SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
tea party
MAGA's Global Roots: Why 'America First' Isn't American
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy.
Jan 25, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump's early actions in his second term under the "Make America Great Again," or MAGA, banner prioritized populist rhetoric over national interests. Withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization further isolated the United States and eroded its global leadership. Domestically, policies like federal hiring freezes, attempts to redefine birthright citizenship, and pardons for January 6 participants deepened national divisions and hindered effective governance. Meanwhile, rolling back protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or removing resources like the reproductiverights.gov website directly targeted "unworthy" groups of Americans. Although these actions energized his base, they sacrificed long-term stability and progress for short-term political gains. Beneath the "America First" rhetoric, these divisive policies weakened the country both at home and abroad.
The MAGA movement, championed by Trump during his 2016 campaign, is often framed as a uniquely American phenomenon. With promises to restore manufacturing jobs, secure borders, and challenge global elites, MAGA tapped into deep-seated grievances within the American electorate. However, while its slogans and imagery evoke American exceptionalism, its ideological and strategic foundations are not exclusive to the United States. Instead, MAGA represents a chapter in the global populist playbook that has been refined and exported across borders in recent decades.
To effectively counter MAGA, it must be accurately framed, not as an embodiment of American exceptionalism, but as part of a global populist strategy. Democrats and other opponents have struggled to expose its true nature, allowing it to masquerade as a grassroots response to American grievances. In reality, MAGA draws heavily from international populist tactics, employing nationalism, scapegoating, and anti-globalist conspiracy theories to consolidate. This is not about a secret "populist cabal" but about recognizing the shared strategies of political programs to counter them effectively. This challenge extends to all activists and policymakers working to counter MAGA's agenda of racism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism.
By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Recognizing MAGA's universal nature highlights its contradictions. While claiming to champion "the people," it advances policies that benefit elites, marginalize vulnerable communities, and undermine protections for workers and the environment. Situating MAGA within the broader context of global populism dismantles its American exceptionalist narrative, exposing its rhetoric as hollow and manipulative. This reframing is essential to addressing the systemic issues MAGA exploits and protecting democracy from its corrosive impact.
At its core, MAGA embodies a classic populist framework, dividing society into two opposing groups: the "pure" people and the "corrupt" elites or perceived enemies. While rooted in American political history, its binary "us vs. them" rhetoric mirrors strategies employed by populist leaders worldwide. MAGA's blend of nationalism, anti-immigration policies, economic protectionism, and cultural grievances aligns with populist campaigns in regions as diverse as Europe and Latin America. From Viktor Orbán's nationalist agenda in Hungary to Marine Le Pen's rebranding of far-right politics in France, the tools and messaging of modern populism have become strikingly uniform across borders. Far from an organic response to collective grievances, it is a calculated political strategy tailored to the cultural and domestic contexts of each country.
Much of MAGA's populist DNA can be traced to the political consulting work of Paul Manafort, a pivotal figure in Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. Before working with Trump, Manafort refined his strategies in Ukraine, where he advised pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych, who was later deposed following the Maidan protests and the Revolution of Dignity. Yanukovych's campaigns relied on nationalism, cultural division, and anti-elite rhetoric to consolidate power. These were tactics Manafort later brought to Trump's campaign, including the use of disinformation, targeted messaging, and framing Trump as an outsider fighting entrenched elites.
Manafort first entered Ukrainian politics during the Orange Revolution of 2004, when widespread protests erupted over electoral fraud favoring Yanukovych in a contentious runoff election. Following massive demonstrations, Ukraine's Supreme Court annulled the results and ordered a revote, which resulted in a decisive victory for Yanukovych's opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. While Manafort's initial efforts failed, his subsequent tenure as a campaign consultant for Yanukovych and the Party of Regions proved more successful.
