字号·· | 护眼
currentstatus

你无法在糟糕的历史之上建立更好的政治You Can't Build a Better Politics on Bad History

点「原文对照」整页切到原文,或双击某段只看那段的原文。

编者注:政府公平利益的重点是个人主义这不是产业政策。这是人的统治,而不是法律的统治。

Editor's Notes: The Point of Government Equity Stakes Is Personalism It is not industrial policy. It's the rule of men rather than of laws.

莎拉·朗威尔的《如何吃大象》为民主党政治提供了有用的建议。然而,它也是基于共和党的虚假历史。

Sarah Longwell's "How to Eat an Elephant" offers useful advice for Democratic politics. Yet it is also based on a false history of the GOP.

莎拉·朗威尔(Sarah Longwell)是一位主要的反特朗普保守派,也是The Bulwark的联合创始人。在此之前,她是一名共和党政治顾问。在她的新书《如何吃大象》中,她评估了民主党需要接触的各种选民:摇摆选民、独立人士、低信息选民,甚至不是MAGA忠实信徒的特朗普选民。然后,朗韦尔制定了一套原则,指导如何赢得这些选民并削弱MAGA化的共和党的权力。

Sarah Longwell is a leading anti-Trump conservative and a co-founder of The Bulwark. Before this turn, she was a Republican political consultant. In her new book How to Eat an Elephant, she assesses a variety of voters that Democrats need to reach: swing voters, independents, low-information voters, and even Trump voters who are not MAGA true believers. Longwell then establishes a set of principles for how to win over these voters and eat away at the power of the MAGA-fied Republican Party.

她最终相信,通过正确的策略,民主党可以给现任共和党带来足够的选举痛苦,“将MAGA烧毁,然后撒盐”,使美国政治能够恢复某种正常(如何吃大象,洛克。348)。

She ultimately believes that with the right strategy, the Democrats can inflict enough electoral pain on the current GOP to “burn MAGA to the ground and then salt the earth,” enabling American politics to return to some kind of normalcy (How to Eat an Elephant, loc. 348).

虽然这是一本在很多方面都很有洞察力的书,但朗威尔的分析有两个缺点。首先,她对选民在焦点小组中如何代表自己的怀疑不够,导致她对选民的行为抱有过于同情的看法。其次,也是更重要的是,朗韦尔对共和党历史的选择性、有点玫瑰色的描述导致她夸大了特朗普之前和之后共和党之间的分歧以及解散MAGA运动的可能性。

While this is an insightful book in many ways, Longwell’s analysis suffers from two shortcomings. First, she is insufficiently skeptical of how voters represent themselves in focus groups, leading her to an overly sympathetic view of their behavior. Second, and more importantly, Longwell’s selective, somewhat rose-tinted account of the history of the GOP leads her to overstate both the differences between the pre- and post-Trump Republican parties and the likelihood of dismantling the MAGA movement.

痛苦的现实是,任何负责任的共和党表面都已消亡和埋葬,如果民主党专注于恢复这具尸体,就无法成功。MAGA,或某种形式的民族主义-民粹主义政治,是由深层结构性力量驱动的,因此MAGA将在几十年内定义共和党。在可预见的未来,民主党将不得不在这条战线上进行到底。

The painful reality is that any semblance of a responsible GOP is dead and buried, and Democrats cannot succeed if they focus on rehabilitating this cadaver. MAGA, or some form of nationalist-populist politics, is driven by deep structural forces, and so MAGA is going to define the GOP for decades. Democrats will have to fight it out on this line for the foreseeable future.

朗韦尔是焦点小组的忠实信徒,她从他们那里获得了许多关于摇摆选民观点的有趣见解,民主党应该关注这些见解。例如,谈论对民主的威胁的效果有限:虽然它点燃了自由派基础,但大多数摇摆选民并不认为唐纳德·特朗普是对民主的威胁。毕竟,他们投票让他掌权、下台,然后又重新掌权。相反,朗韦尔强调,民主党需要强调他们对美国的热爱,这对选民来说更具体,以及他们对负担能力和经济福祉的高度关注,这驱动了大多数选民的行为(如图所示)。2394 - 2422)。事实上,有关经济已经良好的事实和数据对选民不起作用。

Longwell is a true believer in the focus group, and from them she derives many interesting insights about swing-voter perspectives that Democrats should heed. Talking about threats to democracy, for example, has limited effectiveness: while it fires up the liberal base, most swing voters don’t view Donald Trump as a menace to democracy. After all, they voted him into power, out of power, and back in again. Instead, Longwell emphasizes that Democrats need to stress their love of America, which is more concrete to voters, and their laser-focus on affordability and economic well-being, which drives most voter behavior (loc. 2394–2422). Facts and figures about the economy already being good, actually, do not work for voters.

