Anyway, when I left off with Part V, I raised the topic of "ideological collusion," referencing Levitsky and Ziblatt's How Democracies Die. Plenty of others have referenced this book discussing the relationship between Trump and congressional Republicans in order to make the claim that they tolerate his corruption for policy gains, but it is worth asking why, as I did towards the end of that post. His corruption is, after all, staggering. Donald Trump truly might be controlled by a hostile foreign power. It remains an open question whether his solicitousness towards Putin is because of his personal hero worship of totalitarian rulers or blackmail. At this point, we don't know. We do know that he is the most corrupt president in history by far, though. And so do people like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. So, how does one come to weigh some corporate tax cuts so strongly, even when combined with other tax increases included in the 2018 bill, that they will tolerate any level of corruption imaginable, including possibly treason, to preserve them?
I pulled a little trick there. Did you notice? I described the 2018 tax bill. Compared to what? Policy questions must always come back to that. Compared to what?
Remember the Obamacare debates? Remember the origin of Obamacare? It started out as the Republican alternative to "HillaryCare," developed by the Heritage Foundation when the Clintons were pushing a healthcare reform proposal in '93 and '94. Then, a Massachusetts Republican Governor named Willard somethingorother adopted it for his state. Then, some black dude with a "D" after his name pushed it at the national level, and a bunch of scared, old, southern whites, led by a woman who might as well be southern, started screaming "DEATH PANELS!!!"
Compared to what? That is the question, as far as policy debates are concerned. In spatial theory-- my neck of the academic woods-- we put everything on a line (or sometimes a multidimensional policy space, when we really want to fuck with people's heads), and one location is the status quo, while another is the alternative, representing where policy goes if the bill passes. You need to know both. Honest debate requires honestly specifying both.
What is the cost of losing? In utility terms, the utility differential between the policy options is U(alternative)-U(status quo). That's going to be positive if I prefer the alternative, and negative if I prefer the status quo. Simple. How big is the magnitude? It can be pretty big.*
Now, here's the thing. How much corruption would you tolerate to avoid paying the cost of losing?
Yeah. There's the rub. The bigger the policy difference, the more corruption you tolerate. More polarization means you tolerate more corruption, but it gets worse.
The more you believe batshit crazy fuckin' lies about the policy difference, the more corruption you tolerate. Death panels. Death panels.
Obamacare passed in 2010. Have you heard anyone appealing their death panel rulings? No. Why not? 'Cuz it was all a big, fuckin' lie. A pre-Trump, big, fuckin' lie. And yes, Republican Members of Congress still believe this idiotic fucking bullshit.
Observe.
Remember, policies and alternatives. If you believe that the policy alternative to your side winning is shit like death panels, you will accept any level of corruption. Corruption ceases to be an issue because policy gets weighted so heavily by false beliefs about what the policy alternatives are that you just tolerate anything. Lies beget lies, and unfathomable corruption.
And those lies started before Trump became the center of the party.
This, though, explains the rank-and-file Members of Congress in the GOP delegation. What about Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell? What about the Republicans who always knew that death panels were a lie? How do they justify enabling a corrupt person like Trump? They need a different process. More to come, with distractions, obviously...
*This is actually an important point in my new book, which I will discuss at some point here soon... Until then, here's a link. Also...