Manafort is widely credited with shaping the Party of Regions' slogans and political rhetoric, emphasizing themes like the "threat of NATO" and the "suppression of the Russian language in Ukraine." These strategies deepened cultural and linguistic divisions within Ukraine, particularly alienating Russian-speaking communities in the country's east. He also crafted slogans appealing to national pride and promises of immediate improvement, such as "Improving Your Life Already Today" (Ukrainian: "Покращення життя вже сьогодні"). This approach sought to resonate with citizens' desire for swift change while portraying Yanukovych as the champion of "Ukraine first" policies in contrast to his rival, then-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
The Party of Regions portrayed Tymoshenko's pro-European integration agenda as a threat to Ukraine's sovereignty and traditional values. Their rhetoric suggested that closer ties with NATO and the E.U. would usher in liberal policies, including those supporting LGBTQ rights, which they argued would undermine Ukraine's cultural identity. By framing Western institutions as cultural aggressors, the Party of Regions positioned itself as a defender of national values, effectively galvanizing conservative segments of the population against perceived external threats.
Manafort also orchestrated sophisticated disinformation campaigns to undermine Tymoshenko and then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This included creating a fake think tank to spread negative narratives through media outlets and manipulating online platforms to disseminate false information. Tymoshenko, like Yushchenko before her, was branded as a pro-American radical who prioritized foreign interests over Ukraine's well-being. These tactics, honed in Ukraine's politically fractured environment, were later adapted to resonate with the grievances and cultural divides of the American electorate.
While Manafort's role in shaping Trump's campaign was significant, his strategies are part of a broader international trend. MAGA's populism is not a spontaneous eruption of uniquely American discontent but a chapter in the global populist playbook. From exploiting cultural divisions to leveraging "anti-globalist" conspiracy theories, these methods have been employed, refined, and exported by populist leaders worldwide.
Understanding MAGA within this international context underscores the interconnected nature of modern politics, where ideas and strategies transcend national boundaries to influence movements across diverse cultural and political landscapes. By recognizing MAGA as part of this global trend, its origins, contradictions, and vulnerabilities become clearer, providing a critical framework for countering its divisive agenda.
Thousands of miles away from the U.S., a supporter of Romanian far-right candidate Călin Georgescu, who campaigned under a "Romania First" slogan, starkly declared: "She [Elena Lasconi] will pass a law on marriage between two men, I cannot accept such a thing," while asserting that Romania needed "a capable man to lead us, not a woman." Statements like these exploit cultural anxieties to galvanize conservative support, a hallmark of global populist movements.
The early 2000s marked the rise of a powerful wave of populism across Europe, fueled by economic stagnation, cultural insecurities, and widespread disillusionment with traditional political elites. This period saw far-right movements rebranding themselves as defenders of the "ordinary citizen" against globalist, technocratic, and multicultural agendas. Leaders such as Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Matteo Salvini in Italy capitalized on these dynamics, reshaping the political landscape through nationalist rhetoric and anti-immigrant sentiment.
Marine Le Pen's leadership of the National Front (later renamed National Rally) exemplified the far-right's strategic makeover. While her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, had built the party on overt racism and xenophobia, Marine sought to soften its image without abandoning its core nationalist message. She framed immigration—particularly from Muslim-majority countries—as a threat to French identity and values, tapping into fears of cultural erosion.
Le Pen also embraced Euroscepticism, portraying the European Union as a bureaucratic overreach that undermined France's sovereignty. By combining economic protectionism with cultural grievance, she expanded the party's appeal beyond far-right fringes, positioning it as a populist alternative to the French political establishment.
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom adopted an equally divisive platform. Wilders presented himself as a staunch defender of Dutch culture, depicting immigration and multiculturalism as existential threats. His rhetoric painted Islam as incompatible with Western values, using inflammatory language to link immigration with terrorism.
Wilders also criticized the European Union, framing it as an elitist institution disconnected from ordinary citizens. Like Le Pen, he weaponized nationalist sentiments to challenge liberal democratic norms, portraying his movement as a bulwark against an overly accommodating political elite.
In Southern Europe, populism took on a more authoritarian tone under leaders like Matteo Salvini. As head of the League (formerly the Northern League), Salvini shifted the party's focus from regional separatism to a nationalist agenda. He vilified immigrants, often blaming them for economic hardship and cultural decline.
