It's difficult to take Gov. Cox seriously on matters of propriety when he was not only with Trump when Trump's photographer took pictures of both of them in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery (in violation of federal law), but posted the "thumbs up" at a gravesite picture on his (Cox's) official Twitter account, https://x.com/GovCox/status/1828089276359414118
I currently live in Utah. Overall I’ve had a great respect for Gov. Cox up until the point that he endorsed Trump right after the shooting. To me that showed a lack of character, especially when I don’t think anyone would look at Trump’s actions over his time as president and ever believe that he’d suddenly change his mind and become selfless. And then there was the Arlington debacle. On one news outlet, he was reported to have said that the reason he decided to support Trump was so that he could influence his party. I personally don’t find that a valid reason to support Trump. You can’t influence your party for good if you jump into the mud with them. If you actually want to steer them towards being a moral force for good, you yourself have to be standing in that position and sometimes in politics that is costly. Cox should be willing to give up the governorship to stand up for what’s right, not sacrifice himself to MAGA in hopes that he can change them from the inside. I’m sorry, but with MAGA, they are more likely to change him than be changed.
And yet he openly endorses Trump and his MAGA sycophants. Does he think that compromise will be a tool of a 2nd Trump administration? Sorry but I can’t take what a politician says seriously if he says one thing and does another. There’s obviously more to the conversation you had with him but he appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
“Does he think that compromise will be a tool of a 2nd Trump administration.” This seems a valid question. To me, Cox’s recent endorsement of a candidate who posted about punishing his rivals makes Cox’s message feel disingenuous at best, and nefarious at worst as though he is telling people not to critique too harshly his party’s positions.
If anyone knows more about Gov Cox and can speak to his sincerity, I’m open to learning.
Linking an article below that explains Cox’s recent support of Trump:
“Cox, 49, said in his note that he believed Trump could save the country "by emphasizing unity rather than hate.”
I’m truly puzzled by a politician who observes Trump, hears him speak and thinks, that’s the guy who is going to emphasize unity.
He’s a Republican and he supports Trump. Does that mean he doesn’t support working across the aisle. The fact is that most Republicans will support Trump in this election … but not all.. and that doesn’t mean they are excluded from the goal to work together and compromise. Voting for someone doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say and do.
Agreed with that reality and principle since we currently only have a 2 party system. I get it but Trump and the MAGA “party” don’t want nor believe in democratic principles including working with others that disagree with his policies and desires. Yet republicans continue to openly support him. Governor Cox was one of the few holdouts in endorsing him but he eventually caved. Where is the courage in that?
I commend you for the optimism that allows you to view things this way. I believe Trump is always making deals and buys and sells loyalty. It happened with RFK as a good example. There are many other examples of those who supported him or worked with him that he completely bashes later on (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, former cabinet officials, dozens of former staffers). I sincerely don’t believe Trump is capable of true compromise with anyone. Maybe Putin?
In my opinion, working across aisles indicates a measure of compromise - a willingness to give up a bit of your own desires and power in order to achieve unity. It seems to me Trump welcomes only those who come to him, who willingly enter his world, and who cater to his opinions and wishes. His team administers loyalty tests, after all. Do you see it differently? Do you believe Trump has adjusted his policies in order to meet people where they are?
I do! Vaccine and environmental policies- I think he is willing to discuss more now with RFK jr. Example- hiring back/back pay service members who were terminated for not getting covid vaccines. Also looking at our health crisis. These may not be things that Trump even supports or cares about- but this is HUGE for government officials to even have these conversations. Bringing RFK J into this absolutely goes across party lines.
Hey! I appreciate your comment and agree with you that voting for someone doesn’t mean we agree with everything they say. And absolutely I believe Republicans can be authentically working across the aisle.
What stumps me is Cox being vocally critical of Jan 6, positioning himself as a moderate Republican, but having a change of heart as recently as July (from what the article above shows). I hope it means that he is working to influence others in his work of disagreeing better.
Cox is a Republican. He supports the political positions of the party and therefore would vote Republican. Because he believes the two parties should work together doesn’t mean he’s going to desert his political beliefs and vote Democrat. There’s a big difference between the parties positions. His hope is the Republican Party wins the election. I wouldn’t expect him to vote Democrat and leave his positions behind just because he doesn’t like everything Trump says or does. That seems like a no brainer. What’s refreshing is his outlook and goal on working to bring the two parties together to work for the common good. Something we’re not seeing on either side of the aisle right now. I enjoyed hearing about the importance of knowing what’s going on at the state and local levels. We need more politicians like him in both parties. Thank you for interviewing him, Sharon!
Agree.. I was also wondering why people assume he would leave the party based on him not agreeing with everything Trump says or does… would a Democrat do that?
IMO, there is (or at least should be) a wide gulf between "leave the Republican party" and "endorse/campaign for Donald Trump." There are plenty of Republicans who won't do either of those things.
Agree. Liz Cheney is far from a Democrat and endorsing Harris. She's not leaving her party at all. Adam Kinzinger is conservative. While he no longer supports Republicans, he seems to be building a coalition to do what equated to (I'm paraphrasing) being in a trench when he was solider and fighting the enemy that's five feet away from you first (i.e. Trump) and then dealing with the problem that's 50 feet away next. Cheney and Kinzinger see their work as putting out the MAGA fire to create space to get back to where true conservatives trying to conserve small government can do that work. Just my take.
I agree. Trump is not going to unite anyone. Trumps recent rant (last evening) about how he is going to pursue political opponents & jail them is the exact opposite.
Cox supporting 45 despite this (and Trumps SA convictions, Jan 6, etc) doesn’t give the optic that Cox has widened his lense to include & SEE how Trumps behavior has & continues to deeply harms others.
Instead, it makes it appear that Cox has a narrow lense (sighted on self preservation).
Tunnel vision that upholds bully pulpit, women as second class (at best) citizens and racism (how Trump has recently talked re Harris & “black jobs” etc).
It’s not ok. 🥺
I have much more respect for people like Liz Cheney & Adam Kinzinger who DID do what’s right and put principle above party - despite the large personal cost to them. That is respectable - and reflects choices that actually align with what behavior they called out in Trump.
But isn’t this the whole point, TO DISAGREE BETTER??? You disagree with him obviously. But just because we completely disagree with his endorsement and policy can we learn nothing from him or does having a different perspective than ours negate all his good? Just because you don’t support Trump does this mean every good thing about you is null and void?? SMH. 🤦🏼♀️ As the Governerds we know better and know that just because we disagree we can still do it with dignity, class, and find places and things we have in common and do it with kindness.
It is certainly possible to agree with what he is saying, but note that he is a hypocritical messenger if he is endorsing candidates who have given no indication whatsoever to work across the aisle. As a Utah voter, I have conflicting feelings about Cox. I love his rhetoric and his efforts to spread the message to work across the aisle, to disagree better, etc.; however, it is hard to BELIEVE in someone whose actions tend to show you they don't believe what they're saying.
