ReportWire

Tag: political debate

  • Research Shows That Political Talk Is Tanking Workplace Harmony. Here’s How Leaders Can Fix It

    [ad_1]

    In a world where political disagreements have ripped friendships, and even families asunder, it isn’t surprising similarly acrimonious debate also arises in the workplace. In fact, those verbal dustups between coworkers have apparently broken out enough that a majority of employees now say they don’t want to hear any discussion of politics while on job.

    That was the main finding in the recently published “Navigating Politics in the Workplace” report by job posting site Monster. Its survey of 900 U.S. employees found 60 percent of respondents saying discussions about politics at work should be completely avoided. Another 68 percent said those exchanges left them feeling uncomfortable, despite 67 percent acknowledging they’d previously shared their political beliefs with coworkers. Yet 59 percent of participants said they thought having those exchanges while on the job risk negatively affecting their careers.

    What’s more, 14 percent of respondents said they dreaded workplace discussion about politics so much they’d rather get a tooth drilled than join them. What’s next — ducking out of an office discussion about religion to have an appendix removed, without anesthesia?

    In addition to the anger and accusations political exchanges can generate, there are other reasons why avoiding them at work may be wise. While 64 percent of respondents said they generally respect their coworkers’ political opinions, a third admitted they’ve formed negative views about colleagues after hearing them at the office.

    That can’t be good — and those reactions aren’t always reserved for workplace peers, either. Just over half of survey participants said they’d consider quitting their job if their employer staked out political positions they disagreed with.

    Inc.com columnist Alison Green has tracked the issue for years. She suggests people set conversational boundaries when political talk makes them uncomfortable, and taking the issue to management if it persists. It’s bad for company culture, whether it happens on the shop floor or the boardroom.

    But whether those political differences are with bosses or coworkers, the bad feelings that often arise from them frequently undermine staff harmony and stability.

    “These findings align with research from the Pew Research Center, which emphasizes that workplace culture significantly influences employee satisfaction and retention,” analysis of the Monster survey said. “Political discussions in the workplace can be sensitive and require careful handling to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment.”

    But workplace managers should also be aware and respectful of what the survey said was the desire of most survey participants to keep political talk entirely out of the workplace. But in addition to that not always being the case, 67 percent of respondents said they’d actually been pressured to join discussions about politics on the job.

    Of those that had, 40 percent of respondents said they’d felt that coercion during informal conversations with coworkers, 15 percent said it had occurred during meetings, and 11 percent reported it’d happened in discussion or reviews managers or supervisors. Sometimes the pressure came from outside the company, with 11 percent of survey participants saying they’d been dragged into political discussions with clients or vendors.

    The widespread aversion to talking politics in the workplace comes at a particularly confusing and fraught time for companies and their employees. Both rules and attitudes are shifting rapidly in the public and private sectors alike.

    For example, the Trump administration in July released guidelines ending longstanding federal practices intended to separate workplace affairs of church and state. Under those changes, public employees are now allowed to pray, display religious symbols, and even actively proselytize while at work, in sharp contrast to previous rules.

    In the opposite direction, numerous private sector companies recently moved to punish or fire workers who’d posted celebratory message in response to the September murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on their personal social media accounts. That sparked debate about undermining freedom of speech — and taught some workers a painful lesson about the First Amendment not absolutely protecting speech in the workplace.

    Those very high-profile developments over freedom of expression on the job may result in stronger efforts by people who’d rather avoid trouble or conflict by keeping politics out of the office altogether.

    Political and religious talk is not permitted in the workplace,” said RustyBrassInstrument in a post on social media platform Reddit about limiting political discussion at work — apparently expressing a personal preference rather than legal fact. “You can be political or religious on your own time.”

    Not surprisingly, not everyone agrees.

    “Hot take, making people uncomfortable is usually the only way to make change,” redditor lovable_cube said in response to a thread titled, “Keep your politics at home” about a coworker spouting unwanted political opinions. “We have something very broken right now, we need change.”

    Monster drew other conclusions from the results of its survey. It suggested employers can find a productive balance between the extremes of banning talk about politics in the workplace, and letting debate flow unchecked in ways that risk sparking employee anger or higher quit rates.