Salvini's rhetoric resonated deeply with Italian voters grappling with the aftershocks of the 2008 financial crisis. His rise to prominence illustrated how economic grievances and cultural fears could be weaponized to undermine establishment parties. Salvini also positioned himself as a critic of European integration, calling for stronger national sovereignty and rejecting E.U.-imposed policies.
Across the Atlantic, Trump's 2016 campaign borrowed heavily from the European populist playbook. Trump frequently employed anti-Muslim rhetoric, framing Muslim communities as security threats and proposing a "total and complete shutdown" of Muslims entering the United States. This culminated in the so-called Muslim Ban, a series of executive orders restricting travel from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Trump justified these policies as necessary for national security, leveraging fear and xenophobia to energize his base. Simultaneously, he criticized global institutions like the United Nations, portraying it as an encroachment on American sovereignty. This "America First" rhetoric closely mirrored themes seen in Viktor Yanukovych's pro-Russian campaigns in Ukraine, where nationalism and cultural division were used to consolidate power.
Trump's populist appeal also pitted him against establishment Republicans, a trend that had gained momentum during the Tea Party movement. By labeling establishment figures as "Republicans in Name Only" (RINOs), Trump positioned himself as the voice of disenfranchised Americans battling entrenched elites.
The European populist wave demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt its messaging to local contexts while drawing on common themes of nationalism, anti-globalization, and cultural conservatism. Leaders like Le Pen, Wilders, and Salvini pioneered tactics that not only reshaped their own political landscapes but also provided a blueprint for populist movements worldwide.
The modern American populist movement that evolved into MAGA traces its roots to the Tea Party, a movement that rose to prominence in the late 2000s with significant backing from the Koch network. Many of Trump's staunchest supporters within the Republican Party have roots in the Tea Party, highlighting a continuity of populist sentiment. Studies have shown that individuals who supported the Tea Party in the early 2010s were more likely to align with Trump's agenda in subsequent years, demonstrating the movement's lasting influence on the Republican Party's ideological trajectory.
A key figure in this transition was Steve Bannon, the co-founder of Breitbart News and later the CEO of Trump's 2016 campaign. Breitbart News played a pivotal role in promoting Tea Party ideas and candidates, amplifying the movement's anti-establishment and nationalist messaging. By the mid-2010s, Bannon was leveraging the momentum of the Tea Party to advance a more explicitly nationalist agenda, aligning himself with Trump and broadening the scope of American populism.
Bannon's strategic vision extended beyond the United States. He actively sought to unify and strengthen populist movements in Europe, forging connections with right-wing parties and leaders. His efforts aimed to create a global network of populist movements united by shared principles of nationalism, anti-globalism, and opposition to progressive international institutions. By fostering these alliances, Bannon sought to build a cohesive international populist front that could challenge the global liberal order.
By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement.
The transition from the Tea Party to MAGA underscores the evolution of modern American populism. While the Tea Party emphasized economic grievances and a distrust of government, MAGA expanded its appeal through cultural and nationalist rhetoric, effectively reshaping the Republican Party's identity. Bannon's role as a bridge between these movements highlights the deliberate efforts to harness and repurpose the Tea Party's energy for a broader populist agenda.
By situating MAGA within this lineage and connecting it to international populist trends, it becomes clear that modern populism is neither a spontaneous phenomenon nor a uniquely American one. Instead, it reflects a calculated and evolving strategy that draws from shared grievances and ideological frameworks to build power both domestically and globally.
Alexander Dugin, the Russian political philosopher and architect of Eurasianism, has played a significant role in shaping contemporary populist ideology. His Fourth Political Theory rejects the supremacy of liberal democracy, offering an alternative that combines traditionalism with elements of socialism and nationalism. This framework provides ideological backing for populist leaders seeking to distance themselves from Western liberal values, advocating a return to traditional cultural and religious norms.
A similar narrative has emerged in the United States, where "liberal values" are portrayed as an external, malevolent force threatening Western traditions. This narrative creates a shared ideological foundation among global populist movements, highlighting their interconnected strategies while adapting to different cultural contexts.