Do I want Cox's message to be true and applicable? Of course. Do I think he's a faulty messenger? Also yes.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree that politics and government is not black and white. I’ve voted for both democrats and republicans and even a third party over the years but on this matter of the MAGA party I believe there’s a right and wrong side and history will show that we either went over the cliff or just right to the edge. So what good is his or any other politician’s past efforts to work for the betterment of the people they represent if for this one moment in time they could not and would not put principle over party? That’s how I see it.
I find it interesting that you're confident there is a right and wrong side. Personally, I’m deeply conflicted. As a long-time conservative, there are many reasons I dislike Trump and his style of governance. However, many conservative principles still resonate with me, while certain liberal ideologies are quite unsettling. I can’t and won’t support Trump as the party leader, but I also can’t bring myself to vote for a party whose principles I don’t fully believe in. When you mention 'MAGA,' are you referring to its supporters as being on the wrong side, or the Republican Party as a whole?
In my view Trumpism/MAGA is a spinoff from the traditional Republican party and I know many Republicans (I live in a deeply red state) vehemently disagree with his brand of government and politics. But like you they also don’t agree with many of the policies of the Democrats so they feel stuck. For America and its experiment as a democratic republic we are at a pivotal moment deciding if our experiment continues or if we take the authoritarian road that other countries have taken. I believe as citizens and human beings we agree with most things in life but politics and especially fear based politics want us to believe we not only disagree with each other but we are not even close together in anything and therefore we need “them” to save us. Politics has become our new religion. I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t love my family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and community members because the political sides tell me I shouldn’t or can’t because they don’t think like “us” and we need to either convert them to our way of thinking or drop them. That’s not a healthy society. If we’re talking about how to disagree better then it starts with being totally honest and transparent with each other and knowing deep down that the other person standing across from us has fears like us but more importantly wants to live with love, joy, peace, and security. I appreciate your comment and will be more mindful of how my comments come across to others.
I came here to say the same thing. What Sharon has taught me is that I can listen to understand another point of view but that doesn’t mean I have to agree. I’m listening and learning more these days and find myself able to see how someone got to where they are politically even though I may not share their opinions. Gov Cox is a good man. I haven’t always agreed with him and that is fine. This was a fantastic conversation.
I’ve admired Governor Cox for a long time and have appreciated much of what he’s done for Utah. I was deeply disappointed by his endorsement of Trump but I read this article in the Atlantic that helped me understand better. I still don’t like the endorsement but I do appreciate Cox and what he’s trying to do. Read the article.
I really wish I could read this article, but it's paywalled: would you be able to briefly summarize the main points? Like you, I'm also struggling to understand the choice to stand on party allegiance (an endorsement) over principles.
Sure! How I understood the article is that Governor Cox struggles with the tension between promoting unity and compromise while simultaneously opposing Donald Trump, which contributed to political polarization. By supporting Trump, Cox hopes to better embody his own principles of unity, believing that staying within the fold of the Republican Party will allow him to have a more positive and unifying influence. His earlier stance against Trump had the unintended consequence of alienating him from a significant portion of the GOP base, which worked against his goal of fostering unity. The article covers the difficulty Cox faces in reconciling his personal beliefs about unity with the need to remain influential within the GOP, especially as it becomes more divided.
Thanks for summarizing that, Susie. I figured that was his rationale because I believe he's a person of integrity; however, I must admit I was disappointed when he endorsed Trump. I, too, am confused about how to cast my vote this November. I can't support Trump but I'm certainly not perfectly aligned with Kamala either. This is really tough.
Thank you for this! I don't agree with Cox's reasoning (he really seems to think that it's most important to foster unity among Republicans, and doesn't seem to realize that he will only remain influential so long as it's Trump's influence he's peddling) but I'm glad at least to have a better understanding of the compromise he chose.
I live in Utah so I'm very familiar with Cox's disagree better message. I've written to him many, many times the last four years about various things, but the most recent was to tell him how disappointed I am with him. He touts disagree better, but then quietly endorsed Trump saying he was the guy to bring people together. He also said that he "wants his party to win" and was next to Trump during the visit to Arlington. I'm confused by his partisan actions while at the same time continues to push his bipartisan message.
As a resident of Utah, this was difficult to watch because Cox says these things and the last couple of years has not followed them. Utah has a Republican supermajority in the House and Senate and has a Republican governor, as such he has had to do very little compromising. Up until the last year or so Cox has actually been open to listening to both sides and even, gasp, vetoed some of the Republican legislation because he didn’t think it was in the best interest of the state. This last state Republican convention he had a very contentious battle with Phil Lyman (ultra conservative MAGA, supported by the Republican Party leadership who have historically not liked Cox) and Cox barely survived the convention and primary. Since that convention Cox had become an entirely different person. He went from being open minded and actually listening to the opposition to toeing the party line and openly supporting Trump. Cox has become what I so dislike in a political candidate, someone who flip flops their morals to remain in power. Cox can continue to say these things, but I no longer believe him when he does because his behavior has shown otherwise.
Exactly this. I’ve been relatively proud to have him as governor until his behavior after the convention. I would still rather him than Lyman but he’s lost my respect for sure.
And that is why I’m voting Brian King. The super majority legislature and having a governor of the same party for years has not been to the benefit of Utah, we need someone in the governor’s office who will advocate for all Utahans.
Agreed. There are so many things he has said and done that I have applauded, and I’ve been so hopeful that he would stand firm and not cave to party and maga vote pressure. I’m relieved he won over Lyman, even without the GOP endorsement, but I’m also so disappointed. Now with shameless Amendment D nonsense going on, I’m feeling less and less like any progress will be made for getting more balance and true accountability in Utah.
What a great and important conversation! However! My one constructive criticism is that, overall, you both made it sound like both parties are equally guilty of this behavior. Other than specifically referring to Kevin McCarthy’s situation, you didn’t name any names, nor give specific examples of who and what is causing this momentous problem. Please don’t be so vague! Do not say, “a hand full of people,” say their names. I know there are politicians on both sides that say and do these things, but it is completely misleading and disingenuous to “both sides” this. The most helpful thing you can do is tell the truth about who is saying and doing these destructive things. Otherwise, less-informed people will assume you’re talking about either “all/most politicians,” or “only the other side.” Either way, it does not accomplish your purpose of educating us about the problem, and most importantly, providing a solution.
Interesting. I found the opposite to be true. It is refreshing to listen to an interview without feeling as though it’s finger pointing and name calling. My recollection of Mc Carthy’s ousting was frustration with both political parties. A small faction of fringe members who made it happen and then the larger body of members who did not stop it when they could have. My point being, isn’t there is room for each of us, and every single politician to do better. In this interview, it felt supportive of the conversation to withhold responsible parties as this truly has become a systemic issue.
I don’t blame the Democrats at all for refusing to save the skin of the man who, rightly, excoriated Trump while Jan 6 was happening but then humiliated himself by going to kiss Trump’s … let’s say “ring,” for the purposes of this chat. Democrats did, however, help Republican Speaker Johnson keep his job because they wanted a functioning Congress. So then, of course, Republicans used that against the Speaker, saying he was supported by radical leftists.
