Political myth of the week: The "Trump ally" and the "neverTrumper"
This morning, I am fascinated by two phrases. Not the concepts, so much as the phrases. They are separable. Does a concept precede a phrase? Can a phrase exist without the concept existing in a real world kind of way? This isn't just navel-gazing numbskullery. Note the "just." There is, actually, a form of cognition called "unsymbolized thinking" in which one engages in abstract thought without images, language or other formalized symbolism. Most people don't do it. A small number do. Yes, one can have abstract thoughts about concepts without language. The concept can precede the word, or even exist without the word.
You can also have a word that references nothing. The blog editor here doesn't do mathematical expressions very well, but how about the square root of -1? We call that i, just to have something to write, but "i," means the "imaginary" number. That's different from 0. Zero has a real world referent. i is just... it doesn't work in the real world, or the "real number" system. But we created a mathematical term for it! Then, there is the basic observation that a taxonomical category that covers everything is useless. A term that describes everything describes nothing.
OK, that's about all of the lint I needed to pick out of my navel. Let's get into the real stuff. Time for some political mythbusting.
"Trump ally." "NeverTrumper." These are some interesting terms, aren't they?
Obama ally. NeverObamaer. Bush ally. NeverBusher. Clinton ally. NeverClintoner. (repetition). Reagan ally. NeverReaganer. Carter ally. NeverCarterererererer... [oadsifj;akijh] [Reset.] Ford ally. NeverForder.
Nixon ally.
NeverNixoner.
One of these things is not like the other! What's going on here? Something has changed about our political linguistics! We have these terms bandied about that are structurally different. And notice that I covered two past presidents who faced impeachment-- Clinton was impeached and acquitted, and Nixon was driven to resign by the threat of impeachment. Yet it is with Trump that our language has been reoriented around the terms, "Trump ally," and "NeverTrumper."
This is different.
Trump ally. These days, you will see the term variously applied to people like Lindsey Graham, which is... weird because of the 2016 Republican primary, but hey, that's Lindsey. The heart wants what the heart wants. You will also see it applied to Members of Congress like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and plenty of others. Devin Nunes, and I don't have much to say about the Lev Parnas news, but... well, "Trump ally."
NeverTrumper. Back in 2016, there were a bunch of Republicans who, supposedly, were so strongly opposed to Donald Trump's nomination, that they would "never" support Trump, hence, "neverTrumpers." At the level of elected officials, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) left the party over impeachment, but at the time, he wasn't really counted as a "neverTrumper." The closest one could find at the time, who never came around was former Ohio Governor John Kasich. The rest were people like Mitt Romney. Then, after the election, Trump pretended to offer him the Sec. State job, just so that he could enjoy making the Mittster grovel. The fact that Willard did, in fact, grovel sort of demonstrated how firm that "never" really was. Basically, at the level of elected officials, Kasich never came around, and a smattering of others around the country quietly grumbled, but the rest... fell in line.
Among Republican columnists and opinion writers-- people important in Hans Noel's Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America-- there were some actual neverTrumpers. George F. Will, for example. Really, though, "neverTrumper?" That mostly means, "Democrat."
In reality, then, "Trump ally?" It means, "Republican."
Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself. How do we ascribe meaning to terms that are not formally defined? There are two ways. We can either parse intent, or we can examine the patterns of usage to find the implied definition.
There are problems with Door Number 1. First, different speakers will have different intents. Second, some speakers are, wha'dya'call'em? People who speak untruths... um... Oh, right. LIARS!!! Remember, I hate liars. With the intense passion with which I hate people who don't use their turn signals, try to talk sportsball to me, and then keep asking me why I don't watch sportsball, like I don't have a right not not watch sportsball.
Where was I? Oh, right. Intent.
What is the intent behind the phrase, "Trump ally?" The intent is the notion that there is a distinction between Republicans. Some are Trump allies, and some are not. But... that's wrong. At the level of Congress, all are Trump allies. The only one who wasn't got driven out of the party. That was Justin Amash. Every remaining congressional Republican is "allied" with Trump, to the extent that they will side with him on matters relating to him, personally. When the House held a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry, how many Republicans voted yes? It depends on whether or not you still count Amash as a Republican. If you do, then 1. Otherwise, 0.