The convergence of these ideologies highlights a broader trend in modern populism: the collaboration and exchange of ideas among populist leaders worldwide. This interconnectedness has enabled the rapid dissemination of populist rhetoric and strategies, strengthening the global populist movement. Parallel populist victories in Europe and the rise of MAGA in the United States underscore the growing international reach and influence of these movements.
Modern populism also facilitates and normalizes the presence of far-right radical groups. In the United States, MAGA exhibits subtle overlaps with Third Position politics in its emphasis on "America First" nationalism and critiques of globalism. Trump's appeal to the working class, paired with his anti-elite and protectionist economic rhetoric, reflects a syncretic approach. Like the Third Position's rejection of both capitalist elites and socialist internationalism, MAGA positions itself as a champion of the "forgotten" American worker while opposing progressive social movements.
This fusion of cultural conservatism and economic populism resonates with a wide range of disillusioned voters, blurring traditional ideological lines. While MAGA remains distinct from historical Third Position movements, its hybridization of nationalism, economic populism, and anti-elite rhetoric demonstrates how these ideologies evolve within contemporary populist frameworks.
The authoritarian undertones of populist movements are increasingly evident. Trump's actions on the first day of his second term, such as the swift pardoning of January 6 insurrectionists, including Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders, signal solidarity with violent actors. This move not only rehabilitates these groups but also reinforces their alignment with MAGA.
Globally, similar ties between populist movements and extremist groups are evident. In Germany, the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) has connections with far-right groups like the Identitarian Movement and neo-Nazi networks, using nationalist rhetoric to intimidate opponents. Hungary's Fidesz party, under Viktor Orbán, benefits from the support of groups like the Hungarian Guard, known for targeting Roma communities and promoting anti-immigrant sentiment. Italy's Lega, led by Matteo Salvini, is linked to far-right factions such as CasaPound, which employ neo-fascist rhetoric and violence to advance nationalist themes.
Brazil's Jair Bolsonaro has relied on paramilitary militias to target leftist politicians and activists, while India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under Narendra Modi, maintains close ties with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary group accused of inciting violence against minorities. These movements use nationalist and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and perpetuate divisions.
The global populist movement is further bolstered by influential figures like Elon Musk, who recently expressed support for the AfD via X. Musk's involvement in Trump's administration underscores the deepening connections between global populist leaders.
Modern populism has created a volatile political landscape, not only undermining liberal democratic norms but also fostering syncretic alliances that blur traditional ideological boundaries. These movements often build connections with extremist groups, activist organizations, and unconventional political networks, drawing strength from shared grievances and interconnected strategies. This convergence amplifies their influence and extends their reach beyond government institutions into civil society. Addressing the global nature of populism, and its ability to co-opt diverse political and activist frameworks, is essential to countering its divisive and authoritarian tendencies while safeguarding democratic principles and inclusive social movements.
MAGA is not a uniquely American movement but part of a global populist strategy that exploits cultural anxieties, nationalism, and anti-globalist rhetoric to consolidate power. By understanding its connections to international populism, it becomes clear that MAGA is a calculated political construct rather than a genuine grassroots movement. Recognizing these global parallels and shared tactics is essential to countering its corrosive impact on democracy and fostering a more inclusive political dialogue. Exposing MAGA as part of a broader authoritarian trend is not just a defense of American values but a necessary step in protecting democracy worldwide.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Energy Gap: Why Democrats Keep Losing to GOP Plutocrats
Energy counts, matters, and wins the political battles. There isn't even any adrenaline around the Dems' capillaries.
Nov 29, 2024
Over thirty years ago, Republican historian and political analyst, Kevin Phillips, remarked that the “Republicans go for the jugular while the Democrats go for the capillaries.” This serious disparity in political energy levels is rarely taken into account to explain election turnouts. The voluntary enfeebling of the Democratic Party started long ago. In 1970, writing in Harper’s Magazine, economist John Kenneth Galbraith, a co-founder of Americans for Democratic Action, wrote an article “Who Needs Democrats? And What It Takes to be Needed?” He argued that if the Democratic Party does not take on the corporate and political establishment, it has no purpose at all.