Several House Democrats have gone on-record to say that they were willing and prepared to assist Speaker McCarthy in passing a spending bill, and keeping his speakership, until McCarthy went on CBS said that that it was "the Democrats [trying] to do everything they can not to let it pass." He wanted to have his cake (keeping his job, keeping the government open) and eat it too (pandering to his base that it was those damn Democrats ruining things again), and so the House Dems withdrew their support.
Thank you for your perspective. I agree there is room for each of us to do better. I also look forward to all of us being held accountable when we do not.
I don’t think they need to “name names” to get the point across. There are people on both sides who don’t want to work together. Is it an exactly equal number or does it fluctuate? Does it even matter if one side is worse than the other at some point in time? Doesn’t that just exacerbate the blame game? I think the point is that we all have to do better. At least that’s why I took from the interview.
I appreciate your point. I agree “score keeping,” is not helpful. But I don’t see naming names as a blame game. I see it as pinpointing where problems exist, and where solutions can be found. Please shine a light on who does not want to work together, and who is doing better.
You’re absolutely right. Maybe in addition to all the “ratings” politicians get for particular issues like gun rights, abortion rights, economy, etc maybe the politicians should have a “works across the aisle” rating and give examples.
I love that! Great creative suggestion! It’s like Sharon’s book. Please tell us who is creating problems, and who is solving problems. Tell us what they’re doing so we can support their efforts. Who is making a positive difference, and how are they doing it? Sharon wrote a whole book about those people because we need role models. But we also need to know about the opposite. Otherwise, we end up saying, “How did we get here? How did this happen?”
The problem with "we all have to do better," is that if one party is more willing to take that to heart than the other party, then it shifts the overton window toward the party unwilling to work with the other. If two people are playing tug of war and they look at each other and say, hey, how about we both try pulling 50% less; then one side follows through with pulling less while the other side continues pulling at full-force. You end up with a lopsided government. THIS is why it is so important to "name names". We need to know who is genuinely trying to compromise and who is taking advantage of that good faith.
Remember when it was suggested after Trump’s assassination attempt that everyone turn down the rhetoric? Remember how Trump asked his rally goers if he should comply?
I think this is an important conversation but unfortunately Governor Cox has done exactly what he says politicians shouldn’t do. He completely flip flopped to appeal to “the base” so it is hard to respect what he is saying. I agree we should disagree better. I am just very disappointed with his complete change of course just to win his election.
This might be the first interview that I think is really off the mark. He was at Arlington for the tacky photo op, used that photo op in his campaign. He compromised his values by endorsing Trump. He’s not anyone I would take advice from or look to for inspiration.
My thoughts exactly. I have been following her for so long. I still admire Sharon's work so much!! No one is perfect. I've heard her interviews with people I didn't care for and always left feeling like I learned something and she gave the person a platform to speak their truth and asked good questions. This just really left a bad taste in my mouth. I think part of the reason is because of the specific snippet chosen to represent the interview. It's the one piece that felt to me the most disingenuous, and she left out the follow up where he almost verbatim talks about choosing party over principle, everything Sharon doesn't stand for.
I was just talking about this over the weekend - that a few generations of "don't talk about religion or politics in polite company" has made us incredibly unskilled at and tremendously uncomfortable with respectful disagreement. Can't wait to listen!
His message sounds great as well as his defense of the Constitution. Then he goes on to endorse Trump who has pushed a lie that the 2020 election was stolen and has directly supported violently overthrowing a lawfully elected government. i find his defense of his endorsement very hollow and blatantly partisan.
Hi. i appreciate your question. I agree with the idea that in a pluralistic society we must learn to work with those that we disagree with. We must actually compromise and seek common ground on deeply help policy issues. That is absolutely spot on. The part I cannot get over in Governor Cox’s sentiments is that he is endorsing a person who sought to subvert our Constitution by pressuring election workers, elected officials, etc to overturn an election because he lost. To this day, he continues to repeat this lie, a lie that incited a violent attack on a co-equal branch of government and his own vice president. During that attack, Trump refused to act in any way to stop
it. People died as a result of this lie and many of his supporters are in prison because of this lie. There has been no change in Trump’s rhetoric on this topic, he has begun insinuating that if he loses this current election, it will only be because he has been cheated again. So for me, when you say in one breath that you support the Constitution and then in the next that the next president should be a person who sought to violate it in one of the worst political episodes in American history and the only defense of that position is because you want your party to win, it seems hypocritical. You don’t believe Trump has changed, but your party and your friends like Trump
so you’re going to go with that? Based on what principle? I appreciate Sharon’s recent article on the fake elector scheme and I am currently reading Liz Cheney’s book about January 6th. We were perilously close to a Constitutional crisis because of Trump’s refusal to accept his own loss.
Trumps response to Jan 6 and the election of 2020, is why I wasn’t going to vote for him. My vote was for RKF Jr. I love this grassroots movement that is happening with former democrats. But I don’t love Trump at all. I am voting for that- that happens to be coming along with Trump.
I understand your perspective, too. For me, the most critical issue in the election is which candidate will voluntarily give up power when/if they should lose an election. I look at it this way because my dad spent 20 years in the military, my husband 24, and I did 5 years. I have colleagues and friends buried in Arlington as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. My mother is an immigrant who chose to become an American citizen because she believed my sister and I would have more freedoms here than in her home country. So for me, I just look at January 6th as such a betrayal of our democratic (not in terms of party, but in terms of form of government) ideals and I cannot compromise on it. Trump is supposed to be term-limited this time, but I don't trust him at all if he should get power again.
Compromise is a principle on which we should be evaluating all political candidates. Governance REQUIRES compromise. Any politician uninterested in compromise and consensus building is unfit for office.
We focus so much on the President, but with a Congress that is willing to compromise, even the President isn't that powerful. With two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress, a President's veto can be overcome. With three-fifths majority in the Senate, a filibuster can be overcome. With a simple majority in the House, a bill can be brought to the floor for consideration without the Speaker scheduling it. There are so many opportunities where consensus building and bipartisan compromise can work to ensure that any one individual or even small minority has limited power to obstruct governance.
As far as I can see there is only one position that does not have limited power and that is the Senate Majority Leader. When a bill has bipartisan support, if the Senate Majority Leader refuses to schedule that bill for consideration on the Senate floor, there is no process to override that decision. In that case, only a simple majority of the Senate majority party could replace the Majority Leader. But that would require a majority party full of individuals who put compromise over individual interests; principle over party.
Bottom line, compromise is key to governance and to limiting the power of any one individual politician.
I had someone tell me in the comment section of one of your posts to not say use a certain argument when responding to them. I was taken aback. I’m not sure I’ve ever had anyone shut down a conversation before it even started.
It’s really funny that just in this short part of the conversation, I was nodding my head and agreeing and at some parts, shaking my head no.
