Rider of the Storm: The End of The Second Impeachment of Donald Trump

Dennis Sanders

Dennis is the pastor of a small Protestant congregation outside St. Paul, MN and also a part-time communications consultant. A native of Michigan, you can check out his writings over on Medium and subscribe to his Substack newsletter on religion and politics called Polite Company.  Dennis lives in Minneapolis with his husband Daniel.

Related Post Roulette

37 Responses

  1. InMD says:

    This was a good post Dennis. Hamilton’s point certainly resonates about the fragility of what we have. The rump of the GOP is playing a very cynical and nihilistic game here. It’s all based on a false sense of invincibility, that no matter the defection, no matter the embrace of post-truth, that there will not be real world consequences. This is the kind of thing that a fat, complacent society allows and I’m not sure how it gets fixed. How do we learn to trust each other, and make the principled case for what we have rather than a cynical one? I wish I knew.Report

    • North in reply to InMD says:

      I think the way to fix it is to govern; not try and rise above partisan politics a la Obama or wallow in incompetence both genial (Bush II) and malevolent (Trump) but simply govern. Biden has, barely, a trifecta majority in government. If he uses that to the fullest extent and passes things that are popular with the voters without embarking on too many “out there” left wing adventures and operates the White House in a professional and typical manner he may well pull this out. If the economy rebounds, the tone remains muted and he keeps out of any foreign policy entanglements then in 2022 he could see a satisfied electorate endorse him with further victories and an enlarged majority.
      If the GOP loses 3-4 2 year cycles in a row then finally the fever could break as they begin to try and change course to sniff out victory.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        Agreed. The best thing the Biden admin could do for the country would be to quietly show that the federal state can function as a force that is a net positive for the average citizen. Right now too many believe it to be a deliverer of spoils, and justifiably so. It won’t be easy but if it can be done it will be both good for the country and a boon for the Democratic party.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

          On a policy level? Sure I agree. The problem (seems to me) is that politics is more than policy. As the old saying goes, it’s about winning hearts and minds. And my suspicion is that policy alone won’t get it done. Dems need to figure out right quick how to package their politics into something with a broader appeal or they’ll lose in ’22 despite doing good policy. I don’t have much hope they can do this.

          On another level though, conservatives across the country are trying to pass a whole slew of new voter restriction laws that will make it harder for Democrats to win state-wide and national seats. That makes the “just do good policy and win elections” hurdle even higher to clear.Report

          • North in reply to Stillwater says:

            Part of the policy part, clearly, is fighting back on voting rights. That is, after all, something that exists in the policy realm.

            Messaging certainly is important, but if they fish up the policy then it makes messaging a hundred times harder to manage. The Democratic coalition is a lot broader and more disparate than the GOP’s and the Dems don’t have a dedicated propaganda apparatus masquerading as a major news channel (or is it that Fox has a political arm masquerading as a major national political party?) so they can’t just try and message their way out of this.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to North says:

              The Democratic coalition is a lot broader and more disparate than the GOP’s and the Dems don’t have a dedicated propaganda apparatus masquerading as a major news channel

              I agree on both points. But to me it means Dems have to be much MUCH better at messaging than they are right now to keep pace, let alone make inroads.Report

              • North in reply to Stillwater says:

                I don’t know if competition is possible strictly on the messaging level. The GOP is always going to be able to ‘message’ more motivationally to the right than the Dems will be able to ‘message’ to the left. They just can say anything and it flies. Hell, the Dems have basically two major bases with significant voter share and ideological heft who can barely stand each other. How are the Dems supposed to win a message game like that?
                I still think their emphasis has to be on policy. They need to do what they can on messaging but policy is where they can bank in the actual wins that could help move voters.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

      IMHO, we have a bad habit FYIGM across the political divides. I’m not sure if that is a symptom, or the actual disease.Report

  2. Kazzy says:

    My read on Mitch:

    Voting to convict meant other GOPers follow suit, Trump is convicted, and Dems get a massive win. You think he’s going to hand Dems a win?

    But he also wants Trump gone and forgotten and erased from GOP memory. He may not get that but his speech was an attempt to move that way.

