Imagine that there is a home engulfed in flames. Fire destroying precious possessions and memories, eradicating the collective treasure of an entire family. As they arrive on the scene, firefighters pile out of their trucks to take care of the blaze, and instead of relying on the people who have enormous expertise in fighting fires, they hand the hose to not only an arsonist but the arsonist who set this particular fire and who is in the process of enjoying his blaze.
This is what its like to hear the media suggesting to Vice President Kamala Harris that a Republican should serve in her cabinet, if she wins, and to hear Harris express openness to the notion.
I’m not really dinging Harris for this, per se. She’s running for president, and she didn’t make any sort of concrete commitment to appointing a Republican. It’s the kind of statement one makes if you’re in the middle of a campaign. But still, the entire premise annoys me.
Republicans have demonstrated zero interest in doing what is necessary to keep this country running. In fact, most of the major issues we face as a country are a direct result of conservative policies put in place by the Republican Party. Women don’t have a right to abortion. Children are subjected to gun violence. People aren’t being paid enough and don’t have nearly enough universal labor rights. Health care is still too inaccessible and expensive. The arsonists are the Republican Party.
Consider the last two Republican presidents, Donald Trump and George W. Bush. Trump botched the COVID-19 outbreak to the tune of thousands of American lives, used the presidency as a platform for bigotry, and destroyed international alliances – while supporting an armed insurrection against the U.S. government. George W. Bush lied us into a war in Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands including American soldiers, pushed to restrict abortion and LGBTQ rights, led us into the Great Recession, and allowed New Orleans to drown. And those are just a few of the lowlights.
To be seated at the table of power should not just require the spirit of bipartisanship. Those invited to sit should demonstrate some semblance of worthiness. Republicans are not worthy.
Even the so-called “good” Republicans have had a hand in the party’s work to undermine the American dream. When he was in Congress, Rep. Adam Kinzinger – who has loudly denounced Trump after January 6 – voted for Trump’s agenda that undermined America 90.2% of the time. His fellow Trump-denouncer, Liz Cheney, took time away from falsely accusing Democrats of engaging in post-birth abortion to vote 92.9% of the time with Trump.
Then there is the poster boy for supposed Republican opposition to Trump, Mitt Romney. Not only did Romney vote for the Supreme Court Justices who went in with a mandate to kill Roe v. Wade, but when he had the biggest platform in the party as nominee, Romney lied with abandon and advocated harmful draconian policies like deportation. This was the man who helped to launch the political career of Trump, while trying to capitalize on the racist birther conspiracy theory.
Democrats too often buy into the media notion that for something to be good and popular in this country, it has to receive buy-in from Republicans. In our supposedly “narrowly divided” world, the accepted premise is that Democrats have to always be reaching out because their base is not wide enough.
But if you actually examine where the American people are, they are far more with the Democrats than Republicans, even when Democrats hide from their own positions. People want a responsive government, not one that abandons them to the mercy of giant corporations and oligarchs. People want rules and regulations for things like gun ownership, not a wild west that leads to mass murder of innocent children and churchgoers. This is not a country where tax cuts for multi-billionaire loons and abortion bans are remotely popular. America is no socialist paradise, but neither is it a Heritage Foundation playground.
Of course, the pendulum doesn’t swing both ways in this narrative. Republicans are not regularly asked to include Democrats as part of their leadership teams. The press does not approach reporting on economic and social issue with the lens that the conservative Republican positions are largely way out of step with the public while the Democratic, center-left, positions are.
Is this purely an ideological litmus test? Is every single Republican just automatically bad to the bone? No. But this is a party that over the last thirty years has embraced the absolute worst. America is worse off for the implementation of conservative ideals and values. A party that nominates figures like Bush and now Trump (three straight elections!) has invalidated its right to a seat at the table.
Maybe Republicans should be required to do better before they get to sit at the seat of power with the big boys and girls. Republicans have disqualified themselves from a serious role in running the country. It should be on them, not Democrats, to do the work required to regain access to the inner circle of serious governance.
If you like this newsletter, please consider becoming a paying subscriber by clicking here to join. I won’t be putting any of my regular columns behind a paywall and they will always be free. Thanks to everyone who has subscribed so far!
— Oliver
Follow me, Oliver Willis, on Threads @owillis1977
Exclusive Kal-El Photo
When he’s relaxed, Kal also looks like he’s in deep thought contemplating the issues of our time.
One option that might benefit Harris without creating the possibility of policy harm would be appointing Liz Cheney to be ambassador to Russia. We know that she doesn't like the Russians, and as an ambassador, she'd be executing policy, not making it. Not saying Harris should do this, but if she feels like she needs to appoint a Republican to a prominent role, this one strikes me as doing the least harm.
Unrelatedly, in light of the uncertain prospect that Dems will hold the Senate, I think Biden could do Harris one more solid by conferring with Harris as to whom she would want as AG and then appointing that person immediately, while Dems still have a Senate majority with which to confirm that person. Doing this would, among other virtues, ensure that the prosecution of Donald Trump goes on and goes by the book, assuming Harris wins. (My personal choice would be Sally Yates, but the Dems have a number of strong candidates from whom to choose.)
The proper way to answer that fuking question is to ask the interviewer "Who was the last Republican candidate you asked if he would appoint a Democrat to his cabinet?"