I absolutely love what he said about the role of President and how it is not supposed to be the most powerful, but that it happens when we don’t have a functioning Congress. That’s a conversation that I’ve had a lot lately when people put all the blame for the four years on Democrats because Biden in is in the White House.
I do disagree that who the president is doesn’t have much effect on us. While, my life might not have changed, important legislation has been signed that would not have been signed had we not had a certain Presidents in office. Congress creates the laws, but the President has to sign them.
"While, my life might not have changed, important legislation has been signed that would not have been signed had we not had a certain Presidents in office. Congress creates the laws, but the President has to sign them."
We had a governor here in Maine a few years ago who disliked the other party so much that he went on a vetoing spree: he vetoed 187 bills in just the first session, because he wanted the state legislature to put forward a citizen's referendum for ending the state income tax, so if those bills were sponsored by Democrats then he vetoed them regardless of the contents of the bill itself. Whatever your feelings are on state income taxes, that is bad leadership and (while not illegal) certainly a misuse of executive power. The power to sign laws and issue executive orders is still power!
I enjoyed the overall message of the interview because it is important to learn compromise and how to talk to those who have different opinions than us. He lost me with his Trump endorsement explanation. I feel like I need to send him my principle over party shirt because it sounds like he is compromising what he said earlier for the sake of the party. I was waiting for a better reason and never got one.
Bravo! This is what Braver Angels and Starts with Us is working towards. We don’t have to make it about one issue and hate everyone who doesn’t agree with us on that one issue. We really are all in this together and to demonize “the other side” does nothing but widen the divide. I’m encouraged that there are people in government who are actually trying to work together. Keep up the good work Sharon!
Gov. Cox lost the convention to Phil Lyman (opinion: Phil- very right winged extremist)
Gov. Cox petitioned and got his name on the ballot for the primary and won the vote.
Phil Lyman is still trying to get the vote overturned.
We are a two party system in the US
Some may be disappointed that he is supporting Trump, some may call it flip flopping- I see it as compromise and working across the aisle- Utah is a highly republican state- if he wants to be able to do any good for the state, he has to work with the people he governs- most republicans who voted for Phil Lyman see Cox as very liberal. For those of you that are disappointed in him, or feel like he only wants to stay in power, you could be stuck with Phil- that’s the direction it was headed- go visit the state capitol when it’s in session and listen in on what’s going on. There has to be a lot of give and take and compromise in order to get anything done. The best compromises are when neither side gets everything they want. And I’m sure he’s had to make plenty of compromises to make any changes in Utah. No person, politician, etc., is going to do or be everything you want. I don’t understand why a person’s party affiliation or who they are voting for negates their message- especially when it’s about mending relationships and learning to communicate with one another better- even if you feel they aren’t perfect at it- because are any of us perfect? We can all try and do and be better
Utah's State Legislature, on the other hand, is indeed "highly Republican": The Utah State House is 81% Republican, the Senate is 79% Republican. One might say elected Republican officials are disproportionally overrepresented and determined to stay that way, given the efforts to ignore the independent commission that was tasked with determining district maps.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that there is a political reality at play and, when it comes down to the pragmatic matter of "Who is electable in Utah?", Cox may indeed be the "less bad" option. I truly can't speak to that. But as a former resident of Texas, I get a bit itchy when I hear "Well, our state's just all Republicans" (or all Democrats) because...is it??? Or has one party just well-positioned themselves to maintain their dominance?
Sounds like Illinois.. lots of Republicans but there’s a democratic supermajority. Republicans are highly underrepresented and it just keeps getting more and more one sided.. not good for any state.
Democrats are closer to 13% and unaffiliated is 30%. There was a point a while back where unaffiliated was pretty close to the largest, but when Trump came onto the scene and we started having extreme candidates endorsed by him, people switched parties to have a say in the GOP pick.
Agreed. The fact that you have to be registered Republican in order to be involved in primaries should not be overlooked when discussing "party affiliation" in Utah. My personal politics are generally moderate to lean-left, but I registered as a Republican to get a say in the vote. This is the case for many, many of my friends and family as well. The affiliation status is definitely misleading in Utah.
One thing you aren't mentioning: the Utah caucus system is in decline and has become more extreme. This year, if I recall correctly, only 9% of registered GOP voters participated in it. And multiple years running, the caucus picks have lost by landslides in the primaries. They are completely out of touch. Utah added the signature route as a means of being able to keep the caucus because the people of Utah were sick of the caucus. It's gotten to the point where people of other parties are "raiding" the GOP here to bring sanity to it. There is a massive active unaffiliated voter block here--it's the second largest "party." The Trump endorsees have lost consistently over the years. Lyman came the closest and he has sure shown his colors lately. IMO, Cox does not need to endorse Trump because the larger part of the voter based that doesn't want to participate in the caucus doesn't want him too. I don't mind flip-flopping when it comes to policy. People should change their opinions and refine them all the time. But, I don't see how endorsing Trump because you fear civil war is going to help anything. I don't see that as the same as flip flopping on issues. Trump lacks a moral compass and he truly needs someone to push back on him. I was hoping Cox was going to be that, but with his endorsement of Trump, any efforts he puts into pushing back will now fall flat.
Sure he could have held out on any endorsements, and maybe it was a political move that he thought he needed to make in order to keep constituents happy - I don’t know- and those that feel like their votes don’t count tend to not show up to vote-if independents, libertarians, undecideds, or those just fed up with a two party system, actually felt like they had a shot at being heard, maybe Cox would have acted differently- I think the two party system is ruining our country and tbh, I don’t like either of my options. Right now, I’m more concerned about the state of congress than I am over who wins the presidency. I don’t feel like the Biden administration made anything better than when Trump was in office and this is mostly due to Congress- I guess my point is, we should be able to look past who one is voting for (because these are our only options) and listen to the message for what it is- let’s learn to communicate and disagree with each other in a more civil and respectful way. Let’s be the example to our leaders of how we should treat one another instead of bringing hate to the table
It's difficult to take Gov. Cox seriously on matters of propriety when he was not only with Trump when Trump's photographer took pictures of both of them in Section 60 at Arlington National Cemetery (in violation of federal law), but posted the "thumbs up" at a gravesite picture on his (Cox's) official Twitter account, https://x.com/GovCox/status/1828089276359414118
I currently live in Utah. Overall I’ve had a great respect for Gov. Cox up until the point that he endorsed Trump right after the shooting. To me that showed a lack of character, especially when I don’t think anyone would look at Trump’s actions over his time as president and ever believe that he’d suddenly change his mind and become selfless. And then there was the Arlington debacle. On one news outlet, he was reported to have said that the reason he decided to support Trump was so that he could influence his party. I personally don’t find that a valid reason to support Trump. You can’t influence your party for good if you jump into the mud with them. If you actually want to steer them towards being a moral force for good, you yourself have to be standing in that position and sometimes in politics that is costly. Cox should be willing to give up the governorship to stand up for what’s right, not sacrifice himself to MAGA in hopes that he can change them from the inside. I’m sorry, but with MAGA, they are more likely to change him than be changed.
