The Dispatch Podcast - Members Only: The GOP Flirts With Civil War

Episode Date: September 16, 2023

A quick preview from our regular members-only Dispatch Live discussion: Kevin, Steve, Drucker, and Grayson discuss the right's embrace of violent rhetoric and the disputed value of Mike Pence's last-minute anti-populist turn. (Steve, a few Spanish wine glasses in, gets extra ranty... you've been warned.) If you want to join our live discussions, support the work we're doing, and help us do a lot more: become a Dispatch member. https://thedispatch.com/join -If you're a member, you can watch the full live discussion here: https://thedispatch.com/article/video-mccarthy-launches-impeachment-inquiry/ -Sign up to "The Skiff" to get all Dispatch members-only content here: https://members.thedispatch.com/account/feeds Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Calling all Booklovers. The Toronto International Festival of Authors brings you a world of stories all in one place. Discover five days of readings, talks, workshops and more with over 100 authors from around the world, including Rachel Maddow, Ketourou Isaku and Kieran Desai. The Toronto International Festival of Authors, October 29th to November 2nd.

Details and tickets at festivalofauthors.ca. Hey, this is Kevin Williamson. As some of you may know, I've been hosting a series of convivial dispatch live events for our members. We get into discussions and sometimes even arguments, which may or may not be alcohol-related about various subjects. This week, we were discussing the threat of violence from Maga World and the upcoming elections, and we argued about whether Mike Pence should be praised or not for his belated stance against populism. The following is a small sample from the full hour. If you want to join and be part of the live discussion, ask questions, and interact with the rest of the community.

become a dispatch full member on the dispatch.com. More great stuff to come. Thank you. Before we get to this block, why don't we introduce it with a thematic montage as though this were a 1990 sitcom? If there's a prosecution, Donald Trump, for mishandling classified information, there'll be riots in the streets.

Governor can declare war, and we're going to probably, we're going to probably see that. Over a third of Democrats believe America is on the brink of civil war. If such an unthinkable war breaks out, it will be the Democrats' fault. Someone's going to get so pissed off, they're going to shoot someone. We're going to have a civil war. That's where this is going. This is treason. This is a hijacking of our country. This is war. Do you want us to be in civil war? Because that's what's going to happen. We need to be taking action right now. Because if we don't, our constituencies are going to be fighting it in the street. Do you want a civil war?

If these tactics end up working to keep Trump from winning or even running in 2024, it is going to be the last American election that will be decided by ballots rather than bullets. And I worry if they start to take the vote away, you could see bloodshed in this country like none of us want. deep sigh. I don't know what one even says about that. But you know what thought came into my mind. And this is because maybe I'm just a cynical sort of person. But I don't really like corporate marketing department types and the way they talk and the way they think and the kind of marketing monkey sort of mentality. But you know what was a really good brand? And I think there is some value in a good brand being we were the party of Lincoln was a really good brand for a long time. As far as American political parties go, that's about the best one you can get. You know, it's the best one that's available. It's the Coca-Cola. It's the McDonald's of political party brands. Why are these idiots talking about secession all the time in Civil War? Because they're bozos. It's the bozo caucus. But I think in part they're talking about this because they don't actually think any of it's going to happen. They figure they raise some more money,

get some more TV hits. Look, I'm sure there are some out there that are serious about this, but it gains them a following. It gets them attention. And they don't actually think it's going to happen because most of them are not serious people that are committed to doing serious things. Grayson, what are your thoughts on all this stuff? Well, I'm thinking about this topic a little bit, and I personally feel like fatigue from this talk. I think we're like, seven, maybe six, seven years into the reemergence of civil war discourse in our politics. I think there was like a November 2019 issue of the Atlantic was how to stop a civil war, like a big cover.

