William Brangham:
Even as another Cabinet member departs his administration, the president demonstrates once again his vice-like grip on Republican primary voters, while Democrats release a clumsy analysis of why they lost to Trump in the first place.
So, for more on the week in politics, we turn to Brooks and Capehart. That’s “The Atlantic”‘s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.
Gentlemen, so nice to see you.
Jonathan Capehart:
Hey, William.
William Brangham:
Jonathan, as I just mentioned, once again the president, faced with two Republican thorns in his side, Thomas Massie and Bill Cassidy, the president says, I want you primary voters to chuck these two guys out and put my loyalists in their stead. And they do.
They get rid of two popular local political leaders. What do you make of this ongoing ability that he has?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, I mean, on one hand, this is nothing new. If you pay attention to the polls, you know that, one, the president only cares about his standing among Republicans, particularly MAGA Republicans, and, two, Republicans by and large are still lockstep behind the president, although overall less than they were before.
But MAGA Republicans haven’t really moved. They have stayed with the president, and not just in getting rid of Cassidy in Louisiana, but also a few local legislators in Indiana who defied the president in his wishes for redistricting.
So if you are a sitting member of any legislature and you have gone sideways with the president and the president then says, I’m backing your opponent, you have to…
William Brangham:
Quaking in your boots.
Jonathan Capehart:
You have to fear. And that primary was Saturday night. And on my show, we were talking all about Louisiana. My thought immediately went to Texas, because if you were John Cornyn in that moment, you were quaking in your boots because you were waiting for the president to endorse you.
And what did he do on Tuesday? He didn’t endorse Senator Cornyn. He endorsed Ken Paxton, a farther right Republican, in the race for the Senate. And so…
(Crosstalk)
William Brangham:
… with a fair amount of political baggage too.
Jonathan Capehart:
So much baggage, he’s a Samsonite store.
(Laughter)
Jonathan Capehart:
And even Republicans will say that about him.
William Brangham:
What do you make of all this?
David Brooks:
Yes, Trump has done something previous presidents have not done, or at least not done effectively. He really cares about his party. A lot of presidents, it was all about themselves.
And so, whether you’re like it or not, ever since the first term, Trump has said, I want this to be a MAGA party. And he’s willing to take a short-term hit, apparently, in the midterms, lose a few seats if he can maintain this will be a MAGA party for the next generation, the next 30 years.
And that’s sort of an impressive calculation, but — because he really does care about the party and legacy. Where it’s going to hit him is short term, and I think the pain will be significant. You get rid of John Cornyn. John Cornyn was playing the game — sort of get rid of anyway.
Was playing the game that I’d say two or three dozen Republican senators are playing, which is, I don’t love this guy Trump, but I will play along enough…
William Brangham:
Weather the storm.
David Brooks:
… and you don’t kill me. That’s the assumed, the unstated deal they have all made. And Trump says, throw out the deal. Cornyn, you have been pretty loyal to me.
Jonathan Capehart:
Right.
David Brooks:
But you’re not 100 percent. I’m going with Ken Paxton.
So every other Republican senator, who’s in that case, of which there are a lot, are looking around saying, what happened to our deal?
And John Cornyn, by the way, is a pretty popular guy in the Senate. Remember, he came very close to winning the Senate majority leader. He’s got a lot of friends and supporters in the Republican Caucus, and he campaigned for a whole bunch of them.
And so a lot of Republicans are looking around and thinking, whoa, this deal has been broken. I got to do some thinking here.
William Brangham:
And according to my colleague Lisa Desjardins, the move against Cornyn, as well as this really unprecedented anti-weaponization fund that the president set up, almost $2 billion to potentially give out to people who claim they have been victims of political persecution, legal political persecution, that did seem to drive a GOP mini-revolt this week.
Jonathan, do you see a Republican resistance growing here?
Jonathan Capehart:
Sure. It might be a one-cell organism right now.
(Laughter)
William Brangham:
Tiny little amoeba.
Jonathan Capehart:
But real quickly, this deal that you’re talking about, Republicans have to understand — and Cornyn is the latest example — that deal is a one-way street. You can do all the things, and the president is not going to do anything for you.
When it comes to this weaponization fund, or as, I have heard it called, the thug fund, and the revolt against it, against the fund, against the ballroom, against doing anything on reconciliation to fund ICE, I mean, all of that happened after he endorsed, the president endorsed Ken Paxton, because Senator Cornyn is so popular among Republicans and they were extremely angry with the president and what he did.
And this is the way they are showing their frustration, showing their anger. But sometimes I kind of wonder if they’re going to be like — what was that general, the Russian general who got in the tanks in 2023 and rolled to Moscow, but didn’t quite get there against Putin?
