Item one: Do we love Liz Cheney? Of course not. But that’s hardly the point. The point is, can she move votes? |
If you know anything about the founding and history of the Republican Party, the symbolism of Thursday’s event where Liz Cheney appeared with Kamala Harris had to get your attention. This party that has descended into antidemocratic neofascism was founded in 1854 as a progressive beacon. The Whig Party was dissolving and split into anti- and pro-slavery factions. The Free Soil Party was well intentioned but small. But when the antislavery Whigs and the Free Soilers got together, then they had some numbers and some power. Within six years, they elected not just a president but the most courageous and consequential president in American history (yes, FDR is a close second in my book). It all started in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, which sits less than a mile away from where Cheney appeared with Harris. Is Cheney a "Lincoln Republican"? In one sense, she’s not even close. Lincoln was a liberal. In addition to ending slavery, he made public universities possible and created the national railroad system. He levied the country’s first income tax, to pay for the Civil War. He was way too big-government for Liz. But in another sense, yes, she is, because at least she believes in the union, the republic, and the Constitution. By the benighted current standards of her party, that earns her a gold star. Do liberals love Liz Cheney? Of course not. Nor should we. She’s a super-hawkish neocon. She defended torture. There’s a reason she was ascending the ladder of GOP House leadership in the 2010s. Yes, she had a pedigree, but also, she was totally fine with everything the GOP stood for. But then Trump happened, and she stood up to say no. That did take some guts, in that authoritarian party. It unambiguously cost her her career, as she surely knew it would. And now she’s talking about the "depraved cruelty" of Donald Trump and endorsing a Democrat. And it’s not as if Harris promised her anything—that she’d bomb Iran or whatever. Cheney did this because Harris "will be a president who will defend the rule of law." Will it matter? I think so, and so does Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party and one of the best state party chairs in the country. On MSNBC Thursday night, Wikler identified two groups of voters who might be influenced by this endorsement. |
|
|
In partnership with: MSI United States |
Revisit this conversation between investigative journalist Nina Burleigh and a panel of experts about the threats posed to women’s reproductive rights by Trump’s covert plan to adopt Project 2025 as his policy road map if he’s elected to a second term. |
|
|
The first group is low-information uncommitted voters. Wikler used a great analogy to describe these people. "These are people," he told Jen Psaki, "who think about politics the way you and I think about the javelin at the Olympics, which is something that we’re vaguely aware happens every four years, but it’s not something we’re seeking out." Yes, there are such people. For these voters, Wikler said, "just hearing that Democrats and Republicans are all agreeing that Kamala Harris is the person" might matter. His second group was more interesting. It consists of "highly engaged" Republicans whose first loyalty is not to Trump but to "the flag and the Constitution." Cheney’s move shows these people that "you can be yourself with your conservative commitments" and vote for a Democrat. How many such people are there? A lot. Let’s start with the fact that Nikki Haley got nearly 4.4 million votes in the primaries. That was 20 percent of the total number of votes cast. Now let’s extrapolate that out to a November electorate. In 2020, around 155 million people voted. According to CNN exit polls, 36 percent were Republican, or around 56 million. And 20 percent of 56 million—that is, the extrapolated Haley vote—makes for a potential pool of anti-Trump Republicans of around 11 million. Now, most of them may not bother to vote, or will write in Ronald Reagan or whomever. But surely Cheney’s backing will help convince some of them that voting for Harris is all right. And if you throw in Republican-leaning independents, that pool grows by maybe another 20 million. If Harris can harvest votes from these people while promising nothing more than that she isn’t Donald Trump and will defend the Constitution, why shouldn’t she? I’m for as many Republican endorsements of Harris as possible. Aside from signaling a green light to Republican voters, it’ll drive Trump up a wall. The list of Harris’s GOP endorsers is growing. Former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake joined the band earlier this week. Flake is respected by independent voters in his state. If he campaigns with Harris, he too could move votes. Meanwhile, the big questions in this arena: What’s up with Mitt Romney and George W. Bush? There are others, like former Trump chief of staff John Kelly. But Romney and Bush are the big fish. What in the world does either man have to lose? Romney is retiring. Bush paints and golfs. Both are richer than Croesus. I assume both want desperately to save their party from Trumpism. Isn’t the obvious best way to do that by encouraging their fellow Republicans to vote for Harris so they can end the scourge of Trumpism and get back to being a normal, warmongering, poor-people-penalizing, planet-scorching party again? But seriously. If they were to back Harris, and Harris wins semi-convincingly with something like 15 percent of the Republican vote (around half that is normal), Trump will be finished. Not Trumpism. That will take a lot longer. People like Romney and Bush should consider their place in history. In these next few years, the Republican Party will either corrupt itself beyond repair and crumble into out-and-out fascism, becoming the vehicle that ended the human race’s longest-lasting democratic experiment; or it will finally cast that off and begin to resurrect itself. Do they want to be among those who sat by and let the former happen, or among those who helped the latter take place? There’s a little schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, they might visit for inspiration. |
|
|
TNR Travel: Final days to join us in Cuba |
Join a special group of readers and supporters on a lovingly designed, all-inclusive tour of one of the most amazing places in the world. Drawing on The New Republic’s special contacts among local historians, artists, and chefs, we’ve created a first-class experience that will immerse you in Cuba’s colorful and unique history, politics, and culture. |
|
|
Item two: I want to see Tim Walz laughing again |
OK, we all know by now that Tim Walz was right about Tim Walz’s debating ability. He wasn’t very good. But it turned out to be a draw, according to the polls, so while an opportunity to regain some momentum for his ticket was missed, a bullet was also dodged. I’d make two further points about the debate. First, you may have noticed that the postdebate polls all showed Walz winning among independents. Why? Theory: The main thing liberals didn’t like about Walz’s performance, that he wasn’t calling out JD Vance’s lies and throwing punches and was being too Minnesota nice, was probably precisely the thing that independents liked about his performance. Second, for all the missed opportunities, he did create the debate’s one lasting moment at the end, when he asked Vance directly, "Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?" and Vance replied, "Tim, I’m focused on the future." That trumped everything else. In 2044, if we still have a country and news shows are previewing that year’s veep debate, they’ll show Lloyd Bentsen telling Dan Quayle, "You’re no Jack Kennedy" and James Stockdale asking, "Who am I, why am I here?"—and Vance ducking that question. Its place in history is guaranteed. For all that, now that it’s in the rearview mirror, my main point about Walz is this: I want to see him laughing again. I want to see him smile and be jocund and impish. That’s the Walz that blue and much of purple America took a shine to, and that’s the Walz voters need to see more of. There are two Walzes, Football Coach Tim and Happy Neighbor Tim. For his convention speech, he went more coach-y. I like the Tim Walz of these videos with his daughter, Hope: |
I feel certain that America agrees with me. It’s also his greatest contrast to the surly Vance, who returned to his usual snarling attack mode the day after the debate. I know they say vice presidential nominees don’t matter, but the contrast between Happy Tim and Nasty JD is striking enough to seep into some swing voters’ psyches. |
|
|
In partnership with: Americans United for Separation of Church and State |
Revisit this conversation between top legal and policy minds from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and investigative journalist Nina Burleigh about the far-reaching implications of Project 2025—the political blueprint outlined by ultraconservatives for the Trump administration. |
|
|
Last week’s quiz: "You say it’s your birthday …" A slightly different format this week: questions about six famous people born on September 27. |
1. This American Founding Father (b. 1722) was an unsuccessful businessman, including his stint as a purveyor of malt, before entering politics full-time. |