In 2001, long after the 1980 Reagan landslide of Jimmy Carter, Labor Secretary under Clinton, Robert Reich, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which declared, “…The Democratic Party. It’s Dead.”
In the following years, while the Democrats were accelerating their abandonment of half the country as “red states,” and became more out of touch with blue-collar workers and unions, whom they took for granted, the Republicans were becoming more energized by the year. Their mouthpieces dominating talk radio – e.g., Rush Limbaugh – were directly sowing unrebutted discord, day after day, among blue-collar workers against the Democrats. Why? It’s because the Democrats essentially gave up on Talk Radio and didn’t bother listening to how these corporatist radio bloviators were turning hard working listeners into Reagan Democrats.
While the GOP was eroding the core base of the Democratic Party and taking total control of red state legislatures, governorships, and courts, the Democrats, starting in 1979, were plunging into enticing and taking corporate PAC money, as urged by then Rep. Tony Coelho (D-CA). This reliance on corporate campaign money weakened the Party’s positions and actions on behalf of workers, consumers, the environment, and the need for an expanded social safety net for the populace. Western nations have provided their citizens superior health care, family support and education programs for decades.
The comparative energy levels were exhibited in the 2010 state gerrymandering drive. While the Democrats were snoozing, a laser beam effort in several states, like Pennsylvania, took the Dems to the cleaners. The result: majority GOP Congressional delegations for a decade even though the Democrats won the popular vote there. (See: Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal America’s Democracy by David Daley.)
"The Dems had the popular New Deal agenda update in their grasp, but let it slip through their fingers."
Recall, in 2009 Obama had a large majority Democratic advantage in the House and Senate as a result of his win over John McCain in November 2008. Instead of going forward full throttle with this mandate, Obama chose extreme caution. He focused on Obamacare, after giving up right at the beginning the crucial “public option” allowing people to opt out of the corporate health insurance grip. He gave it up unilaterally before negotiations began with the obstructive GOP.
For the rest of his term, Obama appeared to be resting. He promised a $9.50 federal minimum wage in his 2008 campaign but didn’t lift a finger for it during his first term. It is still at a poverty wage of $7.25 per hour to this day. He didn’t really put up a grassroots fight for his stimulus bill following the Wall Street collapse and the great recession starting under George W. Bush, (the war criminal against the Iraqi people.) Obama even declined to prosecute the Wall Street crooks.
In the meantime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, managed to lose the House to a reactionary GOP in the 2010 elections, the 2012 elections, the 2014 elections and the 2016 elections, straightjacketing any possible Obama agenda in the Congress. The Dems had the popular New Deal agenda update in their grasp, but let it slip through their fingers while the GOP had a corporatist anti-worker, consumer, and women’s agenda and with ferocious energy blocked improvements supported by a majority of people in the US.
Even more inexplicable was the Democratic Party’s refusal to strongly support the galvanizing political civic movement to cancel the Electoral College (see NationalPopularVote.com). This organizing effort has led so far to the passage of state laws (California, New York, Illinois, etc.) handing the Electoral College vote to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The Democrats won the popular vote in 2000 (Al Gore) and 2016 (Hillary Clinton) but lost the Electoral College vote to G.W. Bush and the surprised Donald Trump. Still, the Democrats stay on the sidelines though this movement already has enabled state laws totaling 215 Electoral College votes, needing only to get to 270 to neutralize this anti-democratic vestige from the historic era of slavery.
Almost everywhere you look you see this huge disparity in energy levels. Compare the smaller Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives with the Pelosi-toady Progressive Caucus. The difference is that between thunder and slumber over the years.
Compare the Tea Party’s slamming impact on the established GOP in Congress with the tepid attitude of most labor unions and the AFL-CIO deferring to the Democratic Party.
Compare the over-the-top corporate judges to the so-called liberal judges, as relating to federal cases against Trump.