And yet he openly endorses Trump and his MAGA sycophants. Does he think that compromise will be a tool of a 2nd Trump administration? Sorry but I can’t take what a politician says seriously if he says one thing and does another. There’s obviously more to the conversation you had with him but he appears to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.
“Does he think that compromise will be a tool of a 2nd Trump administration.” This seems a valid question. To me, Cox’s recent endorsement of a candidate who posted about punishing his rivals makes Cox’s message feel disingenuous at best, and nefarious at worst as though he is telling people not to critique too harshly his party’s positions.
If anyone knows more about Gov Cox and can speak to his sincerity, I’m open to learning.
Linking an article below that explains Cox’s recent support of Trump:
“Cox, 49, said in his note that he believed Trump could save the country "by emphasizing unity rather than hate.”
I’m truly puzzled by a politician who observes Trump, hears him speak and thinks, that’s the guy who is going to emphasize unity.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arlington-cemetery-controversy-shines-spotlight-utah-gov-spencer-113307445
Or am I completely missing the assignment to disagree better? 🙃
He’s a Republican and he supports Trump. Does that mean he doesn’t support working across the aisle. The fact is that most Republicans will support Trump in this election … but not all.. and that doesn’t mean they are excluded from the goal to work together and compromise. Voting for someone doesn’t mean you agree with everything they say and do.
Agreed with that reality and principle since we currently only have a 2 party system. I get it but Trump and the MAGA “party” don’t want nor believe in democratic principles including working with others that disagree with his policies and desires. Yet republicans continue to openly support him. Governor Cox was one of the few holdouts in endorsing him but he eventually caved. Where is the courage in that?
I believe Trump is inspiring unity and going across aisles as evident with his partnership with political figures with different backgrounds.
I commend you for the optimism that allows you to view things this way. I believe Trump is always making deals and buys and sells loyalty. It happened with RFK as a good example. There are many other examples of those who supported him or worked with him that he completely bashes later on (Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, former cabinet officials, dozens of former staffers). I sincerely don’t believe Trump is capable of true compromise with anyone. Maybe Putin?
In my opinion, working across aisles indicates a measure of compromise - a willingness to give up a bit of your own desires and power in order to achieve unity. It seems to me Trump welcomes only those who come to him, who willingly enter his world, and who cater to his opinions and wishes. His team administers loyalty tests, after all. Do you see it differently? Do you believe Trump has adjusted his policies in order to meet people where they are?
I do! Vaccine and environmental policies- I think he is willing to discuss more now with RFK jr. Example- hiring back/back pay service members who were terminated for not getting covid vaccines. Also looking at our health crisis. These may not be things that Trump even supports or cares about- but this is HUGE for government officials to even have these conversations. Bringing RFK J into this absolutely goes across party lines.
Amy, can you elaborate?
???????
? Lol
Hey! I appreciate your comment and agree with you that voting for someone doesn’t mean we agree with everything they say. And absolutely I believe Republicans can be authentically working across the aisle.
What stumps me is Cox being vocally critical of Jan 6, positioning himself as a moderate Republican, but having a change of heart as recently as July (from what the article above shows). I hope it means that he is working to influence others in his work of disagreeing better.
Cox is a Republican. He supports the political positions of the party and therefore would vote Republican. Because he believes the two parties should work together doesn’t mean he’s going to desert his political beliefs and vote Democrat. There’s a big difference between the parties positions. His hope is the Republican Party wins the election. I wouldn’t expect him to vote Democrat and leave his positions behind just because he doesn’t like everything Trump says or does. That seems like a no brainer. What’s refreshing is his outlook and goal on working to bring the two parties together to work for the common good. Something we’re not seeing on either side of the aisle right now. I enjoyed hearing about the importance of knowing what’s going on at the state and local levels. We need more politicians like him in both parties. Thank you for interviewing him, Sharon!
Agree.. I was also wondering why people assume he would leave the party based on him not agreeing with everything Trump says or does… would a Democrat do that?
IMO, there is (or at least should be) a wide gulf between "leave the Republican party" and "endorse/campaign for Donald Trump." There are plenty of Republicans who won't do either of those things.
Agree. Liz Cheney is far from a Democrat and endorsing Harris. She's not leaving her party at all. Adam Kinzinger is conservative. While he no longer supports Republicans, he seems to be building a coalition to do what equated to (I'm paraphrasing) being in a trench when he was solider and fighting the enemy that's five feet away from you first (i.e. Trump) and then dealing with the problem that's 50 feet away next. Cheney and Kinzinger see their work as putting out the MAGA fire to create space to get back to where true conservatives trying to conserve small government can do that work. Just my take.
I agree. Trump is not going to unite anyone. Trumps recent rant (last evening) about how he is going to pursue political opponents & jail them is the exact opposite.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/08/trump-election-threats/
Cox supporting 45 despite this (and Trumps SA convictions, Jan 6, etc) doesn’t give the optic that Cox has widened his lense to include & SEE how Trumps behavior has & continues to deeply harms others.
Instead, it makes it appear that Cox has a narrow lense (sighted on self preservation).
Tunnel vision that upholds bully pulpit, women as second class (at best) citizens and racism (how Trump has recently talked re Harris & “black jobs” etc).
It’s not ok. 🥺
I have much more respect for people like Liz Cheney & Adam Kinzinger who DID do what’s right and put principle above party - despite the large personal cost to them. That is respectable - and reflects choices that actually align with what behavior they called out in Trump.
But isn’t this the whole point, TO DISAGREE BETTER??? You disagree with him obviously. But just because we completely disagree with his endorsement and policy can we learn nothing from him or does having a different perspective than ours negate all his good? Just because you don’t support Trump does this mean every good thing about you is null and void?? SMH. 🤦🏼♀️ As the Governerds we know better and know that just because we disagree we can still do it with dignity, class, and find places and things we have in common and do it with kindness.
It is certainly possible to agree with what he is saying, but note that he is a hypocritical messenger if he is endorsing candidates who have given no indication whatsoever to work across the aisle. As a Utah voter, I have conflicting feelings about Cox. I love his rhetoric and his efforts to spread the message to work across the aisle, to disagree better, etc.; however, it is hard to BELIEVE in someone whose actions tend to show you they don't believe what they're saying.
Do I want Cox's message to be true and applicable? Of course. Do I think he's a faulty messenger? Also yes.
Bingo.
I feel like the best explanation of why Cox did what he did is found in this Atlantic article https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/spencer-cox-donald-trump-2024-election/679496/. Read my explanation below about the content of the article if you can't open it due to a paywall. I have not yet listened to the interview with Sharon so he may have explained his position with her.
I understand what you’re saying and I agree that politics and government is not black and white. I’ve voted for both democrats and republicans and even a third party over the years but on this matter of the MAGA party I believe there’s a right and wrong side and history will show that we either went over the cliff or just right to the edge. So what good is his or any other politician’s past efforts to work for the betterment of the people they represent if for this one moment in time they could not and would not put principle over party? That’s how I see it.
