"We’re seeing a candidate ... absolutely melt down." But to what end?

The title quote came from outside the monkey cage, as it had to, for safety reasons. The visiting spectator was GOP strategist and former Trump administration official Matthew Bartlett, who also reflected, "This is what you would call a public nervous breakdown."  

The big ape in Bartlett's sight scarcely requires naming. Observations of a campaign's debilitating psychoneuroses and personal unhingements on display point to only one pol. "Donald Trump’s lack of discipline is letting" Democrats "remake Kamala Harris ... into the female Obama," said another GOP strategist — this one demanding anonymity because of above-cited safety reasons. 

A third Republican strategist, Barrett Marson, had also been reconnoitering the monkey cage in the presence of Politico reporters, concluding that "we are long past the time where we thought he could maybe rein in his worst angels, and he’s going to keep doing this and [nothing] will change him." Political primatologist Jane Goodall could have told the party of this back in 2015.

In fact, a lot of Goodalls in the Republican wild informed the party of precisely this back in 2015, and more heatedly by 2016. Internal opposition to Trump coalesced; these insiders envisioned the enormous damage he'd do in coming years, and they were frenetically clanging the safari camp's warning bells.

What happened to this perspicacious group, the ones having nervous breakdowns just after Riefenstahl caught Trump on camera descending on his gilded escalator? A few never relented — George Will, Max Boot, David Frum, Jennifer Rubin et al. — becoming inveterate Never Trumpers. But the clan thinned quickly. 

And today we can read the same cowardly excuses that we read 10 years ago for the thinning and selling out, for joining the one-man enemy. We can look, for example, to The Washington Post's ever-flexible columnist Marc Theissen, who in late July of this year wrote:

"For Never Trump or Trump reluctant conservatives the Harris nomination is a catastrophic development. At least Biden pretended to be a moderate. Now they have to choose between Trump and the most left wing Democratic presidential nominee in modern times — between Trump and a Democratic Socialist who is to the left of Bernie Sanders. Even the pretense of a benign alternative has been eliminated."

Simply change the names, and voila, you have an assessment from 2016 Republicans. The Hillary Clinton nomination is a catastrophic development. At least Bill Clinton pretended to be a moderate. Now we must choose between Trump and the most left wing Democratic presidential nominee in modern times. Even the pretense of a benign alternative has been eliminated.

When Bill was in office he too was a Democratic Socialist to the left of Bernie Sanders, according to Republicans. But they're obliged to politically rehabilitate the last, most radical left-wing Democrat in office so as to characterize the newcomer as the most radical left-wing Democrat to seek office.

For four years Republicans have shrieked that Joe Biden is a flaming socialist sitting contentedly with The Squad and other wombatty progressives hellbent on darkening The American Dream. The GOP's born-again liturgy: Joe Biden was but a purring moderate all along — oh, his days were the days of some Democratic sanity.  

Thiessen's "strategic" aim, as is that of all his commentariat ilk, is to rile up on ideological grounds those Republicans who now see Trump for what he is. These are the voters in need of more fearmongering, as The Atlantic's Charlie Sykes notes in a recent column. The party's Thiessens are those "who claim to be Trump skeptics," but at crunch time, every time, they "find ways to rationalize his behavior by attacking" his opponents as scary radicals.

Authentic Never Trumpers, however, understand that "the 2024 election is not primarily about the divide between the left and the right; it’s about preserving our liberal constitutional order," observes Sykes.

And this brings us back to the Republican trio introduced early in this post. Their critical remarks were accurate but only political: Trump is having "a public nervous breakdown"; his "lack of discipline is letting" Democrats define Harris at will; Republicans once "thought he could maybe rein in his worst angels" — but that ain't gonna happen, they now(?) understand.  

These were laments about the political contest in play, not ethical objections to Trump's vile existence and the obscenities he stands for. To wit ... around the time Mr. Thiessen was writing permission slips to vote for evil because Harris is more evil, Trump was explaining to the supremely self-righteous that, pretty soon, they needn't be bothered by the nuisance of enfranchisement.

"It’ll be fixed; it’ll be fine; you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians," he said at one of his blasphemous come-to-Jesus rallies. Said professor of global politics Brian Klass, "Trump’s remarks represent ... a notorious hallmark of autocracy." And in Trump's pursuit of that goal there has been no "lack of discipline." 

The second-quoted Republican strategist said more than he meant to say when he referenced his nominee's "worst angels." With that he dove into the Biblical, summoning refugees from Lincoln's angels of choice. (Important historical note: "Most people don’t even know [Abe] was a Republican," revealed Trump in 2017.) 

So how seriously are we to take these harsh Republican criticisms of their party's presidential nominee? The rebukes are interesting, but not inherently serious. They're interesting in the sense that they earned a major Politico story about the GOP "wincing" at Trump's public hysterics and meltdowns rather running than a focused campaign.  

The Politico story itself? Comical, because Politico says GOP "grumbling," still mostly in private, is part of a "long-standing practice" — but "the agitation within the party this time appeared to cut deeper than before." Emphasis mine — italicized as I chortled. Does anyone have even a remotely accurate count of the times we've read that this time the party has just about had it with Trump?

And again, top Republicans are not at all upset about his fascistic designs on the presidency. No no, they're only pissed because he's failing to whack Kamala but succeeding in making the usual fool of himself — which, by the way, millions of rubes adore.

Comments

[Uncle Billy]

Those are the rubes that the Lincoln Project referred to today as a bunch of "inbred catalytic-converter thieves."

[Anne J]

Apes are not monkeys and it is a grievous insult to compare both noble creatures to Trump and republicans. I don't really care about their grumbling if they still think Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are worse.

Going off topic for a bit, I saw Tim Walz speak yesterday and I loved him! I loved the way he spoke, and I loved that he finally said what I wished so many democrats would have said to culture warring republicans for years: "None of your damn business!" Plus, he looks like cute, cuddly teddy bear that I just wanna hug.

[ren]

"None of your damn business" is as good a rallying cry as any I've ever heard. I hope it becomes one.