朗韦尔还抨击民主党在通讯游戏中落后(如。929)。右翼构建了自己的信息生态系统,包括播客、新闻频道和社交媒体账户,无情地为特朗普辩护,阻止反叙事甚至基本现实渗透到选民中。民主党人没有建立这样的反系统,这使得特朗普能够在移民等关键问题上实现“叙事主导”。

Longwell also blasts Democrats for falling behind in the communications game (loc. 929). The right has constructed its own information ecosystem, of podcasts, news channels, and social media accounts, that relentlessly defends Trump and prevents counter-narratives, or even basic reality, from penetrating through to voters. Democrats have constructed no such counter-system, allowing Trump to achieve “narrative dominance” over key issues like immigration.

朗威尔宣称,现在是民主党人在他们实际居住的媒体空间与选民见面的时候了,而不是希望好的立法和明智的政策会自动突破。例如,她赞扬纽约市长佐兰·马姆达尼(Zohran Mamdani),不是因为她同意他的政策观点,而是因为他通过不懈地、富有魅力地抨击负担能力的主题,与选民进行了有效的沟通。1152)。

It is time, Longwell declares, for Democrats to meet voters in the media spaces they actually inhabit instead of hoping that good legislation and smart policy will automatically break through. She praises New York mayor Zohran Mamdani, for instance, not because she agrees with his policy views but because he communicates effectively with voters by relentlessly and charismatically hammering the theme of affordability (loc. 1152). Finally, I appreciate Longwell’s advocacy of a new relationship between Democratic politicians and the activist class on the left.

最后,我赞赏朗韦尔倡导民主党政客和左翼活动家阶级之间建立新关系。民主党政客得到了许多活动团体的支持,这些团体经常迫使他们采取不受欢迎的立场,这强化了广大公众对民主党过于受制于利基利益的看法。2047-2122)。朗韦尔建议,活动团体不应专注于向民主党施压,而是必须做更艰苦的工作来改变公众舆论,以便民主党政客有更多空间采取进步立场,并将同性恋权利运动作为如何做到这一点的典范(参见。2030-2043年)。

Democratic politicians have support from many activist groups that often press them to take unpopular positions, which reinforces the larger public’s perception of Democrats as too beholden to niche interests (loc. 2047–2122). Instead of focusing on pressuring Democrats, Longwell suggests that activist groups must do the harder work of shifting public opinion so that Democratic politicians have more space to take progressive positions, holding out the gay rights movement as an exemplar of how to do this (loc. 2030–2043).

然而,这本书有两个相当大的问题,每一个问题都让人怀疑朗威尔的核心信念,即MAGA最终可以被击败,共和党会恢复某种正常感。

This book, however, has two considerable problems, each of which cast doubt on Longwell’s core belief that MAGA can ultimately be vanquished and some sense of normalcy returned to the GOP.

第一个问题是她过度依赖焦点小组。从狭窄的证据基础中,朗韦尔得出结论,大量特朗普选民和对特朗普好奇的选民来自一个好地方:他们对“建制派”有合理的怨恨,他们感到被乏善可陈的民主党背叛,他们对现代信息环境感到困惑,他们同意特朗普的说法,即美国的日常生活正在衰落。1313,3401)。

The first problem is her excessive reliance on focus groups. From that narrow evidence base, Longwell concludes that a great number of Trump voters and Trump-curious voters are coming from a good place: they have justified resentment of “the establishment,” they feel betrayed by lackluster Democrats, they are bewildered by the modern information environment, and they share Trump’s assertion that everyday life in America is in decline (loc. 1313, 3401).