Can Michael Savage write a book called Stop This Coming Civil War or something? Maybe like in 2009 or? Yeah, even earlier than that. So I think a lot of folks have become desensitized. to this type of rhetoric. But in doing reporting on just the rising threats of like political violence against elected officials that we've seen over the last couple of years, like I take David's point that I certainly don't believe that these are serious people who think that this is going to happen. But a lot of people who listen to those unserious people can make real threats and

even in some cases real decisions based off of that type of rhetoric. So I know we can get some fatigue from just having the same talking points about secession or a civil war thrown about politically. But the convictions that we've seen in the last couple months about death threats or potential plots against elected officials, both on the left and the right, seem to bear out that this can translate into actions pretty quickly. Yeah, the death threat stuff, I think we should try to develop a norm or just not talking about that because essentially everyone who is in public life, not just in politics. If you're the spokesman for a fast food restaurant chain and you do commercials, you'll get 10 death threats a month in your email or on social media or God forbid

if you have a comment section on a website. But we have seen stuff go beyond that, of course. We've seen Republicans violently attacked by Democratic partisans. We've seen Democrats finally attacked by Republican partisans. We seem to have a broader acceptance, not only of that rhetoric, but also the underlying idea that we are in some state of crisis, that somehow morally gives a permission slip to acting on urges. People probably already were feeling

and looking for an excuse. But Steve, I wonder if you have any thoughts on what we can do to make it better, if anything. What can people who want to contribute to a more responsible presence in the public square actually, actually do and accomplish. You know, as much of a goofball as Huckabee is, he's got a huge, huge audience. As I used to, you know, I'm not sure this actually holds up because of a recent political legislative change, but I used to tell people, just remember, like the biggest, most influential

political discussion sites in the United States don't have 3% of the web traffic of porn hub. Now, within the world of political commentary, your most responsible, respectable, thoughtful conversations don't reach 3% of the people that, I don't know, whoever replaced Tucker Carlson does. Jesse Waters. Oh, yeah, that's right. You have the unblemished record. Yes.

So that's a great question, honestly. And it's something that we've thought about a fair amount at the dispatch. Let me let me start with by not answering your question, and then I'll get around answering your question, because I guess I would differ a little bit with, with David and Grayson in one respect. I mean, totally agree that the people were saying these things are clowns, are clownish, are people that, you know, sort of, in normal times, or 20, 30 years ago wouldn't be taken seriously and are mostly saying this, mostly, most of them saying this to get attention so that they can be on Fox again, so that they can have another appearance on Steve Bannon's podcast. What I think there are some of these folks led by sort of, you know, erstwhile conservative intellectuals,

who believe we are in sort of the late stages of American decline, who believe it, who want the violence. And it was easier to shrug off the prospects of real violence before January 6th, when the theoretical became the real in a way that, you know, was well planned, I think, called for by the President of the United States. And it seems to me that many of the same people who were involved in instigating that violence, in making the arguments that eventually led to that kind of violence, are making the same kinds of arguments today. Just yesterday, Mike Flynn, former prestigious general, you know, controversial national security advisor under Donald Trump. But before that, led the defense intelligence agency was regarded.

I mean, certainly I regarded him as one of the few truth tellers on the question of al-Qaeda during the Obama administration. Somebody who had among intelligence analysts, even intelligence analysts who disagreed with Mike Flynn, thought he was a rigorous analyst himself and someone to be respected when he made arguments he should be listened to. He said yesterday, and I'll just read it on Twitter, on the nine. 9-11 anniversary. There are there are times for silent remembrance of those tragically murdered during the attacks against our nation on 9-11. And we must never forget. Once you've had your moment to say a silent prayer, I want you then to stand up and be silent no more. And here's the important sentence. Our country is once again under attack, this time by a far more insidious enemy. This enemy operates inside of the very institutions of power that are supposed to defend and protect the safety and security of every American. Be silent no more. Think about what he's saying. Al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on September 11th and Mike Flynn, one of the leaders of the campaign of the war against al-Qaeda because of what they had done is claiming that the enemy is now more insidious. And by the enemy,