William Brangham:
Oh, yes.
(Crosstalk)
David Brooks:
… his name.
Jonathan Capehart:
Prigozhin, General Prigozhin.
I wonder if this revolt that we’re seeing is going to be the GOP equivalent of that. They’re showing some backbone right now, but when they come back from their recess, will they still be in revolt mode?
William Brangham:
You mentioned that this is — some people call this weaponization fund a thug fund. My colleague Liz Landers talked to Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys, a white supremacist, organizer, a lead organizer of January 6, and he was thrilled by the idea of this fund.
He thinks he’s owed tens of millions of dollars for what he has been through. Do you think, David, if in fact, money starts to flow to people who there is very good evidence assaulted officers or were deeply involved in January 6, that this will further that revolt?
David Brooks:
Possibly.
And it wasn’t just the fund. Derek Thompson, an independent journalist, mentioned, what happened this week? Trump got out of $100 million IRS fund. He had the immunity from future tax investigations, this $1.8 billion slush fund, insider trading about $1 billion.
This was like the Coachella of political corruption all in one week. And you take a look at that, and you’re like, I don’t care who you are. If you have got a shred of integrity, you’re like, what is going on here?
Walter Olson, who is a prominent legal analyst, said it was the biggest act of political corruption of his lifetime.
William Brangham:
Yes.
David Brooks:
And so it’s just mind-boggling. I try not to be like Trump is atrocious here every week. I try to — like, I don’t want to be part of the same old monoculture.
William Brangham:
We appreciate that.
David Brooks:
But Trump is not helping.
William Brangham:
No, this was…
David Brooks:
This was an astounding week of atrocious behavior.
William Brangham:
And seemingly, from the Republican Party, not really the commensurate response.
David Brooks:
Right. And, there, I’m probably four notches thinking they’re more offended than Jonathan is, that there might be some action.
A lot of things are happening. He’s losing a war. His approval is down into the 30s. I have always thought, when it gets down to 35, 33, things begin to look very different. They know the midterms are probably going to be pretty bad. So there’s just — if it’s not now, never.
William Brangham:
Right.
David Brooks:
That would be my line.
William Brangham:
Right.
We also saw this week this very ham-handed release of the DNC’s autopsy. This is basically an unfinished document that — I mean, if a high school or college student had submitted this thing, you would give them an F if you were feeling generous. What does this tell you about the Democratic Party?
Jonathan Capehart:
Well, what this tells you is why the Democratic chairman didn’t want to release it.
And a source said to me early on before the release — why aren’t you releasing it? Does it have damning — does it doesn’t have damning information? Does it call on the carpet sacred cows within the party? And the person said, no, it’s just — it’s so poorly done that it would be horrendous to release it.
Now that it’s out — and your description of it is terrific. I just called it a trash can of warmed-over conclusions with none of the introspection of, say, the autopsy of 2012…
William Brangham:
Right.
Jonathan Capehart:
… when Mitt Romney lost to President Obama.
I think right now what Democrats need to do is stop with the fighting with each other, looking at this at this terrible — whatever this is, this autopsy, such as it is, focus on the here and now. And what the leadership of the Democratic Party should be doing is figuring out how to channel the anger, the palpable anger among Democrats into what their priorities are going to be if they take back the House and maybe even if they take back the Senate, and then how they’re going to drive that to ’28.
But right now they’re not there yet.
William Brangham:
Yes.
I mean, the last minute we have, David, one of the things in that autopsy was Democrats have to stop being so anti-Trump and come up with a positive message as to why you would vote Democratic. Do you think they’re going to do this?
David Brooks:
No.
They have got to ask some questions. The first is, why are center-left parties in seemingly terminal decline all around the world, in Germany, in France, in Scandinavia, in Central Europe. Center-left parties are just going boom, boom, boom. Why?
William Brangham:
The U.K.
David Brooks:
What’s the problem? The fastest growing states in this country are Republican states. Most of the fastest shrinking states are Democratic states. Why is that? What’s the problem here? What’s wrong with blue governments?
That’s going to mean there’s going to be more House seats in red states after 2030 than there are now. Why are Democratic approval ratings or favorability ratings lower than Republican favorability ratings? These are structural issues. It’s not just about messaging. The abundance agenda is fine. Affordability, good issue.
But the center-left parties all around the world are facing deep structural issues related to the economic structure of the information age. And if they’re not thinking in those terms, they’re missing the big picture.
William Brangham:
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both so much.
Jonathan Capehart:
Thanks, William.
David Brooks:
Thank you.