朗韦尔为这些选民的动机辩护,反映了她自己在美国小镇的成长经历(如图所示)。597-733)。在焦点小组中,这些人并不认可特朗普的偏执,并经常认为他是滑稽的。1848年)。他们对他在承诺和平后与伊朗发动新战争感到震惊。他们经常谴责他残酷的移民政策,声称他们想要执行,但不是ICE对学校的突击搜查。

Longwell is defensive of these voters’ motives, reflecting her own upbringing in small-town America (loc. 597–733). In focus groups, these people don’t endorse Trump’s bigotry and often see him as buffoonish (loc. 1848). They are shocked that he launched a new war with Iran after promising peace. They frequently denounce his cruel immigration policies, claiming they wanted enforcement but not ICE raids on schools.

朗韦尔认为,如果民主党选择正确的信息和策略,这些选民就可以组建一个压倒性的反MAGA联盟。正如她曾经写道的那样:“我们必须找到一种方法来吸引他们本性中更好的天使,并将他们从独裁边缘引导下来”(loc. 285)。

Longwell believes that a crushing anti-MAGA coalition can be assembled from these voters if the Democrats choose the right messaging and tactics. As she writes at one point: “we must find a way to appeal to the better angels of their nature and coax them off the authoritarian ledge” (loc. 285).

这里的问题是,焦点小组中的人们容易受到社会期望性偏见的影响,或者倾向于以尽可能可接受的方式将自己的信念构建在行动中。这些环境中的选民不会承认对移民、跨性别者或任何边缘群体的偏见。他们会告诉你,他们认为文化问题分散了人们对经济的注意力,因为这就是他们希望被人看到的。他们将对特朗普关押移民儿童或攻击伊朗表示愤怒,因为否则就等于承认被欺骗。

The problem here is that people in focus groups are subject to social desirability bias, or the tendency to frame their beliefs in actions in as acceptable a light as possible. Voters in those settings are not going to admit to prejudice against immigrants, transgender people, or whatever marginalized group. They are going to tell you that they see cultural issues as a distraction from the economy because that’s how they want to be seen. They are going to express outrage at Trump locking up migrant children or attacking Iran because to do otherwise would be an admission of being duped.

此外,焦点小组和民意调查中的选民希望将自己描绘成具有独立思想的人,尽管大多数自认为独立的人始终投票给一个政党或另一个政党。

Voters in focus groups and polls, moreover, want to portray themselves as independently minded, even though most self-identified independents consistently vote for one party or the other.

然而,选民的行为却讲述了一个更黑暗的故事。我们进入特朗普时代的第三个选举周期,特朗普联盟的绝大多数人,包括许多选民朗韦尔的个人资料,尽管一再表现出明显的残忍,阴谋主义和彻头彻尾的疯狂,但仍然坚持他。特朗普不再是一个未知的商品,如果他曾经是一个。特朗普有一个完整的第一任期,在这四年里,他通过了有利于富人的立法,残酷对待移民,并发起了危险的外国赌博。他也非常清楚自己第二个任期的意图,包括承诺大规模驱逐出境、“报复”他的敌人以及赦免叛乱分子。

Voter behavior, though, tells a darker story. We are three election cycles into the Trump era, and the vast majority of Trump’s coalition, including many of the voters Longwell profiles, have stuck with him in spite of repeated, manifest cruelty, conspiracism, and downright insanity. Trump is no longer an unknown commodity, if he ever was one. Trump had an entire first term, four years in which he passed legislation favoring the rich, brutalized migrants, and launched risky foreign gambits. He was also perfectly clear about his intentions for his second term, including promises of mass deportation, “retribution” against his enemies, and pardons for insurrectionists.

选民在受控环境下的言论与他们的行为之间的差距表明,这群对特朗普充满好奇的人对民主党来说可能并不像朗威尔想象的那样优雅。例如,本书中描述的选民在2026年继续认为特朗普是一位“好商人”,可能只是拥有不可动摇的先验信念(如前所述)。502)。朗韦尔可能为民主党制定了一本有用的剧本,以削减足够多的低信息和独立选民来左右几次选举,但这与她的信念相去甚远,即这些选民代表了一个可以果断反对MAGA的集团。

This gap between what voters say in a controlled setting and how they behave suggests that this body of Trump-curious people may not be as gettable for Democrats as Longwell thinks they are. For example, voters profiled in this book who continue to think, in the year 2026, that Trump is a “good businessman” may simply have a priori beliefs that are unshakeable (loc. 502). Longwell may have created a useful playbook for Democrats to shave off enough low-information and independent voters to swing a few elections, but that is a far cry from her belief that these voters represent a bloc that can be turned decisively against MAGA.