Democrats and liberals and government bureaucrats and rhinos and that he knows what he's saying and he's not just saying entirely invest but wasn't he seemed to you at this point like a guy who's like that close to talking about fluoridation of water and our precious lost his mind look he he's somebody I mean remember he had he did this video where he was basically doing the Q&on hand signals and and you know where go one, we go all, or whatever that phrase is. Yeah, I mean, he has become a true radical, but he has followers. And unfortunately, his followers aren't sort of eight people in a basement somewhere. He goes and speaks at conferences and commands an audience of thousands

who are listening carefully to every word. And when we talk about political violence, it's important to remember, you don't need to have hundreds of thousands or millions of people willing to pick up arms, you need to have a couple hundred, maybe a couple dozen. And it can be tragic for the country. I think I'm worried about that. And I think we'd be wise not to, even if I agree with both David and Grayson, that most of the people are doing this are doing this for clownish reasons and aren't to be taken seriously, the people on the receiving end of that rhetoric are taking them very serious. Yeah, and one of the disconnects is the people like, you know,

Huckabee and the actual political operators, you know, people who have either electoral ambitions or financial ambitions to build, you know, media careers and that sort of thing, they are organizers. They take an organized look of the world. They want to build groups, the people we have to worry about the most, are people who are not organizers, who are not organization people. It's, you know, the parlance of, you know, terrorism is leaderless resistance, they call it, or your leaderless action, where you get.

get people out there who are just sort of absorbing this stuff, who don't have to go join a group, they don't go to meetings, they don't go to a training session. It's not like al-Qaeda, where you have to get on an airplane, go to Pakistan, go to a camp, get indoctrinated and train and then send off somewhere. This is the United States. You just have to go to your near a sporting goods store or agricultural supply store or whatever and get the materials you need to hurt people and then go out and do it. And so you've got a disconnected set of incentives and strategies, I suppose, I would say. And the people who are trying to build organizations and, you know, make money off of this stuff and build political careers on this

stuff aren't thinking very much about the people who aren't part of that, who are the real problem we have to think about here. Because, you know, if you look at the people who we've actually seen carry out politically influenced mass shootings or other acts of political violence that we've seen. They haven't, for the most part, been people who have strong connections, any particular political organization. And they often were people who had mixed up ideologies at most. But they were able to run into this stuff and get out of it what they were looking for, which is an impetus, you know, more than it is a worldview. Drucker, what are your thoughts on this? Well, Steve made a number of good points. I'm going to use this as a good excuse to exercise

as a hobby horse here of mine, which is to say that there are many good reasons why when we're having these discussions, whether we're talking about a political backlash or the potential for something worse, which I don't think we should dismiss, notwithstanding my opinion of some of these high-profile agitators. We focus on, you know, you better be nice to Trump or else Republicans are going to get really upset or grassroots conservatives are going to get really upset. You better not indict him. You better not do this. And what I like to point out is there are a lot of Democratic voters in this country. And, you know, Steve's nice enough to pay me to travel around the country and talk to these people. And a lot of them think Trump

should have been indicted about a week after he left office. They were very unhappy with Merrick Garland for moving so slow and in their view too carefully to bring some of these indictments. They think that Trump should have already been in jail. They think that he should be disqualified from the ballot. I'm not saying we should do anything to satisfy anybody. I just think it's, and we, even though people on the right don't have a monopoly on crackpots, and we saw that there was a progressive self-identified who tried to assassinate Steve Scalise, the House Majority Leader and a bunch of Republican members at that baseball practice years ago.