    “Organizations that force or encourage political alignment risk alienating employees and fostering judgment rather than collaboration,” it said. “Creating a culture where employees feel comfortable, but not pressured, to share personal beliefs is crucial. Encouraging open communication about work-related issues, while maintaining neutrality on political topics, can help maintain a respectful and productive workplace.”

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • Conservative activist Charlie Kirk assassinated at Utah university; shooter still at large

    [ad_1]

    Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and close ally of President Donald Trump who played an influential role in rallying young Republican voters, was shot and killed at a Utah college event in what the governor called a political assassination.Authorities say Kirk was killed with a single shot from a rooftop on Wednesday. Whoever fired the gun then slipped away amid the chaos of screams and students fleeing the Utah Valley University campus. Federal, state and local authorities were still searching for an unidentified shooter early Thursday and working what they called “multiple active crime scenes.”“This is a dark day for our state. It’s a tragic day for our nation,” said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. “I want to be very clear this is a political assassination.”Two people were detained Wednesday but neither was determined to be connected to the shooting and both were released, Utah public safety officials said.Authorities did not immediately identify a motive, but the circumstances of the shooting drew renewed attention to an escalating threat of political violence in the United States that in the last several years has cut across the ideological spectrum. The assassination drew bipartisan condemnation, but a national reckoning over ways to prevent political grievances from manifesting as deadly violence seemed elusive.Videos posted to social media from Utah Valley University show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with the slogans “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.” A single shot rings out and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away.Kirk was taking questions about gun violenceKirk was speaking at a debate hosted by his nonprofit political youth organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, at the Sorensen Center courtyard on campus. Immediately before the shooting, Kirk was taking questions from an audience member about mass shootings and gun violence.“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” the person asked. Kirk responded, “Too many.”The questioner followed up: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”“Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk asked.Then a single shot rang out.The shooter, who Cox pledged would be held accountable in a state with the death penalty, wore dark clothing and fired from a building roof some distance away.Madison Lattin was watching only a few dozen feet from Kirk’s left when she said she heard the bullet hit Kirk.“Blood is falling and dripping down and you’re just like so scared, not just for him but your own safety,” she said.She said she saw people drop to the ground in an eerie silence pierced immediately by cries. Lattin ran while others splashed through decorative pools to get away. Some fell and were trampled in the stampede. People lost their shoes, backpacks, folding chairs and water bottles in the frenzy.When Lattin later learned that Kirk had died, she said she wept, describing him as a role model who had showed her how to be determined and fight for the truth.Trump calls Kirk ‘martyr for truth’Some 3,000 people were in attendance, according to a statement from the Utah Department of Public Safety. The university police department had six officers working the event, along with Kirk’s own security detail, authorities said.Trump announced the death on social media and praised the 31-year-old Kirk who was co-founder and CEO of Turning Point as “Great, and even Legendary.” Later Wednesday, he released a recorded video from the White House in which he called Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom” and blamed the rhetoric of the “radical left” for the killing.Utah Valley University said the campus was immediately evacuated after the shooting, with officers escorting people to safety. It will be closed until Monday.Meanwhile, armed officers walked around the neighborhood bordering the campus, knocking on doors and asking for any information residents might have on the shooting. Helicopters buzzed overhead.Wednesday’s event, billed as the first stop on Kirk’s “The American Comeback Tour,” had generated a polarizing campus reaction. An online petition calling for university administrators to bar Kirk from appearing received nearly 1,000 signatures. The university issued a statement last week citing First Amendment rights and affirming its “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry, and constructive dialogue.”Last week, Kirk posted on X images of news clips showing his visit was sparking controversy. He wrote, “What’s going on in Utah?”Condemnation from across the political spectrumThe shooting drew swift condemnation across the political aisle as Democratic officials joined Trump, who ordered flags lowered to half-staff and issued a presidential proclamation, and Republican allies of Kirk in decrying the violence.“The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible,” Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last March hosted Kirk on his podcast, posted on X.“The murder of Charlie Kirk breaks my heart. My deepest sympathies are with his wife, two young children, and friends,” said Gabrielle Giffords, the former Democratic congresswoman who was wounded in a 2011 shooting in her Arizona district.The shooting appeared poised to become part of a spike of political violence that has touched a range of ideologies and representatives of both major parties. The attacks include the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband at their house in June, the firebombing of a Colorado parade to demand Hamas release hostages, and a fire set at the house of Pennsylvania’s governor, who is Jewish, in April. The most notorious of these events is the shooting of Trump during a campaign rally last year.Former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who was at Wednesday’s event, told the Fox News Channel that he didn’t believe Kirk had enough security.“Utah is one of the safest places on the planet,” he said. “And so we just don’t have these types of things.”Turning Point was founded in suburban Chicago in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and William Montgomery, a tea party activist, to proselytize on college campuses for low taxes and limited government. It was not an immediate success.But Kirk’s zeal for confronting liberals in academia eventually won over an influential set of conservative financiers.Despite early misgivings, Turning Point enthusiastically backed Trump after he clinched the GOP nomination in 2016. Kirk served as a personal aide to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, during the general election campaign.Soon, Kirk was a regular presence on cable TV, where he leaned into the culture wars and heaped praise on the then-president. Trump and his son were equally effusive and often spoke at Turning Point conferences.

    Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and close ally of President Donald Trump who played an influential role in rallying young Republican voters, was shot and killed at a Utah college event in what the governor called a political assassination.

    Authorities say Kirk was killed with a single shot from a rooftop on Wednesday. Whoever fired the gun then slipped away amid the chaos of screams and students fleeing the Utah Valley University campus. Federal, state and local authorities were still searching for an unidentified shooter early Thursday and working what they called “multiple active crime scenes.”

    “This is a dark day for our state. It’s a tragic day for our nation,” said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. “I want to be very clear this is a political assassination.”

    Two people were detained Wednesday but neither was determined to be connected to the shooting and both were released, Utah public safety officials said.

    Authorities did not immediately identify a motive, but the circumstances of the shooting drew renewed attention to an escalating threat of political violence in the United States that in the last several years has cut across the ideological spectrum. The assassination drew bipartisan condemnation, but a national reckoning over ways to prevent political grievances from manifesting as deadly violence seemed elusive.

    Videos posted to social media from Utah Valley University show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with the slogans “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.” A single shot rings out and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away.

    Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

    Charlie Kirk speaks at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025 in Orem, Utah. Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was speaking at his “American Comeback Tour” when he was shot in the neck and killed.

    Kirk was taking questions about gun violence

    Kirk was speaking at a debate hosted by his nonprofit political youth organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, at the Sorensen Center courtyard on campus. Immediately before the shooting, Kirk was taking questions from an audience member about mass shootings and gun violence.

    “Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?” the person asked. Kirk responded, “Too many.”

    The questioner followed up: “Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?”

    “Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk asked.

    Then a single shot rang out.

    The shooter, who Cox pledged would be held accountable in a state with the death penalty, wore dark clothing and fired from a building roof some distance away.

    Madison Lattin was watching only a few dozen feet from Kirk’s left when she said she heard the bullet hit Kirk.

    “Blood is falling and dripping down and you’re just like so scared, not just for him but your own safety,” she said.

    She said she saw people drop to the ground in an eerie silence pierced immediately by cries. Lattin ran while others splashed through decorative pools to get away. Some fell and were trampled in the stampede. People lost their shoes, backpacks, folding chairs and water bottles in the frenzy.

    When Lattin later learned that Kirk had died, she said she wept, describing him as a role model who had showed her how to be determined and fight for the truth.

    Trump calls Kirk ‘martyr for truth’

    Some 3,000 people were in attendance, according to a statement from the Utah Department of Public Safety. The university police department had six officers working the event, along with Kirk’s own security detail, authorities said.

    Trump announced the death on social media and praised the 31-year-old Kirk who was co-founder and CEO of Turning Point as “Great, and even Legendary.” Later Wednesday, he released a recorded video from the White House in which he called Kirk a “martyr for truth and freedom” and blamed the rhetoric of the “radical left” for the killing.

