My earlier post concerns Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s non-stance on allowing any non-Republican-pre-approved Supreme Court nominees to receive a vote in the U.S. Senate.
But there was more to Jonathan Swan’s Friday interview with McConnell.
Given that McConnell on Feb. 13, 2021 condemned President Trump as “practically and morally responsible” for provoking the Jan. 6 insurrection, Swan asked how McConnell could say two weeks later he would “absolutely” support Republicans’ 2024 nominee for president even if it is Trump. Where is your moral red line, Swan asked.
Maddowblog’s Steve Benen documents the atrocities:
McConnell seemed confused, and a little annoyed, by the question, explaining that he’s “very comfortable” with how he’s conducted himself in public life.
And so, Swan got more specific, noting McConnell’s pre-written remarks in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s second impeachment trial, followed by McConnell’s declaration that he’d support Trump’s 2024 candidacy anyway.
“As a Republican leader of the Senate, it should not be a front-page headline that I will support the Republican nominee for president,” McConnell said, adding, “I think I have an obligation to support the nominee of my party, and I will.”
When Swan pressed further, asking if there’s anything the former president could possibly do that would cause the senator to withhold his support for the former president, McConnell, appearing visibly frustrated, explained, “I don’t get to pick the Republican nominee for president. They’re elected by the Republican voters.”
In other words, asked about his “moral red lines,” the Senate minority leader conceded that such lines effectively do not exist, at least insofar as electoral politics is concerned.
Benen concludes:
McConnell feels an “obligation,” not to do what’s best for the United States, and not to honor his ethical principles, but to prioritize partisanship above any other consideration. For the Kentucky senator, his list of concerns is as follows:
1. Prioritize the Republican Party’s pursuit of power.
2. See Point #1.
“No Labels”? Meet No Morals.
Never-Trumper Tim Miller of The Bulwark sought to unconfuse Swan about McConnell’s ethics when the two appeared Friday on MSNBC’s Deadline White House with Nicole Wallace.
McConnell is being politically expedient, Miller explained. But McConnell is in a different catagory from politicians of both parties who, politics being politics, often balance their own morality against political expedience. For McConnell, Miller argues, “whatever he believes is politically expedient is moral.”
His contradictions are not contradictions. For him. “[H]is whole moral framework is, whatever I need to do to advance my power and my party’s power right now is the moral thing,” Miller continues.
Cue Inigo Montoya. I do not think that a will to power fits any standard definitions of morality. Amorality perhaps.
Miller then confirms that assessment, saying, “Post-Trump era, [Republicans] don’t consider the morals anymore.” So when Swan asked McConnell if he had any morals that supercede politics, the question left McConnell befuddled. The answer was “that does not compute.”
The louder the Party of Trump screams about principles and morals, the more certain you can be that it has none. McConnell this week madfe that clear. Losing Trump won’t change that.
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
For The Win, 4th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us. This is what winning looks like.