So we know that this thing plays both ways. And my point isn't to say, look out because there are threats of violence from the left. My point is only to say that we are a generally politically divided country when you look at the voting and that Donald Trump, obviously, is a polarizing figure. And there's a lot of focus on, uh-oh, what are we going to do if Trump's mistreated or perceived to be mistreated? What are they going to do? There are a lot of Democrats in this country who think that Biden and Garland and the system, have been way too easy on them, and it's not about what they're going to do. It's just to point out that

they also have a vote. They also have opinions. And it's not just Republicans that get upset about things related to Trump. It's also Democrats. And this is an issue without a good solution. But I think it's important for us to remember that. Speaking of which, I need to have a little sidebar here for a second before we move on to the next subject. But since we're talking about January 6th and some things related to that in political violence, Steve, make the best case

that I've been too hard on Mike Pence. Kevin, this is a... I thought I was going to have a dispute, I guess. I'm having with you. So let's do this. It's probably too strong to say that we've been having this argument in Slack because

you took the time to write a long column newsletter making your case. And I've just said, I mean, your basic argument is Mike Pence is the worst. My basic argument is no, there are others who are worse. Look, first of all, to the people who are watching, if you haven't read Kevin's piece on Mike Pence and why he doesn't deserve the credit that some of us are giving him for what he's done on January 6th and the arguments he's made subsequently, I would encourage you to take the time to read it. I agree with most of what you wrote in terms of the case that you made that Mike Pence went along with a lot of bad stuff

and that somebody who cared about the Constitution in the way that Mike Pence is now campaigning on wouldn't have gone along so easily with a lot of that bad stuff. Very hard to disagree with any of that. Where I think you and I differ is the credit he gets for what he did on January 6th. You think it was sort of there's he doesn't deliver any credit. He did what anybody could be expected to do. And oh, by the way, there were political incentives for him at that point to cut bait. I guess I view it differently. There were a lot of people beyond just the nuts, Sidney Powell and others,

encouraging him to take a different path. And some of those people, particularly on January 6th itself, were chanting hang Mike Pence. And I think he deserves credit for standing up to those people in the middle of that chaos and is saying,

I'm not going to do this. You can make an argument that he should have done it earlier. You can make an argument that he should have publicly split from Donald Trump on a variety of constitutional issues, or on this particular question before January 6th, I think we could split the baby maybe in different ways on that. I give Mike Pence a lot of credit for the argument that he's making now.

And I do that well aware that some of this may be self-serving. But the case that he made against this sort of blending of conservatism and populism against the kind of Trumpian populism that, as you point out, he abetted for four years is an important one, in my view. It needs to be said. And if we limited the people who were in a position to make that case only to those who were pure enough by their actions and arguments over the last eight years to make it, there would be like six people who could make that case. So I wish Mike Pence would have said a lot of what he said in his much-ballahood speech last week earlier than he said it. I'm very glad that he's saying it now.

And I would welcome anybody else, late converts, Chris Christie, as another late convert, somebody with whom I had many strenuous disagreements in 2016, sitting across the table from him, making these arguments. He didn't see it my way. He went on to do a thing, a number of things that I thought were very damaging to the country, very helpful to Donald Trump. In order to get beyond this moment, this sort of populist moment, we're going to need people who were part of that movement, maybe even leaders in that movement, to figure out whether because they've come to a certain realization or they've had an epiphany or for crass, personal or political reasons to make arguments moving beyond that.

And so I give Mike Pence credit. I do think, I think he means it. Like, I think he was pained for his four years as Trump's vice president. I think he went along with a bunch of things that he wouldn't have otherwise gone along with. And while I can be critical of him for that, I think what he's saying now is much more like what Mike Pence actually does. Yeah. I'm willing to go with you that this is more the real Mike Pence and the Trump administration, Mike Pence was more the phony Mike Pence. But you're not willing to go along with anything else I said.

I'll put it this way. If I knew a guy who'd been a problem alcoholic and he was drunk for 20 years in a row and he was so drunk that he became homeless and lost his job and messed up his life and ruined his family, if he's sober for three days, I'm glad he's sober, but I'm not lending in my car. You know what I'm going to do.