Republican doubletalk on Trump and on the Senate convicting him on the impeachment charges

I've never been much impressed with the NeverTrumper schtick. It basically is a way for some Republicans to distance themselves from Trump's vulgarity and sleaze while still advocating for Republican positions and constantly criticizing the Democrats for not being Republican enough.

I've always distinguished John Dean from the NeverTrumpers, because he has been make substantive criticisms of the Republican Party's authoritarianism for a long time. Like in this article co-authored with Bob Altemeyer, who has done extensive research and writing on authoritarianism, Why Do So Many Americans Continue to Support Donald Trump? In a Word: Authoritarianism Justia 03/20/2019:

There are a lot of Americans who do not care for democracy (Altemeyer, 2006 at www.theauthoritarians.org). They do not mind that he fails to follow the Constitution, or that he poses a danger to democracy. In fact, surveys of these people show they would prefer a demagogic autocrat who will “stomp out the rot,” which they believe infects society. Because most Americans see the world differently, this finding may be difficult to accept. It is, however, based on solid science.

The research to which we refer began during World War II and has, over the decades, produced a clear understanding about Americans who are highly submissive to authority, how they became that way, plus a great deal about how they think and maintain their beliefs. This body of science is well known in academic circles, and it is essential to understanding the Trump presidency and his supporters. Yet it is being largely ignored.

I would note that a major body of systematic study on this problem precedes the Second World War, Studies on Authority and Family (1936), carried out and published in 1936 as one in a series of special publication by the Institute for Social Research, aka, the Frankfurt School.

But Dean is aligning himself with NeverTrumper Max Boot on what strikes me as a really bad tactical idea:

This is playing out so far like I dreamed it could, and it can get better if the House Democrats continue to sit on the articles. This is Trump’s nightmare because more can and will come out on his guilt. Mitch’s nightmare too, notwithstanding his pretending otherwise. https://t.co/LEH5KDXGHU

— John Dean (@JohnWDean) December 20, 2019

Not sending the impeachment to the Senate would be taken by virtually everyone as a lack of seriousness on the part of the House Democrats. And it would be.

Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss some other tactical considerations on the timing of formally sending the impeachment to the Senate. (Ana has been particularly sour about establishment Democrats the last week or so.) Nancy Pelosi's Impeachment Fakeout TYT 12/19/2019:

There was an interesting conservative endorsement this week of the need to remove Trump from office, from Christianity Today, a conservative evangelical journal (Trump Should Be Removed from Office 12/19/2019).

(Update 12/23/2019: The editorial was signed by CT's editor-in-chief Mark Galli but speaks in a collective voice of "we" and "our". In a follow-up piece supporting Galli's position, CT's president Timothy Dalrymple writes, "CT does not have an editorial board. Editors publish under their own names. Yet Galli has stood in the trenches for men and women of faith for over three decades. He has been an outstanding editor in chief. While he does not speak for everyone in the ministry — our board and our staff hold a range of opinions — he carries the editorial voice of the magazine. We support CT’s editorial independence and believe it’s vital to our mission for the editor in chief to speak out on the issues of the day." For whatever reason, CT does not formally call "the editorial voice of the magazine" an editorial board, but I've left the original references in this post. The Flag in the Whirlwind: An Update from CT’s President 12/22/2019)

I don't think their editorial board is made up of NeverTrumper types. But in a similar way, it's very tempting for Democrats to praise conservative pitches like this and distribute them on social media as a kind of "evidence against interest" argument.

But the facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

The reason many are not shocked about this is that this president has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration. He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals. He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone — with its habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders—is a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused. [my emphasis]

But my guess is that this kind of argument will mainly function to give evangelical pastors and members of their congregations who are so inclined something to say that sounds thoughtful and critical while they explain why they support Trump against being removed from office, by Senate conviction or by the 2020 election.

The CT editors also include their arguments from two decades ago for impeaching Bill Clinton on far more frivolous excuses than the very substantial high crimes and misdemeanors that are well documented for President Trump. Because Republicans who are trying to sound thoughtful or prayerful about Trump's conviction still need a whataboutism argument against the Democrats. And readers can make their own judgments about whether their criticism of Trump is as passionate as their criticism of Clinton they quote. It's notable that the very substantial evidence of multiple instances of felony obstruction of justice on Trump's part documented in the Mueller report don't merit an explicit mention in the editorial.

The full editorial on Clinton in 1998 The Prodigal Who Didn’t Come Home 10/05/1998) is notably longer than the current one about Trump. And it doesn't offer any sympathetic alibi language for evangelicals who might want to sound like they disapproved of his affair with Monica Lewinsky but didn't support impeaching him and removing him from office. On the contrary, the 1998 editorial sneers at Clinton's admission that his affair was "inappropriate".

The following excerpts present an notable contrast. From the 2019 editorial:

Let’s grant this to the president [Trump]: The Democrats have had it out for him from day one, and therefore nearly everything they do is under a cloud of partisan suspicion. This has led many to suspect not only motives but facts in these recent impeachment hearings. And, no, Mr. Trump did not have a serious opportunity to offer his side of the story in the House hearings on impeachment.

Did the 1998 editorial show similar understanding for Democrats' concerns about crass partisanship by Republicans? Um, not exactly:

On August 17, Bill Clinton acted like he was cornered. There was no mea in his mea culpa. He no sooner acknowledged an "inappropriate" sexual relationship with a female intern less than half his age, than he started blaming those who were doing their duty in pursuing the truth and upholding the law. Even his subsequent attempts at apology — to his cabinet, to party loyalists, to Democratic members of Congress — looked more like sandbagging operations to shore up crumbling support than like the fruit of personal reflection. For Bill Clinton, there was no openness to being found.

So, for Christianity Today, 1998: Clinton admits wrongdoing then criticizes rabid partisanship in the impeachment process - deserving of total contempt.

Trump and his supporters in Congress staunchly deny that Trump did anything wrong and dismiss the Democratic investigation, which were closer to reluctant and apologetic than rigidly partisan - Trump and his supporters obviously deserve generous Christian sympathy for their objections to Democratic partisanship.

I'm underwhelmed by this conservative kinda-sorta endorsement of a Senate conviction against President Trump.