    Trump was always his useful idiot but I think he wrongly believed he had control of all the strings. If Trump was still in office I think he may have acted differently realizing the dog was off the leash but for at least a few years, he can try to ignore Trump, take back control of the party, and return to his fave past time: obstructing Dems.

    This looks bad to the politically attentive. But to GOPers of all stripes, there is egg on Dems’ face and that’s a big win. Moderate GOPers will applaud Mitch’s courage to “say the right thing” (ignoring he refused to do the right thing). Trumpers will gnash their teeth at his speech but they were likely opposed to Mitch no matter what. Now we see if he can reclaim the Trump wing.Report

    • KenB in reply to Kazzy says:

      Who knows what the truth is, but for what it’s worth, I saw an insider-ish perspective that was almost the total reverse of this — he thinks the politics of acquittal are horrible and would have loved to convict, but he didn’t have enough support among the GOP senators, and his voting for conviction would have made it difficult or impossible to continue as minority leader.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to KenB says:

        Totally possible. I’m offering merely quasi-informed speculation. The take you offer definitely casts Mitch in a better and smarter light. I’m not sure I’m inclined to think better of him, but I’ve learned to never question his political smarts and acumen.

        Time will tell.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to KenB says:

        I’m inclined to believe this too. Mitch wants to retain his role as Leader, but he also wants to regain control of the Senate in ’22. After Liz Cheney and others got dunked on by their own state parties for voting against Trump the writing was pretty clearly on the wall. In one recent poll, 76% of Republican voters think the election was stolen. That’s the base McConnell can’t cross.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to Stillwater says:

          Seventy… six…???Report

            • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

              Try again, saying what you actually mean this time.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                It comes down to what you mean by “stolen”.

                If you think that “stolen” can be interpreted broadly enough to entail “underhanded gamesmanship in the middle of the year”, then “stolen” hinges on your willingness to say “hey, politics ain’t beanbag!”

                If it means something narrow enough to only count stuff like “did the Russians hack the voting machines?”, then saying “it was stolen!” is something obviously only crazy people would say.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, I think it’s fair to say any reasonable definition of stolen includes illegality of some type.

                Was anything described in that article illegal?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Given that I recall the arguments over whether Trump “stole” the election in 2016, I disagree with your assertion on its face.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                “the young people are really, this is an incredible phenomenon, but they are attacked, successfully attacked to a much lesser extent by this pandemic, by this disease. This whatever they want to call it. You call it a germ, you can call it a flu, you can call it a virus. You know, you can call it many different names. I’m not sure anybody even knows what it is”Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Not sure that works the way you want it to.

                Some percentage of people thought the 2016 election was stolen. These people were wrong.

                76% of Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen. These people are wrong.

                What was the percentage of Dems who were wrong back in 2016?

                People being wrong back then doesn’t suddenly make wrong people today right.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Some percentage of people thought the 2016 election was stolen. These people were wrong.

                I’m not saying that these people were right.

                I’m saying that these people were loud… and, very likely, using a loosey-goosey definition of “stolen”.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                2016: Look, we know that the Russians hacked into state election systems so there’s a prima facie reason to be skeptical about the election results.

                2020: Look, we know that Dominion’s voting machines were created by Hugo Chavez and the company is owned by socialists aligned with the anti-Trump Deep State globalists, so it’s obvious that the election was stolen.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                So, just to be clear, you are 100% BSDI-ing this.

                I expressed dismay at the idea that 76% of Republicans think the 2020 election was stolen. And your response has boiled down to, “Yea, but some Democrats thought the 2016 election was stolen.”

                Well done.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Why is “you’re saying both sides do it!” considered a decent counter-argument to my pointing out that counter-defection is a reasonable play in an iterated game?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, you didn’t “point out that counter defection is a reasonable play in an iterated game.”

                First, you linked to an article that I assume was meant to show that it’s reasonable to consider the 2020 election was stolen because it kinda sorts was.

                When called on that, you insisted it really was kinda sorta stolen because some Dems said 2016 was stolen using a screwy definition of stolen.

                I don’t think this is an iterated game. And I think it’s very bad that so many Republicans are wrong about the 2020 election. And I think it’s worse that so many are wrong now than it was when far fewer Dems were wrong then. And they WERE wrong.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                Well, I think that we had better do a better job of policing when sloppy definitions are allowed and when keeping only the most precise definitions would be acceptable.