这本书更大的问题是朗韦尔选择性地利用历史来服务于她的政治论点。朗韦尔对特朗普执政前共和党的描述过于乐观。例如,她断言这是一个“由意识形态定义”的政党,特别是自由市场、美国在世界上的领导地位和有限政府(如前所述)。3359)。

The larger problem with this book is Longwell’s selective use of history to serve her political argument. Longwell’s depiction of the pre-Trump GOP is overly rosy. She asserts, for instance, that this was a party “defined by ideology,” especially free markets, U.S. leadership in the world, and limited government (loc. 3359).

但几十年来,基于身份的吸引力和对偏执的容忍一直是共和党品牌的组成部分。上一次民主党赢得多数白人选民是在1964年,这并非巧合,当时民权运动达到了顶峰,导致大量白人选民涌入共和党,因为共和党表明了对该运动的敌意。该党在20世纪中后期重组为一个以白人为主、文化保守的团体。

But identity-based appeals and the toleration of bigotry have been integral to the GOP brand for decades. The last time a Democrat won the majority of white voters was 1964, not coincidentally the peak of the Civil Rights movement, which drove a massive influx of white voters to the Republican Party as it signaled its hostility to that movement. The party realigned in the mid-late 20th century as a mostly white, culturally conservative body.

主流共和党人威廉·F·巴克利致乔治·H。W.布什和约翰·麦凯恩确实在某种程度上与最恶劣的种族主义者、反犹太主义者和疯子保持了距离。与此同时,他们试图利用这些群体的能量,通过编码的方式来应对他们的恐惧和偏见。例如,朗威尔钦佩麦凯恩是一个有原则、理性的人物(如图所示)。675-707),他在很多方面都是如此。

Mainstream Republicans from William F. Buckley to George H. W. Bush to John McCain did distance themselves, somewhat, from the most egregious racists, anti-Semites, and whack-jobs. At the same time, they tried to harness those groups’ energy with coded outreach to their fears and prejudices. For instance, Longwell admires McCain as a principled, rational figure (loc. 675–707), and so he was in many ways.

但麦凯恩也做出了极其不负责任的选择,选择莎拉·佩林作为副总统候选人,这是对该党基础的身份政治的公开安抚。这本书只提到了佩林,也没有提到麦凯恩让她成为他的竞选搭档的决定,这反映了该书在解决主流共和党在很大程度上如何创造了MAGA怪物(原文如此)方面的更大失败。687)。

But McCain also made the radically irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate in an open sop to the identity politics of the party’s base. This book makes only one reference to Palin, and it does not mention McCain’s decision to make her his running mate, reflecting its larger failure to grapple with how the mainstream Republican Party in large part created the MAGA monster (loc. 687).

朗韦尔还表示,共和党人与特朗普不同,是二战后国际秩序的捍卫者。3441)。这也在特朗普执政后和特朗普执政前的共和党人之间划清了界限。早些时候的共和党人可能对北约和美国的军事优势有着坚如磐石的忠诚,但他们也对国际法和国际机构感到恼火,认为它们是美国行动自由的负担,甚至是自由主义的阴谋。George W.比如,布什就和特朗普一样,坚信美国可以在全球舞台上采取单边行动,并使自己免受有关酷刑、无限期拘留和预防性战争的国际法和规范的约束。

Longwell also states that Republicans, unlike Trump, had been the champions of the post-World War II international order (loc. 3441). This also draws too sharp a line between post and pre-Trump Republicans. Earlier Republicans may have had a rock-solid devotion to NATO and U.S. military superiority, but they also chafed at international laws and institutions, as burdens on America’s freedom of action, or even as liberal conspiracies. George W. Bush, for instance, was quite like Trump in his conviction that the United States could act unilaterally on the global stage and exempt itself from international laws and norms on torture, indefinite detention, and preventive war.

特朗普与早期共和党明显不连续的说法并不站得住脚。朗威尔强调了乔治·H的政党。W.布什、约翰·麦凯恩和米特·罗姆尼,这些当然存在。但共和党以及整个保守派运动也是杰西·赫尔姆斯、斯特罗姆·瑟蒙德、拉什·林博和杰里·福尔韦尔的领域。他们和其他可恶的人物是定义20世纪中后期美国右翼的“融合主义”联盟的关键人物。

The claim that Trump represents a stark discontinuity from the earlier GOP does not hold historical water. Longwell highlights the party of George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, which certainly existed. But the GOP, and the conservative movement as a whole, was also the realm of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Rush Limbaugh, and Jerry Falwell. They and other odious figures were key elements of the “fusionist” coalition that defined the mid-late 20th century American right.