I have repeatedly told you that the probability of the Senate convicting Trump is precise, mathematical 0, and no matter what happens, I will never, under any circumstances, "update" that number using "Bayesian" updating because I don't derive that prediction from probabilistic assessments. Every single Republican Senator is a "Trump ally," to the extent that there isn't a single one of them that will turn on him. Yes, I saw Sondland. There is zero chance that that changed any Republican Senator's mind. There is zero chance that anything will ever change any of their minds.
Is there a better definition of "ally?" Someone who will always have your back, no matter what?
To be sure, Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan are more active allies to Trump than, say, Will Hurd. Hurd will vote no on the articles. Jordan, on the other hand, will do his Jim Jordan thing during hearings, and according to Lev Parnas, Devin Nunes was actually involved in the efforts to get Biden dirt from the Ukrainians! Hurd will just vote to protect Trump while grumbling about him. But they're all on Trump's side, whether actively or more passively.
The term, though, is prominent mostly among journalists and pundits based on the premise that there are distinctions within the party which are bigger than that. The premise of the term is that there are Trump opponents within the party. We do need to keep in mind the full extent of variation, though. Some congressional Republicans are Trump true believers. Some of them don't really care one way or another, but will simply go whichever way the wind blows within the party, and within Republican Party politics, the base is so completely devoted to Trump, to an extent that we haven't seen in American politics before, that they just play along. Then, there are the Republicans like Romney. Romney clearly detests Trump. So does Will Hurd. Will they ever do anything?
We've seen that movie before. Corker, Flake... plenty of others. Not to mention Romney's groveling session. I've said from the beginning that none of them would ever do anything. I was surprised by Amash, but Amash was already on the outs with the party, having been stripped of his committee assignments by Boehner in 2013 for not going along with party deals, so Amash was a special case anyway. And Romney keeps kowtowing to Trump, regardless of his rhetoric. He'll do nothing. In the end, presuming there's a Senate trial, Romney will vote to acquit.
Doesn't that make him, effectively, a Trump ally? Does it matter if he doesn't acquit with a song in his heart?
That brings us to "neverTrumpers." Once upon a time, we used to speak of neverTrumpers. Today, who uses the term? Trump. Why? Any time he is criticized by someone who is not a Democrat, he calls the person a "neverTrumper." The premise is that the person leveling the criticism was always a Trump opponent, and that they should therefore be ignored because anything said by someone who opposes Trump should be ignored.
Not exactly an airtight syllogism, but from the "intent" perspective, logic isn't the point. It's just an attempt at a distraction/counterattack. Remember, though, that within the Republican Party, there are no neverTrumpers. We have never seen this level of loyalty to a president within that president's party before. Not at the electoral level, and not at the congressional level. The flip-side of "Trump ally" is "neverTrumper," and the logical implication of every elite Republican being a Trump ally is that none are neverTrumpers.
But did you notice what I said there? That this level of loyalty is unprecedented? That brings us to the question of how this bizarre and misleading terminology arose. Elite Republicans are all "Trump allies." There are no "neverTrumpers," outside of a few columnists, like George F. Will. So how is it that this misleading terminology came about? Why didn't we have it in reference to past presidents?
Well... does anyone remember the PUMAs? 2008. Ancient history. When Obama defeated Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Clinton and a bunch of her supporters at the mass level started organizing to defeat Obama at the convention through superdelegates, and there was a pre-convention meeting about Florida and Michigan, and some of Clinton's supporters said that if Obama were the nominee, they'd never vote for him.
They called themselves PUMAs. You see, the point is that after the nominee is selected, the party should "unify." "Party unity." Their response? "Party unity, my ass." What happened? Clinton supporters didn't defect at any higher rate than losers ever do. And just to brush aside this minor myth, Sanders supporters from 2016 didn't have an unusually high rate of defection either. Regardless, in 2008, we even had a special term for the Democrats upset with Obama's nomination, who said they'd never support him. We... just never heard another peep from them. Why? I'll get to that.
Circling back to Trump allies and neverTrumpers, this is a terminology built around personal loyalty to or personal opposition to Donald J. Trump. That, of course, is how Donald J. Trump looks at the world. The closest analog to that in past presidents would have been Nixon, with a deep paranoid streak, but that was something that came across more in the recordings than in his public speeches. With Trump, it permeates every aspect of his Presidency, both private and public. To the discredit of the American political commentariat, the Trump loyalist versus Trump opposition conception of everything has taken over political linguistics far beyond its usefulness. And, while the PUMAs and the neverTrumpers both caved because they always cave, we kept the term, "neverTrumper," and abandoned the term, "PUMA," because Trump keeps using the term, "neverTrumper." Obama didn't spend any time whining about nonexistent PUMAs. Trump speaks about politics as though everything is about personal loyalty to or personal opposition to Donald J. Trump. So, the terms proliferate, meaningless and misleading though they are.