                Because, lemme tell ya, this game is iterated.

                And if both sides start doing something, pointing out that both sides are doing it won’t be an argument overcome by yelling “BSDI”.

                (Hey, have you ever googled “BSDI”? How many pages until you get something that doesn’t have to do with software/computing? Do you think that that might be an indicator as to how good of a counterargument “BSDI” is?)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird says:

                How good of a counter argument is actually BSDI-ing?

                Again, I expressed dismay at 76% of Republicans thinking the 2020 election was stolen.

                Your ultimate response was “BUT SOME DEMOCRATS THINK THE 2016 ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!!”

                Which doesn’t make me any less dismayed. So how is that working for you?

                If you want to discuss the definition of “stolen” used by Dems in 2016 as regarded that year’s election, maybe find those Dems and hash it out with them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy says:

                How’s this, then?

                I share your dismay at 76% of Republicans thinking it was stolen. A “hey, maybe it’s not as bad as we might think” interpretation of that number is that they’re using the term “stolen” exceptionally broadly.

                Like, broadly enough to encompass the article that I linked to (but they thought that the actions being talked about by the article were bad, actually, instead of obviously being good).

                Now please understand that I’m not trying to hash out the definition with those Dems.

                You and I both know that anybody who said anything adjacent to that were bad actors who shouldn’t be taken seriously.

                Again. My point is not that they were *RIGHT*. It’s that they were *LOUD* and imprecise.

                If I’m trying to get you to think anything, I’m trying to get you to think “huh… this ain’t coming out of nowhere…”Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

                in 2016 Democrats concluded the election was “stolen” because 1) there was massive evidence of Russian interference, misinformation, and bad faith acting in support of Mr. Trump and 2) The electoral college result and the popular vote result were mismatched.

                in 2020, MAGA Nation concluded that the Election was stolen because Donald Trump and his accomplices spent months saying it was so in a fact free environment.

                One of these things is not like the other.Report

              • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

                “One of these things is not like the other.”

                I’m sure you can point to all those federal prosecutions for all that massive interference and misinformation by those pesky Ruskies, yes?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Damon says:

                @Damon – why yes I can.

                https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breakdown-indictments-cases-muellers-probe/story?id=61219489

                Now, on the way out, Mr. Trump pardoned a good number of these folks for their roles, but accepting that pardon requires (I believe) actually admitting to guilty actions. So somewhere there’s a memo with all that juicy information that we will no doubt see in 20 years when its declassified.

                @ Oscar – in case you haven’t noticed, American politics is ALL hyperbolics.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

                Yes, I have, which, really, REALLY, wants to make me disengage with it.Report

              • Damon in reply to Philip H says:

                Incitements do not equal prosecutions, which, unless I missed something in my skim, hasn’t happened yet, so….

                I will concede that it’s unlikely that the US will find/capture/extract these folks since they are on foreign soil–just like the Russians wont’ when do that to the guy’s the US employs to play the same game over there.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

                See how you put the word “stolen” in quotes up there? Because you recognize that Russian interference that influences legally cast ballots/voting is not actually stealing an election in the same way that official misconduct by election officials, or ballot stuffing, would be stealing an election.

                Thus, Democrats played fast and loose with the definition of “stolen”, which was then iterated by the MAGA crowd into a subsequent fast and loose usage of the idea.

                It’s a warning to avoid engaging in hyperbolics, especially if you firmly believe the opposition is prone to even more extreme hyperbolics, because they absolutely will take your ball and run with it.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Kazzy says:

      MItch ALWAYS plays the long game. He knows that retaking the House in2 years requires Trump’s base, he knows that retaking the Senate in two years requires Trump’s base. He knows the “push” by major donors to dump Trump is theatrics performed for the masses. He knows that he can’t achieve his political objectives if democrats “win” and impeachment. He also knows that an indictment of Mr. Trump – which he all but begged the DoJ for – would be apolitical gift that would keep giving for years.

      He’s playing a long game.

      And Democrats STILL don’t get that.Report

  3. JoeSal says:

    The left created the social construct of the one ring to rule them all. The Dems will never be afraid of the ring, they will be afraid of who wears it. Moreso of who will destroy it. The storm and whirlwind are the result.Report