    Utah Valley University said the campus was immediately evacuated after the shooting, with officers escorting people to safety. It will be closed until Monday.

    Meanwhile, armed officers walked around the neighborhood bordering the campus, knocking on doors and asking for any information residents might have on the shooting. Helicopters buzzed overhead.

    Wednesday’s event, billed as the first stop on Kirk’s “The American Comeback Tour,” had generated a polarizing campus reaction. An online petition calling for university administrators to bar Kirk from appearing received nearly 1,000 signatures. The university issued a statement last week citing First Amendment rights and affirming its “commitment to free speech, intellectual inquiry, and constructive dialogue.”

    Last week, Kirk posted on X images of news clips showing his visit was sparking controversy. He wrote, “What’s going on in Utah?”

    Condemnation from across the political spectrum

    The shooting drew swift condemnation across the political aisle as Democratic officials joined Trump, who ordered flags lowered to half-staff and issued a presidential proclamation, and Republican allies of Kirk in decrying the violence.

    “The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible,” Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last March hosted Kirk on his podcast, posted on X.

    “The murder of Charlie Kirk breaks my heart. My deepest sympathies are with his wife, two young children, and friends,” said Gabrielle Giffords, the former Democratic congresswoman who was wounded in a 2011 shooting in her Arizona district.

    The shooting appeared poised to become part of a spike of political violence that has touched a range of ideologies and representatives of both major parties. The attacks include the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband at their house in June, the firebombing of a Colorado parade to demand Hamas release hostages, and a fire set at the house of Pennsylvania’s governor, who is Jewish, in April. The most notorious of these events is the shooting of Trump during a campaign rally last year.

    Former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who was at Wednesday’s event, told the Fox News Channel that he didn’t believe Kirk had enough security.

    “Utah is one of the safest places on the planet,” he said. “And so we just don’t have these types of things.”

    Turning Point was founded in suburban Chicago in 2012 by Kirk, then 18, and William Montgomery, a tea party activist, to proselytize on college campuses for low taxes and limited government. It was not an immediate success.

    But Kirk’s zeal for confronting liberals in academia eventually won over an influential set of conservative financiers.

    Despite early misgivings, Turning Point enthusiastically backed Trump after he clinched the GOP nomination in 2016. Kirk served as a personal aide to Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son, during the general election campaign.

    Soon, Kirk was a regular presence on cable TV, where he leaned into the culture wars and heaped praise on the then-president. Trump and his son were equally effusive and often spoke at Turning Point conferences.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    What you missed at the CD-14 debate between Ysabel Jurado and Kevin De León

    [ad_1]

    PUBLISHER’S NOTE:
    Yes on Proposition 3 and Los Angeles Blade will present an urgent Town Hall on October 28 from 7:00 PM at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 7501 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90046. For more information or to RSVP, click here.

    As California voters prepare for the Election Day ballot, they have a critical opportunity to address a potentially dangerous inconsistency in the state’s constitution regarding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

    Think of it as a firewall against a potential 2nd Trump administration and Supreme Court effort to overturn same-sex marriage.

    Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment, seeks to remove outdated language from the Prop 8 era, a ballot initiative that successfully defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman. 

    Although federal court rulings have rendered this language unenforceable, it has lingered in California’s constitution since 2008.

    Proposition 3 would not only eliminate this vestigial language but also establish a constitutional right to marriage regardless of gender or race.

    The history of Prop 8 is a complex and contentious chapter in California’s past. Passed in the 2008 state election, Prop 8 effectively banned same-sex marriage, following a California Supreme Court ruling that had declared a previous ban (Proposition 22 from 2000) unconstitutional. Prop 8 added language to the state constitution stating that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    The passage of Prop 8 shocked many who viewed California as a bastion of progressive values, highlighting a divide within the state and igniting intense debate and legal battles. Religious organizations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church and the now somewhat repentant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, played significant roles in supporting Prop 8, with the LDS Church notably contributing more than $20 million to the campaign and mobilizing volunteers for door-to-door canvassing.

