Contra Chuck

Wherein I mildly chastise my elder for his Haley endorsement

My offending elder. While I respect my elders (I delight in saying that at my age), sometimes we younger folks must gently chastise our elders to try to keep them on the straight and narrow path.

As a retiree with too much time on his hands, I’m given to the urge to prove an amateur scribbler. But, I’m reluctant to cross pens with an ol’ pro like Chuck Offenburger. In addition, we’re both from the same hometown, and the Greenleaf, Nye, and Offenburger families* have a long history of good relations, and I don’t want to spoil that history. And, last but not least. I owe Chuck a debt of gratitude. When I was in high school, Chuck returned to our hometown to write for our local paper (The Evening Sentinel) after graduating from college and before being called up to the big leagues by the Des Moines Register. During my senior year, our football team was mediocre (.500) and our basketball team was decent, but to read Chuck’s writing about us, you’d have thought we were the Packers or the Bulls. I felt my teammates and I had to play better to justify the quality of Chuck’s writing about us. And, to my surprise, I made it onto the second-team all-conference basketball team, which I’ve always believed had more to do with Chuck’s persuasive powers among his fellow sports writers than my level of play. But, despite all these reasons to hold my pen—and, oh, yeah, Chuck’s a nice guy—I have to comment in response to his endorsement of Nikki Haley. Nothing vituperative, nothing harsh. Think of what I write below—partially in agreement with Chuck—as the old coach counseling a young—well, slightly older—player about some rough spots in his game.

First, Chuck should go to his local Republican caucus and cast his vote for Nikki Haley. A vote for Nikki Haley is a vote against Trump. (Ron DeSantis, the would-be Trump replacement, has managed to defeat himself.) Among any of the candidates running against Trump (in their squishy way), only Chris Christie has a better resume and is willing to attack the dragon with the intent to take it out. But Christie has abandoned the field of battle in Iowa to attempt to mount a major counter-offensive in New Hampshire. So that leaves Haley. In fact, my fantasy is that the highest “Republican” turnout in the Iowa Republican Caucus comes from my friends, kin, and fellow Democrats in Johnson County—Republicans for a day, you may say. Better yet, that would be great all over Iowa; why not some love bombs from, say, Page County Democrats? (No one would have to put out many extra chairs.) Wouldn’t that be great! (N.B. All of this could backfire. Haley could defeat Biden, which, for reasons set forth below, would not be a good outcome.)

The point is to keep Trump as far away from the presidency as possible as soon as possible. Chuck states: “I can’t believe Americans will give him the presidency again.  If they do, I think our democracy is in danger.” This statement contains two errors: First, you should believe that Trump could gain office again, even while losing the popular vote for president for the third time in a row. (I’m currently reading The Federalist Papers from beginning to end, and when I get to the essays about the Electoral College I’m going to be examining how the tag team of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay got it so wrong.) The second error is for Chuck to state that if Trump gains the presidency again, “our democracy is in danger.” No. Trump lost the last election, and our democracy was placed in its greatest peril since the Civil War. Understatement may be a lost art, and the better play on occasion, but it’s a mistake here. If Trump is elected again, our democracy and rule of law are in dire peril. I wish someone could convince me that I’m hyperventilating about this threat, but Senator Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, William Barr, Judge Michael Luttig, and all the folks at The Bulwark, such as Charlie Sykes, Bill Kristol, Tim Miller, et al., and Steve Schmidt and his fellow members of The Lincoln Project, and the folks at Republicans Accountability, all tell me that I’m not hyperventilating, and, to borrow from Charlie Sykes, “that we’re not the crazy ones.” And the list above is just a few of the Republicans (or former Republicans) who’ve spoken out about the reality of the Trump threat.

So great, let’s go with Haley, you say. She won’t speak out against Trump, but no one other than Christie, perhaps on a personal kamikaze mission, will do so. She’s not willing to speak out about the Civil War, either, or speak out about slavery, but that’s water under the bridge, you might say. “All politicians prevaricate,” you might say. And that’s true. But she wants to replace the dragon while not having to slay it herself; she refuses to go on the attack, hoping, one supposes, that a deus ex machina—likely wearing judicial robes—will remove the Trump. Maybe, But then what is she left with? The Trump cult.