It's all about parties. It's always about parties.
You can also have a word that references nothing. The blog editor here doesn't do mathematical expressions very well, but how about the square root of -1? We call that i, just to have something to write, but "i," means the "imaginary" number. That's different from 0. Zero has a real world referent. i is just... it doesn't work in the real world, or the "real number" system. But we created a mathematical term for it! Then, there is the basic observation that a taxonomical category that covers everything is useless. A term that describes everything describes nothing.
OK, that's about all of the lint I needed to pick out of my navel. Let's get into the real stuff. Time for some political mythbusting.
"Trump ally." "NeverTrumper." These are some interesting terms, aren't they?
Obama ally. NeverObamaer. Bush ally. NeverBusher. Clinton ally. NeverClintoner. (repetition). Reagan ally. NeverReaganer. Carter ally. NeverCarterererererer... [oadsifj;akijh] [Reset.] Ford ally. NeverForder.
Nixon ally.
NeverNixoner.
One of these things is not like the other! What's going on here? Something has changed about our political linguistics! We have these terms bandied about that are structurally different. And notice that I covered two past presidents who faced impeachment-- Clinton was impeached and acquitted, and Nixon was driven to resign by the threat of impeachment. Yet it is with Trump that our language has been reoriented around the terms, "Trump ally," and "NeverTrumper."
This is different.
Trump ally. These days, you will see the term variously applied to people like Lindsey Graham, which is... weird because of the 2016 Republican primary, but hey, that's Lindsey. The heart wants what the heart wants. You will also see it applied to Members of Congress like Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and plenty of others. Devin Nunes, and I don't have much to say about the Lev Parnas news, but... well, "Trump ally."
NeverTrumper. Back in 2016, there were a bunch of Republicans who, supposedly, were so strongly opposed to Donald Trump's nomination, that they would "never" support Trump, hence, "neverTrumpers." At the level of elected officials, Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI) left the party over impeachment, but at the time, he wasn't really counted as a "neverTrumper." The closest one could find at the time, who never came around was former Ohio Governor John Kasich. The rest were people like Mitt Romney. Then, after the election, Trump pretended to offer him the Sec. State job, just so that he could enjoy making the Mittster grovel. The fact that Willard did, in fact, grovel sort of demonstrated how firm that "never" really was. Basically, at the level of elected officials, Kasich never came around, and a smattering of others around the country quietly grumbled, but the rest... fell in line.
Among Republican columnists and opinion writers-- people important in Hans Noel's Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America-- there were some actual neverTrumpers. George F. Will, for example. Really, though, "neverTrumper?" That mostly means, "Democrat."
In reality, then, "Trump ally?" It means, "Republican."
Of course, I'm getting ahead of myself. How do we ascribe meaning to terms that are not formally defined? There are two ways. We can either parse intent, or we can examine the patterns of usage to find the implied definition.
There are problems with Door Number 1. First, different speakers will have different intents. Second, some speakers are, wha'dya'call'em? People who speak untruths... um... Oh, right. LIARS!!! Remember, I hate liars. With the intense passion with which I hate people who don't use their turn signals, try to talk sportsball to me, and then keep asking me why I don't watch sportsball, like I don't have a right not not watch sportsball.
Where was I? Oh, right. Intent.
What is the intent behind the phrase, "Trump ally?" The intent is the notion that there is a distinction between Republicans. Some are Trump allies, and some are not. But... that's wrong. At the level of Congress, all are Trump allies. The only one who wasn't got driven out of the party. That was Justin Amash. Every remaining congressional Republican is "allied" with Trump, to the extent that they will side with him on matters relating to him, personally. When the House held a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry, how many Republicans voted yes? It depends on whether or not you still count Amash as a Republican. If you do, then 1. Otherwise, 0.
I have repeatedly told you that the probability of the Senate convicting Trump is precise, mathematical 0, and no matter what happens, I will never, under any circumstances, "update" that number using "Bayesian" updating because I don't derive that prediction from probabilistic assessments. Every single Republican Senator is a "Trump ally," to the extent that there isn't a single one of them that will turn on him. Yes, I saw Sondland. There is zero chance that that changed any Republican Senator's mind. There is zero chance that anything will ever change any of their minds.
Is there a better definition of "ally?" Someone who will always have your back, no matter what?
To be sure, Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan are more active allies to Trump than, say, Will Hurd. Hurd will vote no on the articles. Jordan, on the other hand, will do his Jim Jordan thing during hearings, and according to Lev Parnas, Devin Nunes was actually involved in the efforts to get Biden dirt from the Ukrainians! Hurd will just vote to protect Trump while grumbling about him. But they're all on Trump's side, whether actively or more passively.
The term, though, is prominent mostly among journalists and pundits based on the premise that there are distinctions within the party which are bigger than that. The premise of the term is that there are Trump opponents within the party. We do need to keep in mind the full extent of variation, though. Some congressional Republicans are Trump true believers. Some of them don't really care one way or another, but will simply go whichever way the wind blows within the party, and within Republican Party politics, the base is so completely devoted to Trump, to an extent that we haven't seen in American politics before, that they just play along. Then, there are the Republicans like Romney. Romney clearly detests Trump. So does Will Hurd. Will they ever do anything?
We've seen that movie before. Corker, Flake... plenty of others. Not to mention Romney's groveling session. I've said from the beginning that none of them would ever do anything. I was surprised by Amash, but Amash was already on the outs with the party, having been stripped of his committee assignments by Boehner in 2013 for not going along with party deals, so Amash was a special case anyway. And Romney keeps kowtowing to Trump, regardless of his rhetoric. He'll do nothing. In the end, presuming there's a Senate trial, Romney will vote to acquit.
Doesn't that make him, effectively, a Trump ally? Does it matter if he doesn't acquit with a song in his heart?
That brings us to "neverTrumpers." Once upon a time, we used to speak of neverTrumpers. Today, who uses the term? Trump. Why? Any time he is criticized by someone who is not a Democrat, he calls the person a "neverTrumper." The premise is that the person leveling the criticism was always a Trump opponent, and that they should therefore be ignored because anything said by someone who opposes Trump should be ignored.
Not exactly an airtight syllogism, but from the "intent" perspective, logic isn't the point. It's just an attempt at a distraction/counterattack. Remember, though, that within the Republican Party, there are no neverTrumpers. We have never seen this level of loyalty to a president within that president's party before. Not at the electoral level, and not at the congressional level. The flip-side of "Trump ally" is "neverTrumper," and the logical implication of every elite Republican being a Trump ally is that none are neverTrumpers.
But did you notice what I said there? That this level of loyalty is unprecedented? That brings us to the question of how this bizarre and misleading terminology arose. Elite Republicans are all "Trump allies." There are no "neverTrumpers," outside of a few columnists, like George F. Will. So how is it that this misleading terminology came about? Why didn't we have it in reference to past presidents?
Well... does anyone remember the PUMAs? 2008. Ancient history. When Obama defeated Clinton for the Democratic nomination, Clinton and a bunch of her supporters at the mass level started organizing to defeat Obama at the convention through superdelegates, and there was a pre-convention meeting about Florida and Michigan, and some of Clinton's supporters said that if Obama were the nominee, they'd never vote for him.
They called themselves PUMAs. You see, the point is that after the nominee is selected, the party should "unify." "Party unity." Their response? "Party unity, my ass." What happened? Clinton supporters didn't defect at any higher rate than losers ever do. And just to brush aside this minor myth, Sanders supporters from 2016 didn't have an unusually high rate of defection either. Regardless, in 2008, we even had a special term for the Democrats upset with Obama's nomination, who said they'd never support him. We... just never heard another peep from them. Why? I'll get to that.
Circling back to Trump allies and neverTrumpers, this is a terminology built around personal loyalty to or personal opposition to Donald J. Trump. That, of course, is how Donald J. Trump looks at the world. The closest analog to that in past presidents would have been Nixon, with a deep paranoid streak, but that was something that came across more in the recordings than in his public speeches. With Trump, it permeates every aspect of his Presidency, both private and public. To the discredit of the American political commentariat, the Trump loyalist versus Trump opposition conception of everything has taken over political linguistics far beyond its usefulness. And, while the PUMAs and the neverTrumpers both caved because they always cave, we kept the term, "neverTrumper," and abandoned the term, "PUMA," because Trump keeps using the term, "neverTrumper." Obama didn't spend any time whining about nonexistent PUMAs. Trump speaks about politics as though everything is about personal loyalty to or personal opposition to Donald J. Trump. So, the terms proliferate, meaningless and misleading though they are.
It's all about parties. It's always about parties.
Comments
Post a Comment