较为温和的共和党人押注他们可以控制极右翼并利用他们赢得选举胜利,因为他们知道在选举政治中,身份胜过意识形态。随着特朗普的到来,他们输掉了这场赌注,而在2016年疯狂分子通过提名他夺取了该党的掌舵权后,温和的共和党建制派几乎完全投降了。

The more moderate Republicans gambled that they could control the hard right and use them to gain electoral victories, knowing that identity trumped ideology in electoral politics. With the arrival of Trump, they lost that bet, and after the crazies seized the helm of the party by nominating him in 2016, the moderate Republican establishment capitulated almost entirely.

简而言之,如果这样一个实体曾经存在过的话,那么旧的、理智的共和党几乎什么都没有留下。朗威尔也承认这一点,他说“老的、基本上健康的共和党再也不会回来了”。3441)。但是,这种认识与朗威尔的信念之间存在脱节,朗威尔认为选民可以“反对唐纳德特朗普和共和党人,其力量如此强大,以至于整个MAGA运动被视为灾难性的失败”。

In short, there is virtually nothing left of the old, sane GOP, if such an entity ever existed. Longwell admits as much, stating that “the old, basically healthy Republican Party ain’t never coming back” (loc. 3441). But there is a disjunction between that recognition and Longwell’s belief that the electorate can be turned “against Donald Trump and Republicans with such force that the entire MAGA movement is viewed as a catastrophic failure” (310).

后一种信念存在两个问题。首先,共和党内部对这种改变的希望渺茫。正如朗韦尔指出的那样,特朗普后可能的继任者之争将在“MAGA建制派”(即马可·卢比奥等交易驱动的变色龙)和“美国第一派”(即马乔里·泰勒·格林和塔克·卡尔森等忠实信徒民族主义独裁者)之间展开。3442-3456)。这是有道理的,但朗韦尔忽视了这两个派系都将争夺特朗普的衣钵,争夺现在激进的共和党基础的民粹主义民族主义能量。

There are two problems with that latter belief. First, there is little hope for such a change within the GOP itself. The likely post-Trump successor battle, as Longwell notes, will be between the “MAGA Establishment,” or transactionally driven chameleons like Marco Rubio, and the “America Firsters,” or true-believer nationalist-authoritarians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson (loc. 3442–3456). This is plausible, but Longwell overlooks that both of these factions will be competing for the mantle of Trump, for the populist-nationalist energies of the now-radicalized Republican base.

这两个派系都不太可能攻击特朗普和MAGA的意识形态,而是将自己描绘成其真正的继承人,确保MAGA在可预见的未来保持对该党的控制。毕竟,在2024年共和党初选中,特朗普表面上的对手奇怪地拒绝批评他,荒谬的程度甚至特朗普后来告诉佛罗里达州州长罗恩·德桑蒂斯:“你应该攻击我。你从来没有攻击过我。”朗韦尔希望决定性的选举失败将“瓦解MAGA运动”(参见。310-350)。

Both factions are less likely to attack Trump and MAGA ideology than to portray themselves as its true heirs, ensuring that MAGA will keep its grip on the party for the foreseeable future. After all, in the 2024 Republican primaries, Trump’s ostensible opponents bizarrely refused to criticize him, to the absurd extent that Trump later told Florida governor Ron DeSantis: “You should have attacked me. You never attacked me.”Longwell hopes that decisive electoral defeats will “dismantle the MAGA movement” (loc. 310–350).

但在现代美国政治中,“决定性”失败不仅极其罕见,而且共和党很容易因失败而变得更加激进,就像2008年民主党取得压倒性决定性胜利之后发生的那样。此外,两极分化的逻辑可能会确保许多不喜欢特朗普或完全的MAGA意识形态的右倾选民将继续投票给共和党,从而防止出现滑铁卢式的对MAGA的镇压。

But not only are “decisive” defeats vanishingly rare in modern U.S. politics, the GOP could easily become more radicalized by defeat, as occurred after the Democrats’ seemingly-decisive victory in 2008. Moreover, the logic of polarization will likely ensure that many right-leaning voters who do not like Trump or the full-on MAGA ideology will continue to vote for Republicans, thus preventing a Waterloo-style vanquishing of MAGA.

