In the race to be Speaker, Jim Jordan learns Trump tactics only work for Trump
3 years ago by jeffw to c/politics
Highlights: Intimidation, backstabbing and flaunting the will of the majority are all tactics that Donald Trump has used expertly to dominate the Republican Party. Wannabe House Speaker Jim Jordan has tried the same gameplan, only to find out that he’s no Trump. It took three failed ballots for that reality to sink in for Jordan and his fuming, fumbling allies.
What is incredible is the utterly delusional behavior of Jordan and his supporters. Like Trump, they have only one strategy: louder and angrier. Unlike Trump, they don’t have the fear behind them. They overplayed their hand but are determined to keep overplaying it. Not to mention, they are complete hypocrites: now that their own strategy to sink Scalise is being used against Jordan, they can’t believe it and are furious.
That's true, but plenty of yes men jumped at the carrot first without needing a stick. That was part of his sweeping take over. Sycophants leaping at a chance to ride the gravy train, who in turn were happy to help Trump swing the stick with the more traditional members. But they fell in line at the mere suggestion of the stick.
Back a long time ago in January of this year, when McCarthy was losing vote after vote for Speaker, one time Trump was officially nominated by Matt Gaetz, and Trump only got one vote.
Trump is a joke, and pretty much everybody on both sides of the aisle in Congress knows about it, but since Republicans only care about holding onto their seats no matter the cost, they're willing to literally back a traitor and a joke like Trump, even if it means the end of democracy in America, or maybe especially if it means the end of democracy in America. After all, you can't be voted out if nobody can vote.
Trump's antics could be considered successful for him because he was the only one who had to benefit for them to be considered successful. Both as a candidate and as president, the measure of his success was merely in his ability to not alienate his base. He didn't have to actually accomplish anything, or work well with others in the long term. If he alienated allies, there wasn't really anything they could do, especially in the white house where he could fire people all day long if he so chose. He didn't have to answer to anyone but the voters, and even then, he lost 1 of 2 elections, so not the greatest track record, but somehow he still has the support of his base.
You can't really have the same casual disregard for everyone around you if you want to succeed in congress. The whole system requires at least a minimal amount of cooperation. What we've been seeing lately is a group of politicians trying to push the limits and force their way through each stand-off as though it exists in a vacuum, seemingly oblivious to the long term consequences of strong-arming their colleagues. It turns out that people who need bridges from time to time shouldn't burn them at every opportunity.
Team Jordan is no different from the leftists in academia who have spent years shouting down and cancelling their opponents, only to cry victim once the tables are turned on them.
They just had to get that little dig in, huh.
Yeah, read that and thought, “you bastage.”
Gonna have to string him up by his boils!
Bold of him to assume that Jordan has really learned something. Yeah he Jordan quit the effort for now, but will we see him be a changed man?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It was not so long ago the GOP House caucus voted to elect Steve Scalise to be Speaker, defeating Jordan by a clear, but not overwhelming, margin of 113 to 99.
After over 30 years working in, observing and analyzing politics, you learn a thing or two about the public pronouncements of ambitious politicians — namely, don’t trust them, ever.
It’s not a minor point that the cabal that de-railed the last Speaker, Kevin McCarthy — just eight members — is much smaller than the group opposed to Jordan, originally 20 and now 25 (and Scalise didn’t even come close to winning enough support).
Given the over-the-top rhetoric, attacks on cable television and death threats that were sparked by the first loss, the original holdouts have no option but to keep voting “no.” Anyone who flips to Jordan realizes that he/she will just empower those who are bullying them — they won’t have any independence whatsoever.
Team Jordan is no different from the leftists in academia who have spent years shouting down and cancelling their opponents, only to cry victim once the tables are turned on them.
When you lose a power struggle, you have to admit defeat; the winners need to be magnanimous, not punitive, as long as the losers agree to unite.
The original article contains 1,016 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
That's the thing, Trump didn't "dominate" the Republican Party, he "dominated" the Republican Electorate, and used them to threaten the Party member's positions if they didn't back him unconditionally.
save