Compare the comprehensive ghastly Heritage Foundation’s 900-page 2025 blueprint directed toward the GOP expansion of the corporate state and the stripping away of services to the people and their rights with the agenda advanced by the progressive citizen groups. No comparison. The media notices this difference in energy levels which is one reason it gives more coverage to the right-wing messianic bulldozers who show in every way that they are hungrier for taking power as they take no prisoners.
Partisan energy disparities even extend to the right-wing vs. left-wing media. The former has the brazen Fox News network. The left has nothing like that. Bill Moyers told me he urged mega-rich George Soros and allies to start a competing progressive network after Fox became quickly formidable. No way.
The right-wing magazines cover the actions of their right-wing allies, plus those gatherings and books. While the progressive media mostly ignores reviewing progressive books and what citizen groups are driving for against corporate power in Washington, DC, and at the state level. The Progressive media prefers publishing their opinions and exposé pieces. That’s one reason why there are more non-fiction right-wing corporatist books which become best sellers, while progressive tomes gather dust.
Further weakening the energy gap in favor of the GOP are the Democrats who look for scapegoats like the Greens to account for their disgraceful losses. They rarely look at themselves in the mirror. Democrats like Norman Solomon (See, Roots Action) issue “autopsy reports” following Party defeats. The 2017 report documented the Democratic Party’s arrogant, entrenched leadership which ignores the progressive base.
After the November 5th debacle, have you heard about mass resignations by Democrats responsible for this victory by the convicted felon, chronic liar, bigot, corrupt, phony promisor Trump? Well, the DNC chair, Jamie Harrison is resigning but that is pro forma. Other Democratic leaders are still on board at the state and federal level, in addition to, astonishingly enough, the failed corporate political/media consultants who enriched themselves while wasting away the biggest flood of campaign money in American history on the Kamala Harris campaign.
Younger Democrats who raise the need to displace the failed Democratic apparatchiks, and who want popular vigorous progressive agendas, as espoused by the naturally popular Senator Bernie Sanders, get ignored or worse pushed out of contention, visibility and, importantly, respect.
The Party’s losing elders have assured the absence of farm teams, of successors. Speaker Pelosi and her deputy Rep. Steny Hoyer are experts at this geriatric supremacy despite their track record of losing to the aggressive Republican plutocrats. Energy counts, matters and wins the political battles. There isn’t even any adrenaline around the Dems' capillaries.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Does Mitch McConnell Really Give a Damn About the Supreme Court?
Ideology has never been as important to the Senate majority leader as power.
Feb 26, 2016
Many years ago, I worked on a documentary about the how and why of political TV ads. The primary focus was on two media consultants: the late Bob Squier, a Democrat, and Bob Goodman, a Republican.
One ad of which Goodman was incredibly proud was for a fellow in Kentucky running against Todd Hollenbach, Sr., the incumbent judge/executive of Jefferson County. Produced in 1977, the spot featured a farmer complaining about taxes that he claimed Judge Hollenbach had raised and then lied about.
As he mucked out a barn and his faithful horse whinnied, the farmer declared, "Maybe Hollenbach ought to have my job, because in my business, I deal with that kind of stuff every day."
Then he threw a shovel of manure right at the camera.
Hollenbach lost to the candidate who approved this message: Mitch McConnell.
McConnell has been shoveling it ever since, but perhaps never as stunningly as on Tuesday when he spoke from the floor of the US Senate. The now-majority leader of the so-called greatest deliberative body in the world blustered, as he has several times in the last couple of weeks, that Senate Republicans would never, ever consider an appointment by President Obama to replace the still-dead Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The president, McConnell, said, "has every right to nominate someone, even if doing so will inevitably plunge our nation into another bitter and avoidable struggle."
Excuse me, Senator, the bitter and undeniably avoidable struggle was created by you on the Saturday that Scalia's corpse was found. The body was barely cold when you crassly announced that the duly elected President of the United States should not name the judge's successor but must leave it to the next president - more than 300 days from now.
McConnell continued, "Even if he never expects that nominee to be actually confirmed but rather to wield as an election cudgel, he certainly has the right to do that." Again, Senator, it's you who is wielding the blunt object.