其次,朗威尔粉碎MAGA的希望忽视了推动MAGA现象的深刻系统性力量。在这本书中,她将特朗普的成功描述为敏锐的战略姿态、有效的沟通以及共和党和媒体精英的懦弱(如。700年、1715-1740年)。然而,MAGA的根源远不止于此。MAGA是世界范围内民族主义强烈反对的一部分,反对移民增加和移民来源日益多样化、工业和制造业就业的侵蚀、自由贸易协议、跨国恐怖主义以及其他力量,这些力量使占主导地位但正在衰落的群体寻求恢复理想化的过去。

Second, Longwell’s hope of crushing MAGA overlooks the profound systemic forces driving the MAGA phenomenon. In this book, she depicts Trump’s success as a result of keen strategic posturing, effective communications, and the cowardice of GOP and media elites (loc. 700, 1715–1740). MAGA, however, has deeper roots than that. MAGA is part of a worldwide nationalist backlash against increased immigration and increasingly diverse sources thereof, the erosion of industrial and manufacturing employment, free trade deals, transnational terrorism, and other forces that make members of dominant but declining groups seek the restoration of an idealized past.

特朗普作为一个人很重要。他以一种独特有效的方式引导这些力量,但他并没有创造它们。这些因素正在推动民族主义民粹主义政治从巴西到德国再到以色列。MAGA,或类似的东西,根本不会消失,美国政治的结构使得民主党不太可能赢得压倒性的胜利,即使他们采用了朗威尔的剧本--但他们在很大程度上应该如此。

Trump matters as an individual. He channeled these forces in a uniquely effective way, but he did not create them. These factors are driving nationalist-populist politics from Brazil to Germany to Israel. MAGA, or something like it, is quite simply not going away, and the structure of American politics makes it unlikely that the Democrats can win crushing victories even if they adopted Longwell’s playbook—which, largely, they nonetheless should.

我写这篇评论是本着校内严谨的精神,而不是对朗威尔对美国的渴望的敌意。她深深关心这个国家,是特朗普有原则、精明的对手。作为一本有利于民主党的势均力敌的选举的战术手册,这本书有许多要点,而且简洁、有趣、简单。然而,战术只有在服务于现实的战略愿景时才有价值,而这是本书所缺乏的。朗韦尔希望让国家恢复到布什、麦凯恩和罗姆尼时代共和党的相对正常状态。

I wrote this critique in a spirit of intramural rigor, not hostility to Longwell’s aspirations for the United States. She cares deeply about this country and is a principled, astute opponent of Trump. As a tactical manual for swinging close elections in the Democrats’ favor, the book has many important points, and it is pithy, funny, and easy Tactics, however, are valuable only in the service of a realistic strategic vision, which is lacking in this book. Longwell wants to return the country to the relative normalcy of the Bush, McCain, and Romney-era GOP.

我对此表示同情,因为我相信在某种程度上确实存在负责任的保守主义,我宁愿面对罗姆尼定义的共和党,而不是特朗普。

I sympathize with that, as I believe a responsible conservatism did exist to some extent, and I would much rather face a GOP defined by Romney than Trump.

不幸的是,朗韦尔的希望是基于对选民所说的过分相信,而不是对选民所做的事情进行冷酷的审视,以及对过去的选择性看法。更黑暗的事实是,很大一部分选民已经放弃了公民的基本责任,转而支持威权主义、阴谋主义和白人民族主义。他们一次又一次地做出这样的选择,这样做他们帮助埋葬了旧的共和党。朗威尔的战术见解可以帮助在投票箱中击败MAGA;他们不能将其扔进历史的垃圾箱。在可预见的未来,MAGA将成为政治格局的一部分。精选图片为莎拉·佩林,

Unfortunately, Longwell’s hope is based on excessive faith in what voters say, as opposed to cold examination of what they do, and on a selective view of the past. The darker truth is that a major portion of the electorate has abandoned the basic responsibilities of citizenship in favor of authoritarianism, conspiracism, and white nationalism. They have made this choice over and over again, and in so doing they have helped bury the old GOP. Longwell’s tactical insights can help defeat MAGA at the ballot box; they cannot relegate it to the dustbin of history. For the foreseeable future, MAGA will be part of the political landscape. Featured Image is Sarah Palin, by Gage Skidmore