And here’s where it gets really bad. Haley would no doubt prove a better president than Trump. But so would you or I. And a lot more qualified folks, including Joe Biden (age notwithstanding), Kamala Harris, and a host of qualified Democrats. If I read you correctly, almost any Democrat (old Joe Biden excepted) would prove better than Haley, and I agree. Your endorsement should be for Haley as the Republican nominee, not Haley as a general election candidate.

And here’s where we might part ways at a more fundamental level. Party counts. Party should count. “We should shop for the best candidate,” I hear you saying by your time spent on Haley’s campaign biography. No, we shouldn’t. And here’s where I closely adhere to the path of my parents, who firmly believed in voting for the party with only occasional (but noteworthy) exceptions. Is this the best course? Yes, for the most part, because for good or ill, the parties enact their agendas, and the more positions a party holds, the more successful it becomes in enacting its agenda. (Think of the current situation in Iowa.) Traditionally, broadly speaking, and with significant exceptions, the Democrats seek to use government; Republicans seek to stymie government. So a controlling factor becomes not only what the candidate wants, but what her voters want.

After 2016, no one of sound judgment could argue that character doesn’t count and that on occasion a major political party can be captured by an extreme group from within the party (Republican Goldwater in 1964; Democrat McGovern in 1972). But nothing equals Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party in 2016 and his consolidation of that control since then. Trump no longer has a party behind him, he has something more akin to a cult (or certain European political parties of the 20th century.) With Trump’s party comes a loose agenda of revenge, retribution, and the denigration of persons on the out with the whims of Trump. He admires and will aid autocrats, such as Putin and Orbán. (You know that when Mueller and congressional investigations revealed that Putin was pulling for Trump, it’s not just a metaphor, but it involves lots and lots of trolls and bots, lots of seeding lies and disinformation. They’re still out there.) Has Haley given any indication that she could stand up to this? It’s just not the leader who must be deposed, but the followers who must be turned away from the nihilistic MAGA agenda. Alas, Haley has given no indication that she appreciates the challenge before her if she bests Trump, her pleasant bio withstanding. Traditional parties have platforms, consist of coalitions, and work together to elect candidates and pursue agendas. Even “the best” candidate who’s a lone wolf will find the experience futile if not connected to a party. Politics—democratic politics—entails negotiations, reasoned arguments made in good faith, coalition-building, and wooing. I’ve seen too much sausage made to hold many illusions about politics and politicians, but still, a leader must have some principles, some guiding force beyond expediency. I don’t see that in Haley.

The Republican Party that she seeks to lead has shown itself beholden to an authoritarian wannabe. The party now waffles about aiding Ukraine, and it only grudgingly acknowledges the reality—the increasingly stark reality—of climate change, which will be the primary determinant of humanity’s political, social, and economic well-being in the decades to come. The party seems more intent on creating a theocracy than addressing real problems. Can Nikki Haley change all that? If so, then perhaps she should become president. But she’s displayed neither the moxie nor the wisdom to accomplish these goals.

Finally, has Dave Yepsen, whom you quote, been living in a cave? Where does he think there are any “Bob Ray Republicans” alive and well in Iowa? As once (long ago) a proud member of that tribe, I believe that it’s now completely extinct, and it has been for a long time. If there are any surviving members of that tribe, I’d like to receive proof of political life. (The last office-holder who fit that bill was Jim Leach, the last Republican that I remember voting for. He was defeated by Loebsak in 2006, and Leach is now a registered Democrat who endorsed the Democratic candidates for the House and Senate in the last election).

And by the way, I agree that we should have a woman as president. A majority of American voters chose a woman in 2016, but to no avail (that damned Electoral College again). But we don’t need just any woman, we need a woman who will prove up to the task with sound principles and policies and political savvy. Young and photogenic isn’t enough.

So, go caucus for Haley, and then aside whatever prompts your reluctance about Biden and cast the smart vote—and let us know that you did so.

*No Regan had any role in the production of this essay or has endorsed its contents, although one watches out for me. But my scribble-scribble foolishness escapes her notice—too boring.