Do These Republican Senators Think Their Grandchildren Will Be Proud of Them?

From Esquire

Does Rob Portman think his grandchildren will be proud of him? Will they tell their friends about grandpa, the United States Senator? Or will they avoid the topic, stay quiet, try to sweep a great family shame under the rug?

Because it's not just about the climate crisis anymore. Portman and his Senate Republican colleagues are now propping up a tyrant, a man who has declared before the world that he will destroy the American republic if it is necessary to keep his grip on power—and, perhaps, to avoid the criminal prosecution that may await once he loses the protections of the presidency. Donald Trump did not merely refuse to commit to a peaceful transition of power on Wednesday, a move which by definition introduces the prospect of violent response if he does not win. He said outright that the way for there to be peace was to throw out the absentee ballots he believes will be cast for his opponent—though he dresses it up in fabricated claims about fraud—so "there'll be a continuation" of power.

That's it. If I win, there will be peace. If I lose, there won't be. A threat of violence in response to democratic outcomes is a threat to use force to maintain power in express rejection of the will of the governed. He should be impeached on this statement alone. We have memory-holed it, but he also said he would only accept the results if he won—again, citing baseless claims the election would be rigged—in 2016. This is who he is, and always will be. He must be removed from any position of power.

Because this time around, he has the powers of the presidency to call on. He has spelled out his plan publicly, perhaps on the (very solid) premise that the American media is incapable of processing something as a "scandal" if it happens in public view. He will make it as hard as possible to vote. He is hoping he will be leading on Election Night. He will declare victory. He will say all ballots that are counted subsequently—as many mail ballots will be—are fraudulent, and demand they are thrown out. And he will enlist the courts, headed up, perhaps, by a Supreme Court featuring a 6-3 conservative majority and three justices he himself appointed, to give this all a fig leaf of legal justification.

And here's what Rob Portman had to say about all that.

Both Sides! Did Joe Biden threaten to reject the results if he loses after months of telling his supporters he will only lose if the election is rigged? No, but saying otherwise would involve directly confronting the president, which Portman would never do because he is a coward and one of many midwives to American autocracy.

Believe it or not, Portman's response was far from the most despicable. Thom Tillis had this to say to CNN's Manu Raju:

Look, the whole point here is that the orderly transition of power is at risk because the man holding the power has said he won't agree to it. Your entirely empty assurance that it will happen despite the most critical factor in it happening—the president himself—signaling it will not that useful!

Tillis's word is particularly useless because he lied in the same statement. Despite some truly horrible headlines and reporting on what Hillary Clinton said, if you watch the actual clip, she is talking about Joe Biden not conceding on Election Night because of the exact strategy that Trump has telegraphed he will pursue: declaring a narrow Electoral College victory and demanding any further absentee ballots be thrown out. Clinton is calling for Biden not to concede until all the votes are counted. Not that the details stopped other Republicans from taking the What About Hillary? line, which the White House or Mitch McConnell surely distributed in some grotesque memo.

As for McConnell himself, he issued a facially bland statement with one potentially crucial detail.

As the New York Times' Jamelle Bouie pointed out on Twitter, the emphasis on "November 3rd election" here seems unnecessary—unless, of course, you're interested in that being the last day votes are counted and the election is called. Maybe it's just a coincidence, or maybe it's a rhetorical counterweight to "January 20th inauguration." But it's worth bookmarking.

In terms of just completely abject shamelessness, Senator Kevin Cramer may have taken the cake when he gave CNN's Raju this:

Thanks, Senator! Guess there's nothing to worry about because reasons, and basement. Others offered similar tautologies about how the transition of power will be peaceful because there will be a peaceful transition of power. Even people like Mitt Romney, who issued a more forceful statement, have shown no appetite to actually do anything about this. In fact, Romney seems poised to advance the president's Supreme Court nominee. You know, the one he's said he needs to settle election disputes because he's worried John Roberts might actually do the right thing.

Of course, the Democrats in the Senate aren't covering themselves in glory. The party's aging congressional leadership seems to be permanently scarred by the Reagan era, and lacks the fortitude to commit to any deterrence strategy in response to the blatant Republican efforts to pack the courts and rig the election. Senator Dianne Feinstein, the 87-year-old(!) ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on Trump's Supreme Court nomination, has sounded her trepidation about shit-canning the legislative filibuster. This is basically a declaration that Joe Biden, should he overcome the sprawling effort to destroy 2020 as a free and fair election, will pass any laws ever. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the president isn't "worth the trouble at this point," suggesting this will all be solved by the election the president will say is illegitimate. This kind of attitude, shared widely in leadership, shows Democrats have yet to demonstrate they have the stomach for the fights to come, from the confirmation battle over the Supreme Court judge Trump hopes will rubber-stamp his power-grab to the election fights themselves.

The major organs of American media have also shown themselves unable to rise to this moment. The New York Times, the Paper of Record, found the sitting American president's declaration he will not peacefully leave office if he loses the election so important that they placed it on page A15. It did get a shoutout in fine print at the bottom of the front page, beneath a front-page story about how Trump's doing pretty good in a Wisconsin suburb. The case was similar pretty much everywhere, as the nation's foremost institutions of journalism basically shrugged at the notion the president has publicly declared his autocratic intent. It's enough to make you wonder what these people think will happen to them if the authoritarian leader's rule is cemented with a second term.

But mostly, you wonder what these Republican senators think will be said about them when they are gone. They may succeed in this plot to entrench minority rule through an authoritarian strongman for the time being, and maybe even for a generation. But someday, the music will stop, and Rob Portman will still be the almighty shmuck who Both-Sides-ed the rise of an American autocrat. It seems to be too much to expect Portman to grow a conscience about this, or demonstrate some courage tied to genuinely held beliefs about democracy and the right to self-determination of the American people. But could he at least consider the prospect that his descendants will look upon him with deep and abiding shame?

Maybe they're all hoping that the winners will write the history books, or at least that the capacity to suppress a great family shame is nearly limitless. After all, Mussolini's granddaughter seems to be a big fan of her nonno.

You Might Also Like

• HOW TO FIND THE PERFECT SUNGLASSES FOR YOUR FACE SHAPE

• If You Don’t Have a Denim Shirt Yet, What’s Stopping You?

• Why You'll Never Understand Mezcal Like You Understand Scotch