I find it interesting that you're confident there is a right and wrong side. Personally, I’m deeply conflicted. As a long-time conservative, there are many reasons I dislike Trump and his style of governance. However, many conservative principles still resonate with me, while certain liberal ideologies are quite unsettling. I can’t and won’t support Trump as the party leader, but I also can’t bring myself to vote for a party whose principles I don’t fully believe in. When you mention 'MAGA,' are you referring to its supporters as being on the wrong side, or the Republican Party as a whole?
In my view Trumpism/MAGA is a spinoff from the traditional Republican party and I know many Republicans (I live in a deeply red state) vehemently disagree with his brand of government and politics. But like you they also don’t agree with many of the policies of the Democrats so they feel stuck. For America and its experiment as a democratic republic we are at a pivotal moment deciding if our experiment continues or if we take the authoritarian road that other countries have taken. I believe as citizens and human beings we agree with most things in life but politics and especially fear based politics want us to believe we not only disagree with each other but we are not even close together in anything and therefore we need “them” to save us. Politics has become our new religion. I don’t want to live in a world where I can’t love my family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and community members because the political sides tell me I shouldn’t or can’t because they don’t think like “us” and we need to either convert them to our way of thinking or drop them. That’s not a healthy society. If we’re talking about how to disagree better then it starts with being totally honest and transparent with each other and knowing deep down that the other person standing across from us has fears like us but more importantly wants to live with love, joy, peace, and security. I appreciate your comment and will be more mindful of how my comments come across to others.
I came here to say the same thing. What Sharon has taught me is that I can listen to understand another point of view but that doesn’t mean I have to agree. I’m listening and learning more these days and find myself able to see how someone got to where they are politically even though I may not share their opinions. Gov Cox is a good man. I haven’t always agreed with him and that is fine. This was a fantastic conversation.
I’ve admired Governor Cox for a long time and have appreciated much of what he’s done for Utah. I was deeply disappointed by his endorsement of Trump but I read this article in the Atlantic that helped me understand better. I still don’t like the endorsement but I do appreciate Cox and what he’s trying to do. Read the article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/08/spencer-cox-donald-trump-2024-election/679496/
I really wish I could read this article, but it's paywalled: would you be able to briefly summarize the main points? Like you, I'm also struggling to understand the choice to stand on party allegiance (an endorsement) over principles.
Sure! How I understood the article is that Governor Cox struggles with the tension between promoting unity and compromise while simultaneously opposing Donald Trump, which contributed to political polarization. By supporting Trump, Cox hopes to better embody his own principles of unity, believing that staying within the fold of the Republican Party will allow him to have a more positive and unifying influence. His earlier stance against Trump had the unintended consequence of alienating him from a significant portion of the GOP base, which worked against his goal of fostering unity. The article covers the difficulty Cox faces in reconciling his personal beliefs about unity with the need to remain influential within the GOP, especially as it becomes more divided.
Thanks for summarizing that, Susie. I figured that was his rationale because I believe he's a person of integrity; however, I must admit I was disappointed when he endorsed Trump. I, too, am confused about how to cast my vote this November. I can't support Trump but I'm certainly not perfectly aligned with Kamala either. This is really tough.
Thank you for this! I don't agree with Cox's reasoning (he really seems to think that it's most important to foster unity among Republicans, and doesn't seem to realize that he will only remain influential so long as it's Trump's influence he's peddling) but I'm glad at least to have a better understanding of the compromise he chose.
I live in Utah so I'm very familiar with Cox's disagree better message. I've written to him many, many times the last four years about various things, but the most recent was to tell him how disappointed I am with him. He touts disagree better, but then quietly endorsed Trump saying he was the guy to bring people together. He also said that he "wants his party to win" and was next to Trump during the visit to Arlington. I'm confused by his partisan actions while at the same time continues to push his bipartisan message.
Well said. Yes. 👏
As a resident of Utah, this was difficult to watch because Cox says these things and the last couple of years has not followed them. Utah has a Republican supermajority in the House and Senate and has a Republican governor, as such he has had to do very little compromising. Up until the last year or so Cox has actually been open to listening to both sides and even, gasp, vetoed some of the Republican legislation because he didn’t think it was in the best interest of the state. This last state Republican convention he had a very contentious battle with Phil Lyman (ultra conservative MAGA, supported by the Republican Party leadership who have historically not liked Cox) and Cox barely survived the convention and primary. Since that convention Cox had become an entirely different person. He went from being open minded and actually listening to the opposition to toeing the party line and openly supporting Trump. Cox has become what I so dislike in a political candidate, someone who flip flops their morals to remain in power. Cox can continue to say these things, but I no longer believe him when he does because his behavior has shown otherwise.
Exactly this. I’ve been relatively proud to have him as governor until his behavior after the convention. I would still rather him than Lyman but he’s lost my respect for sure.
And that is why I’m voting Brian King. The super majority legislature and having a governor of the same party for years has not been to the benefit of Utah, we need someone in the governor’s office who will advocate for all Utahans.
Thank you for sharing this - your perspective (and the perspective of the other Utahn Governerds who have commented) is so important to hear.
Agreed. There are so many things he has said and done that I have applauded, and I’ve been so hopeful that he would stand firm and not cave to party and maga vote pressure. I’m relieved he won over Lyman, even without the GOP endorsement, but I’m also so disappointed. Now with shameless Amendment D nonsense going on, I’m feeling less and less like any progress will be made for getting more balance and true accountability in Utah.
I'm right there with you. He really has become a turncoat, and it is SOOO disappointing. This interview makes no sense to me now.
What a great and important conversation! However! My one constructive criticism is that, overall, you both made it sound like both parties are equally guilty of this behavior. Other than specifically referring to Kevin McCarthy’s situation, you didn’t name any names, nor give specific examples of who and what is causing this momentous problem. Please don’t be so vague! Do not say, “a hand full of people,” say their names. I know there are politicians on both sides that say and do these things, but it is completely misleading and disingenuous to “both sides” this. The most helpful thing you can do is tell the truth about who is saying and doing these destructive things. Otherwise, less-informed people will assume you’re talking about either “all/most politicians,” or “only the other side.” Either way, it does not accomplish your purpose of educating us about the problem, and most importantly, providing a solution.
Interesting. I found the opposite to be true. It is refreshing to listen to an interview without feeling as though it’s finger pointing and name calling. My recollection of Mc Carthy’s ousting was frustration with both political parties. A small faction of fringe members who made it happen and then the larger body of members who did not stop it when they could have. My point being, isn’t there is room for each of us, and every single politician to do better. In this interview, it felt supportive of the conversation to withhold responsible parties as this truly has become a systemic issue.
I don’t blame the Democrats at all for refusing to save the skin of the man who, rightly, excoriated Trump while Jan 6 was happening but then humiliated himself by going to kiss Trump’s … let’s say “ring,” for the purposes of this chat. Democrats did, however, help Republican Speaker Johnson keep his job because they wanted a functioning Congress. So then, of course, Republicans used that against the Speaker, saying he was supported by radical leftists.