And then the majority leader had the chutzpah, as they say down home in his Bluegrass State, to add that "Obama also "has the right to make a different choice. He can let the people decide and make this a legacy-building moment rather than just another campaign roadshow."
Oh, brother, look who's talking. Of all the pompous, insincere bloviation, ignoring courtesy, tradition - let alone the US Constitution - in the name of Senator McConnell's misbegotten ambitions.
Psychiatrists call this "projection," the defensive method by which people take their own negative beliefs or feelings and attribute them to someone else - otherwise known as shifting blame. In McConnell's case, add to it a megadose of the cynical manipulation and crass opportunism characteristic of most of his political career.
Not that it was always so. McConnell began his political life as a liberal Republican - remember them? -- interning for legendary Kentucky senator and statesman John Sherman Cooper. He supported the Equal Rights Amendment and collective bargaining. Friends say he was pro-Planned Parenthood, and he even wrote an op-ed piece in the Louisville Courier-Journal favoring campaign finance reform. Former McConnell press secretary Meme Sweets Runyon told Jason Cherkis and Zach Carter atThe Huffington Post, "He was kind of a good-government guy. He thought the government could do good and could be a solution."
But once Mitch McConnell got to Washington as an elected senator, the mood of the Republican Party shifted right, and so did he. Delay and obstruction became stepping stones. At the same time, the man who New York Times columnist Gail Collins famously described as having "the natural charisma of an oyster" developed a Jekyll-and-Hyde style of self-serving pragmatism - bashing government from Capitol Hill but using all of its perks to bolster support among his constituents.
In 2013, Cherkis and Carter wrote:
Up until the tea party-led ban on earmarks a few years ago, McConnell played out this dichotomy across Kentucky. In Washington, he voted against a health care program for poor children. In Kentucky, he funneled money to provide innovative health services for pregnant women. In Washington, he railed against Obamacare. In Kentucky, he supported free health care and prevention programs paid for by the federal government without the hassle of a private-insurance middleman. This policy ping-pong may not suggest a coherent belief system, but it has led to loyalty among the GOP in Washington and something close to fealty in Kentucky. It has advanced McConnell's highest ideal: his own political survival.
"McConnell's hold on Kentucky is a grim reminder of the practice of power in America -- where political excellence can be wholly divorced from successful governance and even public admiration," the Huffington Post reporters continued. "The most dominant and influential Kentucky politician since his hero Henry Clay, McConnell has rarely used his indefatigable talents toward broad, substantive reforms. He may be ruling, but he's ruling over a commonwealth with the lowest median income in the country, where too many counties have infant mortality rates comparable to those of the Third World. His solutions have been piecemeal and temporary, more cynical than merciful."
And so it goes. "He privileges the scoreboard above all," The New Yorker's Evan Osnos wrote in 2014. "Asked about his ideological evolution, he explained simply, 'I wanted to win.'"
Tailoring his positions to adjust to the shifting seasons, what sets Mitch McConnell apart is that his motives aren't ideological but so baldly about holding onto personal power. His opposition to Obama's naming of a Scalia replacement puts the majority leader in solid with the far-right Republicans he purportedly so dislikes but who have threatened his job security over the last few years, both at home and in DC.
Moreover, McConnell is desperate to keep a conservative majority on the Court to preserve the unbridled flow of campaign cash that the Citizens United decision let loose and that he so successfully has tapped for himself and the GOP. Unlike the young man who penned that campaign finance reform op-ed back in Louisville, fundraising has become his favorite thing, and he's scary good at it. As his former Republican Senate colleague Alan Simpson said, "When he asked for money, his eyes would shine like diamonds. He obviously loved it."
And even if a Democrat holds onto the White House next year, chances are McConnell - the man who once said that the most important thing was to make Barack Obama a one-term president -- will still play a power broker role in determining which Supreme Court candidate will successively run the 60-vote supermajority gauntlet needed for Senate approval. It's good to be king.
But if he wants us all to wait for a Republican president to choose the next appointment to the Court, he might want to think twice. Donald Trump bows before no man - just ask him -- and he shovels muck even better than that farmer who helped Mitch McConnell win his first public office.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular