Kevin McCarthy redux: The cravenness is the point
During the Trump administration, someone coined the following phrase to summarize the sociopathy at the core of Donald Trump and his appeal to a certain type of person: the cruelty is the point. Perhaps it truly was Adam Serwer, who wrote a book using that as the title, and at a certain point, tracking a phrase becomes difficult. As my grad school advisor, Nelson W. Polsby used to say, famous sayings migrate into famous mouths. Let's give it to Serwer anyway, for lack of my interest in tracking the full history of the phrase. Regardless, it was clear from the beginning of Trump's political career that a) he was/is a sociopath in the clinical sense of the term, and b) those who worship him as a cult leader do so precisely because of his sociopathy.
Let us turn, though, to Kevin McCarthy. When tapes started to surface, again, of McCarthy admitting the rot at the core of the GOP and trash-talking Trump, I posted something suggesting that his ascension to the Speakership is uncertain, and always was because he is so obviously a fraud. Yet as the politics of the tapes have played out, McCarthy seems to be unaffected. Completely unaffected. Let us (me) reconsider.
McCarthy is craven, yet that has always been true, and obvious. His support among the House GOP seems stronger now than ever. Perhaps the cravenness is the point.
What does the modern Republican Party want? Weakness, masquerading as strength. Dishonesty. Cowardice. Two-facedness.
Who embodies cravenness more than Kevin McCarthy?
I submit to you that there is no one, and I mean no one more craven than Kevin McCarthy. Unless it's Lindsey Graham, but he's in the Senate.
Yes, I think the cravenness is the point.
It could be rational for cravenness to be the point. Isn't total cravenness the "ideal point" of conditional party government? (Not saying Rohde thinks it is ideal, but...you get it). Take Gavin Newsom. Craven? Absolutely. But, in California, that cravenness generally leads to policy outcomes I like. The problem is that you know that the moment the wind shifts, Newsom/McCarthy will blow with it. But, go with me here, what if the modal caucus member isn't like me, with policy preferences and shit? What if they are ALSO craven? Then, cravenness truly is the point in a leader. The CPG model is essentially static. It assumes preferences are these fixed things. It's not fundamental to the model at any point in time--after all, everything in a snapshot is static. But, if we add dynamism, then the reason any member would prefer cravennism is likely that they, themselves, are craven.
ReplyDeleteSo, maybe McCarthy isn't the most craven....because almost his entire caucus has pegged the scale at "whatever keeps me in power."
You seem to be equating "cravenness" with "delegate," which is an interesting choice. At some level, it has some validity, with a few caveats. First with respect to spatial theory, adopting the median voter's position and moving as the median moves could be considered representation, by the delegate rather than trustee definition. Craven, however, is a more broad concept, which also encompasses willingness to assert X or Y, regardless of the factuality of X or Y, simply because your constituents (within or outside the House) have moved in their desire to hear someone assert X or Y. Is that the same? No. Of a kind? Perhaps, but certainly more damaging. I don't have much of a problem with someone who is open about being a delegate, in spatial/policy terms, but someone who will assert X, regardless of fact, just because constituents demand it? That has the potential to backfire in ways that mere delegate-style representation does not. That's a difference, if nothing else.
Delete