A. John Adams B. Thomas Yuengling C. Josiah Bartlett D. Samuel Adams |
Answer: D, Sam Adams. I mean, I dropped a pretty major hint in the question, right? |
2. Hiram Revels (b. 1827) attained renown as what? |
A. The first African American member of Congress, from Mississippi B. The inventor of the bicycle C. The editor and publisher of Revels’ Ordinary Almanack, in which James Fenimore Cooper’s stories were serialized D. The supervisor of the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge |
Answer: A, first Black congressman. And senator, for that matter. Shouldn’t there be a biopic of this man? |
3. Actress Jayne Meadows (b. 1919) was married to what mid–twentieth century television host? |
A. Jack Paar B. Art Linkletter C. Steve Allen D. Joey Bishop |
Answer: C, Steve Allen. I feel for you if you didn’t know that basic fact of twentieth-century pop culture. |
4. This 1970s rock guitarist (b. 1943) now takes care of business by hosting a show on SiriusXM’s Beatles channel with his son Tal. |
A. Randy Bachman B. Dave Mason C. Danny Kortchmar D. Chris Spedding |
Answer: A, Bachman. Again, I dropped an easy, Jeopardy!-style hint in the question, referencing Bachman-Turner Overdrive’s greatest song. Also: I trust you’ve heard his brilliant exegesis of the opening chord of "A Hard Day’s Night." It’s a beautiful thing. Some people debate whether the acoustic (Lennon) was playing that Dsus4, as Randy says, but I am in wholehearted agreement. |
5. This ex-NBA star (b. 1965), on a very high-profile stage, recently invoked November 5 in saying: "That night, we can—in the words of the great Steph Curry—we can tell Donald Trump, ‘Night, night.’" |
A. David Robinson B. John Stockton C. Tim Hardaway D. Steve Kerr |
Answer: D, Steve Kerr. If you got only one of these, I sure hope it was this one. |
6. This actress (b. 2002) had a starring role in the recent entry in the Scream franchise; she’s played Wednesday Addams and opposite the Foo Fighters in a film; right now, you can see her in Tim Burton’s worldwide smash Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. |
A. Zendaya B. Jenna Ortega C. Sabrina Carpenter D. Millie Bobby Brown |
Answer: B, Ortega. To be honest, I’d never heard of her, but I did know who the other three were. |
|
|
For this Inside Story, two progressive Keystone State activists, J.J. Abbott and Kadida Kenner, tell editor Michael Tomasky what’s happening on the ground in the crucial battleground state. |
|
|
This week’s quiz: "Want fries with that?" A brief history of American fast food. |
1. What was the first fast-food chain in America, opening its maiden branch in Wichita in 1921? |
A. Burger Chef B. Beefsteak Charlie’s C. White Castle D. In-N-Out |
2. Which fast-food chain used the word "scrumpdillyicious" in its advertising? |
A. Howard Johnson’s B. Baskin-Robbins C. Dairy Queen D. Tastee Freez |
3. Which was introduced first—McDonald’s Big Mac, or Burger King’s Whopper? |
4. According to EatThis.com, which of the following is the fattiest fast-food sandwich in America, clocking in at an impressive 4,075 calories and 128 grams of fat? |
A. Large Pepperoni Pizza Meatball Sub, Firehouse Subs B. Pretzel Bacon Pub Triple, Wendy’s C. Big Kahuna Cheese Steak, Jersey Mike’s D. Triple Baconzilla!, Checkers |
5. Match the celebrity or accomplished person to the fast-food chain where he or she worked. |
Barack Obama Madonna Brad Pitt Russell Simmons |
|
El Pollo Loco Baskin-Robbins Orange Julius Dunkin’ Donuts |
|
|
6. McDonald’s has the greatest number of franchises across the globe, around 38,000. Which chain is second? |
A. KFC B. Subway C. Pizza Hut D. Dunkin’ Donuts |
I grew up stuffing myself with this garbage, but I almost never eat it these days. And it’s not even a matter of self-discipline—it mostly just doesn’t taste good to me anymore. The one fast-food place I’ll still go, if I trip across one? Long John Silver’s. Fried fish is one of nature’s miracles. There are only 540 of them now, concentrated (happily, from my perspective) in the east-central United States—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, including dear old Morgantown. And now that I’m looking, I see that there’s one in PG County, not far from me. I hear it calling. Answers next week. Feedback to fightingwords@tnr.com. —Michael Tomasky, editor |
|
|
Timeless voices, unmatched insight: exploring the works of great writers past and present |
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here. Our mailing address is: The New Republic, 1 Union Sq W , Fl 6 , NY , New York, NY 10003-3303, United States Do you want to stop receiving all emails from Fighting Words? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them. |
|
|
|
|