Several House Democrats have gone on-record to say that they were willing and prepared to assist Speaker McCarthy in passing a spending bill, and keeping his speakership, until McCarthy went on CBS said that that it was "the Democrats [trying] to do everything they can not to let it pass." He wanted to have his cake (keeping his job, keeping the government open) and eat it too (pandering to his base that it was those damn Democrats ruining things again), and so the House Dems withdrew their support.
Thank you for your perspective. I agree there is room for each of us to do better. I also look forward to all of us being held accountable when we do not.
I don’t think they need to “name names” to get the point across. There are people on both sides who don’t want to work together. Is it an exactly equal number or does it fluctuate? Does it even matter if one side is worse than the other at some point in time? Doesn’t that just exacerbate the blame game? I think the point is that we all have to do better. At least that’s why I took from the interview.
I appreciate your point. I agree “score keeping,” is not helpful. But I don’t see naming names as a blame game. I see it as pinpointing where problems exist, and where solutions can be found. Please shine a light on who does not want to work together, and who is doing better.
You’re absolutely right. Maybe in addition to all the “ratings” politicians get for particular issues like gun rights, abortion rights, economy, etc maybe the politicians should have a “works across the aisle” rating and give examples.
I believe something like this already exists in the form of the Luger Center McCourt School of Public Policy Bipartisan Index.
OoooooI LOVE the idea of a compromise/bipartisan rating for politicians. 👏 We should brainstorm how we might measure this ‼️
I love that! Great creative suggestion! It’s like Sharon’s book. Please tell us who is creating problems, and who is solving problems. Tell us what they’re doing so we can support their efforts. Who is making a positive difference, and how are they doing it? Sharon wrote a whole book about those people because we need role models. But we also need to know about the opposite. Otherwise, we end up saying, “How did we get here? How did this happen?”
The problem with "we all have to do better," is that if one party is more willing to take that to heart than the other party, then it shifts the overton window toward the party unwilling to work with the other. If two people are playing tug of war and they look at each other and say, hey, how about we both try pulling 50% less; then one side follows through with pulling less while the other side continues pulling at full-force. You end up with a lopsided government. THIS is why it is so important to "name names". We need to know who is genuinely trying to compromise and who is taking advantage of that good faith.
Remember when it was suggested after Trump’s assassination attempt that everyone turn down the rhetoric? Remember how Trump asked his rally goers if he should comply?
I think this is an important conversation but unfortunately Governor Cox has done exactly what he says politicians shouldn’t do. He completely flip flopped to appeal to “the base” so it is hard to respect what he is saying. I agree we should disagree better. I am just very disappointed with his complete change of course just to win his election.
Yep. Lot of nice platitudes. But his actions have spoken louder.
Yes. Do as I say, not as I do. 😞
This might be the first interview that I think is really off the mark. He was at Arlington for the tacky photo op, used that photo op in his campaign. He compromised his values by endorsing Trump. He’s not anyone I would take advice from or look to for inspiration.
My thoughts exactly. I have been following her for so long. I still admire Sharon's work so much!! No one is perfect. I've heard her interviews with people I didn't care for and always left feeling like I learned something and she gave the person a platform to speak their truth and asked good questions. This just really left a bad taste in my mouth. I think part of the reason is because of the specific snippet chosen to represent the interview. It's the one piece that felt to me the most disingenuous, and she left out the follow up where he almost verbatim talks about choosing party over principle, everything Sharon doesn't stand for.
I know. Just not a winner this time.
I was just talking about this over the weekend - that a few generations of "don't talk about religion or politics in polite company" has made us incredibly unskilled at and tremendously uncomfortable with respectful disagreement. Can't wait to listen!
His message sounds great as well as his defense of the Constitution. Then he goes on to endorse Trump who has pushed a lie that the 2020 election was stolen and has directly supported violently overthrowing a lawfully elected government. i find his defense of his endorsement very hollow and blatantly partisan.
Hi! I am curious- how does his defensive or support of Trump discredit him and his message?
Hi. i appreciate your question. I agree with the idea that in a pluralistic society we must learn to work with those that we disagree with. We must actually compromise and seek common ground on deeply help policy issues. That is absolutely spot on. The part I cannot get over in Governor Cox’s sentiments is that he is endorsing a person who sought to subvert our Constitution by pressuring election workers, elected officials, etc to overturn an election because he lost. To this day, he continues to repeat this lie, a lie that incited a violent attack on a co-equal branch of government and his own vice president. During that attack, Trump refused to act in any way to stop
it. People died as a result of this lie and many of his supporters are in prison because of this lie. There has been no change in Trump’s rhetoric on this topic, he has begun insinuating that if he loses this current election, it will only be because he has been cheated again. So for me, when you say in one breath that you support the Constitution and then in the next that the next president should be a person who sought to violate it in one of the worst political episodes in American history and the only defense of that position is because you want your party to win, it seems hypocritical. You don’t believe Trump has changed, but your party and your friends like Trump
so you’re going to go with that? Based on what principle? I appreciate Sharon’s recent article on the fake elector scheme and I am currently reading Liz Cheney’s book about January 6th. We were perilously close to a Constitutional crisis because of Trump’s refusal to accept his own loss.
Thank you for such a thoughtful and thorough response. I can see your point of view.
Trumps response to Jan 6 and the election of 2020, is why I wasn’t going to vote for him. My vote was for RKF Jr. I love this grassroots movement that is happening with former democrats. But I don’t love Trump at all. I am voting for that- that happens to be coming along with Trump.
I understand your perspective, too. For me, the most critical issue in the election is which candidate will voluntarily give up power when/if they should lose an election. I look at it this way because my dad spent 20 years in the military, my husband 24, and I did 5 years. I have colleagues and friends buried in Arlington as a result of their service in Iraq and Afghanistan. My mother is an immigrant who chose to become an American citizen because she believed my sister and I would have more freedoms here than in her home country. So for me, I just look at January 6th as such a betrayal of our democratic (not in terms of party, but in terms of form of government) ideals and I cannot compromise on it. Trump is supposed to be term-limited this time, but I don't trust him at all if he should get power again.
I can definitely understand. Thank you for your service and your families. My step dad and brother were both in the service.
Compromise is a principle on which we should be evaluating all political candidates. Governance REQUIRES compromise. Any politician uninterested in compromise and consensus building is unfit for office.
We focus so much on the President, but with a Congress that is willing to compromise, even the President isn't that powerful. With two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress, a President's veto can be overcome. With three-fifths majority in the Senate, a filibuster can be overcome. With a simple majority in the House, a bill can be brought to the floor for consideration without the Speaker scheduling it. There are so many opportunities where consensus building and bipartisan compromise can work to ensure that any one individual or even small minority has limited power to obstruct governance.
As far as I can see there is only one position that does not have limited power and that is the Senate Majority Leader. When a bill has bipartisan support, if the Senate Majority Leader refuses to schedule that bill for consideration on the Senate floor, there is no process to override that decision. In that case, only a simple majority of the Senate majority party could replace the Majority Leader. But that would require a majority party full of individuals who put compromise over individual interests; principle over party.