    The legal journey of Prop 8 has been long and complex. Initially upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2009, it was later challenged in federal court. In August 2010, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This decision was upheld by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2012, albeit on narrower grounds.

    The case ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court in “Hollingsworth v. Perry” (2013). However, rather than ruling on the merits of same-sex marriage, the Court decided that the proponents of Prop 8 lacked legal standing to defend the law in federal court. This effectively upheld Walker’s 2010 ruling, paving the way for the resumption of same-sex marriages in California.

    The uncertain landscape of LGBTQ+ rights

    The current Proposition 3 arises from recent concerns about the stability of LGBTQ+ rights at the federal level. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested reconsidering other precedents, including the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This potential threat prompted California legislators to act proactively to safeguard marriage equality at the state level.

    Moreover, 2024 has seen a surge of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation across the nation and in Congress. “Extremist lawmakers in Congress failed in their hateful attempts to add anti-LGBTQ+ provisions to must-pass spending bills. These measures would have restricted medically necessary health care for transgender people, allowed taxpayer-funded discrimination against married same-sex couples, and further stigmatized the LGBTQ+ community,” said a spokesperson from Equality California.

    Strong bipartisan negotiations led to the removal of 51 of 52 anti-LGBTQ+ riders, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Congressional Equality Caucus and the relentless advocacy of LGBTQ+ organizations. Speaker Mike Johnson — considered the most anti-LGBTQ+ speaker in history — attempted to slow the appropriations process with these “poison pill” amendments, leading the country to the brink of a government shutdown multiple times. 

    Despite his failures, Johnson is attempting to claim victory by highlighting a limited provision that prohibits the flying of Pride flags on embassy buildings, which imposes no limits on other displays of the flag. “While we are disappointed in the passage of this provision, it is important to consider it in the context of the overwhelming defeat of other measures. The Speaker’s attempt to use this as a symbol of victory is as laughable as his dysfunctional term as Speaker has been,” the spokesperson added.

    The fragility of rights

    The overturning of Roe v. Wade has sent shockwaves through the legal community, particularly among LGBTQ+ advocates. The decision raised alarms about the vulnerability of other civil rights protections, including marriage equality. Legal experts are now grappling with unprecedented questions about how to secure these rights amid a shifting judicial landscape.

    The fragility of unenumerated rights — those not explicitly written in the Constitution but granted through Supreme Court interpretation — has become increasingly apparent. Marriage equality, like abortion rights, falls into this category and has been upheld through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. However, Thomas’s opinion in the Dobbs case hints at a willingness to reexamine these precedents.

    A significant concern for marriage equality advocates is the idea that rights relying on due process must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” Since nationwide marriage equality is only seven years old, it lacks the historical foundation that might protect it from future challenges.

    The patchwork possibility

    If Obergefell were overturned, the U.S. could revert to a patchwork of marriage laws reminiscent of the pre-2015 era. According to the Movement Advancement Project, as many as 32 states could potentially revert to banning same-sex marriages. This scenario would create a stark divide across the country, with some states recognizing LGBTQ+ marriages while others outlaw them.

    Such a reversion would have far-reaching implications for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since Obergefell. While it’s unlikely that existing marriages would be invalidated, the legal status of these unions could become uncertain. This potential outcome underscores the urgency of enshrining marriage equality in state constitutions and laws.

    The challenge of codification

    While some lawmakers have expressed interest in codifying marriage equality at the federal level, legal experts are divided on whether Congress has that authority. Traditionally, marriage laws have fallen under state jurisdiction, complicating efforts to establish federal protections.

    This uncertainty adds pressure to state-level efforts to protect marriage equality. In states with existing bans, securing marriage rights would require constitutional amendments or ballot measures, necessitating extensive public education campaigns and grassroots organizing.

    The importance of proactive constitutional change

    Despite California’s progressive reputation, the state constitution still contains language that could be used to restrict same-sex marriages if federal protections were overturned. This highlights the importance of Prop 3.

    Currently, 35 states maintain constitutional or statutory bans on same-sex marriage. Although these bans are unenforceable due to the Obergefell decision, they could be reactivated if the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling. California, despite its forward-thinking values, is among these states due to the lingering effects of Prop 8.

    Without the passage of Prop 3, California could face a situation where existing same-sex marriages remain valid, but new marriages could be denied. This potential legal limbo underscores the urgency of updating the state constitution to explicitly protect marriage equality.

    By passing Prop 3, California would not only eliminate discriminatory language from its constitution but also create a robust state-level protection for same-sex marriages. This proactive approach would ensure that, regardless of future federal court decisions, the right to marry would remain secure for all Californians.

    The path forward

    The journey to this point reflects a remarkable shift in public opinion. In 1996, 68 percent of Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage. By 2023, that figure had flipped, with 71 percent supporting marriage equality. This change crosses party lines, with a majority of Republicans now in favor. The trend is particularly strong among younger voters, indicating a generational shift toward greater acceptance and equality.

    The importance of Prop 3 extends beyond its practical effects. While same-sex marriages are of course recognized in California, enshrining this right in the state constitution provides an additional layer of protection against potential future challenges. Moreover, it represents a formal acknowledgment of past mistakes and a clear statement of California’s values of equality and inclusion.

    Critics of Prop 3 have raised concerns about its potential to open doors for challenges to laws against polygamy or underage marriages. However, these arguments are misleading. Constitutional rights are not absolute and can be limited by compelling state interests, as seen with other fundamental rights like freedom of speech.

    This situation highlights the ongoing nature of the struggle for equal rights and the importance of vigilance in protecting hard-won freedoms. Prop 3 represents an opportunity for California to lead by example, demonstrating how states can take concrete steps to safeguard the rights of their LGBTQ+ citizens in an uncertain legal landscape.

    As the November election approaches, California voters can align the state’s constitution with the prevailing values of equality and inclusivity. By voting yes on Prop 3, Californians can eliminate the last remnants of discrimination from their constitution and send a clear message that bigotry has no place in California’s fundamental laws.

    In a time when LGBTQ+ rights face renewed challenges across the nation, California has the chance to reaffirm its status as a progressive leader and to correct a long-standing injustice in its constitution. 

    Prop 3 is not just about changing words in a document; it’s about enshrining the principle that love and commitment deserve equal recognition under the law, regardless of who you are or whom you love.

    [ad_2]

    Gisselle Palomera

    Source link

  • A Parade of Listless Vessels

    A Parade of Listless Vessels

    [ad_1]

    What are we all doing here?

    The Republicans’ first primary debate dangles on the calendar like one of those leftover paper snowflakes slapped up on the mini-fridge. It feels like a half-hearted vestige—it’s late summer, five months before the first votes are cast; precedent calls for a lineup of haircuts on a stage. And for the most part, the qualifiers will oblige, except for the main haircut—former President Donald Trump, barring some last-minute fit of FOMO that lands him in Milwaukee en route to his surrender to authorities in Georgia.

    So why should the rest of us bother? Would anyone watch a Mike Tyson fight if Iron Mike wasn’t actually fighting? Or The Sopranos, if Tony skipped the show for a therapy session (with Tucker Carlson)?

    Poor Milwaukee, by the way, which already suffered desertion three summers ago when it was selected to host the Democratic National Convention only to have COVID keep everyone home. Joe Biden blew off his own convention and didn’t bother to send an emissary (no Jill, Kamala, or even Doug). Delegates were told to stay away, and the city was left all spiffed up for only a crew of surgical-masked functionaries.

    Tonight’s pageant of also-rans must go on too. The Republican National Committee has decreed this kickoff debate to be a landmark event, sanctifying August 23 as a key date in the 2024 cycle. (“Cycle” feels like an especially apt cliché here—events spinning hypnotically in circles.) Never mind that Trump upended the traditional presidential campaign cycle years ago, and that it is now dictated by whatever whim he decides to follow at a given moment. No matter how much thunder Trump steals from this proceeding—by skipping it, counterprogramming it with Tucker, and potentially following it up with a morning-after mug shot—everyone else is still required to treat this spectacle as some big and pivotal showdown.

    As such, the media will swarm into town—because this is what we do and what we love (and because datelines impress). The host network, Fox News, will hype the clash—the “Melee in Milwaukee,” or some such. One-liners are being buffed, comebacks polished, and umbrage rehearsed. And no matter how effective certain gambits are deemed to be in practice, the absence of the GOP’s inescapable front-runner will only underscore how impotent the rest of the field has made themselves.

    Who knows? A debate stage crowded with eight twitchy egos carries the possibility for surprise. Strange things do happen. That’s why we watch. Trump has given his opponents an opportunity, at least in theory. They can seize this chance to hammer away at the most important issue of the campaign: Trump himself, his radiating legal jeopardy, and the recurring debacle of the GOP nominating him again and again (and probably again). This need not be the televised festival of appeasement that so many expect. And no doubt, there will be a few feisty outliers on the stage. Some of the bottom dogs—Chris Christie, maybe Mike Pence—will probably unleash some unpleasantness in the direction of the truant front-runner. They will have their “moments,” and commentators will praise them for “landing some punches.”

    Even so, tonight’s contest will inevitably suffer from two basic structural flaws. The main point, theoretically, of a political debate is to try to persuade voters to support your campaign instead of the other candidates’. But that presupposes a constituency of voters who can be persuaded by hearing a set of facts, or are open to being educated. This, on the whole, is not the audience we have here. A large and determinative and still deeply committed portion of the GOP electorate—the MAGA sector—has been more or less a closed box for seven years now.

    The rigid devotion that Trump continues to enjoy from much of his party keeps affirming itself in new and dispiriting ways. A CBS News/YouGov poll released over the weekend contained this doozy of a data point: 71 percent of Trump supporters said they are inclined to believe whatever Trump tells them. That compares with 63 percent who are inclined to believe what their friends and family tell them, 56 percent who believe conservative-media figures, and 42 percent who believe religious leaders.

    The other structural defect involves the likely self-neutering of tonight’s putative gladiators. Ideally, a debate features participants who actually want to win. That generally requires a willingness to attack their biggest adversary, whether he’s participating in the event or not, and especially when he holds a massive lead over them. Other than Kamikaze Christie, whom Republicans will almost certainly not nominate, most of the remaining “challengers” on the stage seem content to play for second place—running mate or 2028.

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis insisted otherwise on Monday, when he claimed on Fox News that he would be the only Republican debater who is “not running to be vice president, I’m not running to be in the Cabinet, and I’m not running to be a contributor on cable news.” This reeked of projection, even though DeSantis would seem especially ill-suited to being a cable personality—even less well suited than he is to running for president.

    DeSantis suffered another indignity last week when The New York Times reported that a firm associated with the super PAC supporting his campaign, Never Back Down, had posted hundreds of pages of internal debate-strategy documents on its website. The game plan, summarized by the Times, called for DeSantis to “take a sledgehammer” to upstart Vivek Ramaswamy while also taking care to defend Trump from Christie’s likely bombardment. In other words, DeSantis would try to score easy goodwill by sidling up to the bully and vivisecting the real enemy, the thirsty biotech guy. So noble of the governor. Maybe Trump will send a thank-you note.

    DeSantis remains, for now, the Republicans’ most legitimate threat to Trump. But if these debate directives are a guide, why is he even bothering? The blueprint appears fully emblematic of everything wrong with his campaign: a bloated venture, playing for continued viability, and zero stomach for taking on Trump in a serious way. It’s also telling that someone decided to post the document trove in such a findable space online—which is either really dumb or really indicative of how badly someone in DeSantis World wants to embarrass him.

    Whether intentionally or not, DeSantis actually coined something memorable the other day when he chided Trump’s supporters for mindlessly following his every pronouncement—“listless vessels,” he called them. (He later said that he was referring to Trump’s endorsers in Congress, not voters.) This struck me as sneaky eloquence from DeSantis, or whoever wrote the line for him. But again, the phrase carried a strong whiff of projection as DeSantis prepared to lead the real parade of listless vessels to Milwaukee, content to bob along in the wake of the Titanic.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link