of their party, they’re still trying to figure out how they came to be aiding and abetting the overthrow of their own government.

Sure, there are some ideologues and firebrands among them, and even they must be wondering what they’re getting themselves into. But most are just political lightweights who are already in too deep.

They’re terrified of the Jan 6 committee. Many of them know they’ve behaved badly for five years. Some know they have criminal exposure. Some were involved in the run-up to Jan 6 and would rather not discuss it. Some are asking themselves who they can flip on, or what they might know that a prosecutor might trade up for. Most can’t afford the kind of lawyers that could pull them out of trouble.

And a lot of them really need their current job, whatever that may be. The job market might be sweet right now, but not for people with Trump stink on them. Their choices have narrowed.

So we’re looking at a roomful of ethical compromises, broken laws, and nervous people who now realize they’ve chosen sides in a game they didn’t even know they were in.

And this RNC resolution is a significant turn for the worse. Up to now, they’ve just been pretending to hate government. They’ve been out there amplifying lies, trashing Fauci, fighting mandates, demanding recounts, trolling Democrats, and taking credit for their states’ infrastructure funding. Nothing too strenuous, nothing too incriminating. Just following orders.

But now they’re being asked to put their names on this resolution, a document that is clearly bonkers, top to bottom.

They’re being asked to put in writing what we’ve known all along: that the Republican party is a conspiracy in plain sight, a knife at the throat of democracy.

All the more reason for them to get the wording right.

Because that’s what these edgy, not-very-bright people are reduced to — arguing about wording. They have to come up with a document that somehow makes bonkers sound reasonable. Let me assure you this is not easy.

You’d think they would bring in one of the pros from the Heritage Foundation, writers totally adept at making bullshit smell like napalm in the morning. Though this particular task might stump even them.

One of the many ironies here is that this censure resolution didn't need the phrase “legitimate political discourse” at all. They’d already made their point. Cheney and Kinzinger are already thoroughly tarred and feathered by the sixth paragraph. Joe Biden and every living Democrat are already savagely slandered for their “effort to replace liberty with socialism.” The whole resolution is already a bizarre cavalcade of lies and gaslight. Bringing it around to the Jan 6 rioters is both superfluous and fraught.

So it's at this point that the writer should be warning them that it’s time to cut to the punchline, to the part where they resolve to excommunicate the two apostates.

But they can’t help themselves. They just have to add a rhetorical flourish. They need an exclamation point.

So they argue about how to say it.

Is “legitimate” the right word? They can’t use “legal” or “lawful” in reference to the rioters — that would draw belly laughs. “Permissible” sounds too wimpy. “Valid” doesn’t go far enough. “Righteous” goes too far (“far-righteous?”). So they settle on “legitimate,” a loaded word in the context of an event that was anything but. But so be it. One word down, two to go.

The next word, “political,” is more-or-less a throwaway. It doesn’t add much to the discussion. It’s sort of a modifier, something that goes without saying. They could have left it out.

But of all the ways one could describe the wanton criminality of Jan 6, “discourse” is easily the most adorable. Like the whole event was just a few happy busloads of concerned citizens who came to Washington to engage in polite debate. 

What they’re looking for is the perfect euphemism, a way to sugarcoat the violence that was there for the entire world to see. Nixon used "pacification" in Vietnam, when he really meant "bombing villages and burning civilians." If this committee could get away with “hijinks” or “antics” or “shenanigans” they’d jump at it. “Discourse” might have been the best they could do. Did they consider “intercourse?”

But it’s getting late and they’re tired of arguing, so they do what committees the world over do. They reach an agreement. They settle on these three words.

And yet they don’t check to see how those words might fly in the real world, a place they rarely visit. They mistake their own consensus for effective communication. Which is what the writer — supposedly the effective communicator in the room — should have told them.

But instead, history has zeroed in on those ten fateful syllables. Ronna wishes she had them back. She even tried to pull them back, but too late. They were already on record, out in public, and a lead story for at least three news cycles.

Of course, the phrase might have been exactly what they meant. They might really think the riot was legitimate discourse. In which case I fear for the country even more.

And lest you think I’m being overly hard on the writer, let’s just say that this one had, and still has, plenty of culpability. Not so much for failing to head off the loaded language — which maybe couldn’t be helped — but for working for Ronna McDaniel in the first place. For writing this garbage with a straight face, and taking money for it.

 

Comments

  1. And now we need to make them wear that label around their necks for the rest of the year, if not the next 3.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for, once again, cogently calling bullshit on these traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At last a copywriter's words in a document that lasts for more than sixty seconds. Congratulations on breaking the barrier effectively. Nicely done. BTW the
    y needed you at the Super Bowl.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I