Bottom line, compromise is key to governance and to limiting the power of any one individual politician.
Sometimes it's the simplest messages -- like "it's okay to disagree" -- we need to be reminded of most. ❤️
I had someone tell me in the comment section of one of your posts to not say use a certain argument when responding to them. I was taken aback. I’m not sure I’ve ever had anyone shut down a conversation before it even started.
It’s really funny that just in this short part of the conversation, I was nodding my head and agreeing and at some parts, shaking my head no.
I absolutely love what he said about the role of President and how it is not supposed to be the most powerful, but that it happens when we don’t have a functioning Congress. That’s a conversation that I’ve had a lot lately when people put all the blame for the four years on Democrats because Biden in is in the White House.
I do disagree that who the president is doesn’t have much effect on us. While, my life might not have changed, important legislation has been signed that would not have been signed had we not had a certain Presidents in office. Congress creates the laws, but the President has to sign them.
Looking forward to listen to the rest later!
"While, my life might not have changed, important legislation has been signed that would not have been signed had we not had a certain Presidents in office. Congress creates the laws, but the President has to sign them."
We had a governor here in Maine a few years ago who disliked the other party so much that he went on a vetoing spree: he vetoed 187 bills in just the first session, because he wanted the state legislature to put forward a citizen's referendum for ending the state income tax, so if those bills were sponsored by Democrats then he vetoed them regardless of the contents of the bill itself. Whatever your feelings are on state income taxes, that is bad leadership and (while not illegal) certainly a misuse of executive power. The power to sign laws and issue executive orders is still power!
I enjoyed the overall message of the interview because it is important to learn compromise and how to talk to those who have different opinions than us. He lost me with his Trump endorsement explanation. I feel like I need to send him my principle over party shirt because it sounds like he is compromising what he said earlier for the sake of the party. I was waiting for a better reason and never got one.
Bravo! This is what Braver Angels and Starts with Us is working towards. We don’t have to make it about one issue and hate everyone who doesn’t agree with us on that one issue. We really are all in this together and to demonize “the other side” does nothing but widen the divide. I’m encouraged that there are people in government who are actually trying to work together. Keep up the good work Sharon!
Facts: Utah is a republican state
Gov. Cox lost the convention to Phil Lyman (opinion: Phil- very right winged extremist)
Gov. Cox petitioned and got his name on the ballot for the primary and won the vote.
Phil Lyman is still trying to get the vote overturned.
We are a two party system in the US
Some may be disappointed that he is supporting Trump, some may call it flip flopping- I see it as compromise and working across the aisle- Utah is a highly republican state- if he wants to be able to do any good for the state, he has to work with the people he governs- most republicans who voted for Phil Lyman see Cox as very liberal. For those of you that are disappointed in him, or feel like he only wants to stay in power, you could be stuck with Phil- that’s the direction it was headed- go visit the state capitol when it’s in session and listen in on what’s going on. There has to be a lot of give and take and compromise in order to get anything done. The best compromises are when neither side gets everything they want. And I’m sure he’s had to make plenty of compromises to make any changes in Utah. No person, politician, etc., is going to do or be everything you want. I don’t understand why a person’s party affiliation or who they are voting for negates their message- especially when it’s about mending relationships and learning to communicate with one another better- even if you feel they aren’t perfect at it- because are any of us perfect? We can all try and do and be better
"Utah is a highly republican state"
By party affiliation, Utah is 54% Republican (30% Democrat, and 16% Undecided). Those numbers haven't really changed much in 14 years: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/database/state/utah/party-affiliation/
Utah's State Legislature, on the other hand, is indeed "highly Republican": The Utah State House is 81% Republican, the Senate is 79% Republican. One might say elected Republican officials are disproportionally overrepresented and determined to stay that way, given the efforts to ignore the independent commission that was tasked with determining district maps.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing that there is a political reality at play and, when it comes down to the pragmatic matter of "Who is electable in Utah?", Cox may indeed be the "less bad" option. I truly can't speak to that. But as a former resident of Texas, I get a bit itchy when I hear "Well, our state's just all Republicans" (or all Democrats) because...is it??? Or has one party just well-positioned themselves to maintain their dominance?
Sounds like Illinois.. lots of Republicans but there’s a democratic supermajority. Republicans are highly underrepresented and it just keeps getting more and more one sided.. not good for any state.
https://vote.utah.gov/current-voter-registration-statistics/
Democrats are closer to 13% and unaffiliated is 30%. There was a point a while back where unaffiliated was pretty close to the largest, but when Trump came onto the scene and we started having extreme candidates endorsed by him, people switched parties to have a say in the GOP pick.
Agreed. The fact that you have to be registered Republican in order to be involved in primaries should not be overlooked when discussing "party affiliation" in Utah. My personal politics are generally moderate to lean-left, but I registered as a Republican to get a say in the vote. This is the case for many, many of my friends and family as well. The affiliation status is definitely misleading in Utah.
Thanks for that link!
To be clear, Pew's exact wording was "Democrats/lean left" but if you're measuring by strict party affiliation those numbers would certainly change.
One thing you aren't mentioning: the Utah caucus system is in decline and has become more extreme. This year, if I recall correctly, only 9% of registered GOP voters participated in it. And multiple years running, the caucus picks have lost by landslides in the primaries. They are completely out of touch. Utah added the signature route as a means of being able to keep the caucus because the people of Utah were sick of the caucus. It's gotten to the point where people of other parties are "raiding" the GOP here to bring sanity to it. There is a massive active unaffiliated voter block here--it's the second largest "party." The Trump endorsees have lost consistently over the years. Lyman came the closest and he has sure shown his colors lately. IMO, Cox does not need to endorse Trump because the larger part of the voter based that doesn't want to participate in the caucus doesn't want him too. I don't mind flip-flopping when it comes to policy. People should change their opinions and refine them all the time. But, I don't see how endorsing Trump because you fear civil war is going to help anything. I don't see that as the same as flip flopping on issues. Trump lacks a moral compass and he truly needs someone to push back on him. I was hoping Cox was going to be that, but with his endorsement of Trump, any efforts he puts into pushing back will now fall flat.
Sure he could have held out on any endorsements, and maybe it was a political move that he thought he needed to make in order to keep constituents happy - I don’t know- and those that feel like their votes don’t count tend to not show up to vote-if independents, libertarians, undecideds, or those just fed up with a two party system, actually felt like they had a shot at being heard, maybe Cox would have acted differently- I think the two party system is ruining our country and tbh, I don’t like either of my options. Right now, I’m more concerned about the state of congress than I am over who wins the presidency. I don’t feel like the Biden administration made anything better than when Trump was in office and this is mostly due to Congress- I guess my point is, we should be able to look past who one is voting for (because these are our only options) and listen to the message for what it is- let’s learn to communicate and disagree with each other in a more civil and respectful way. Let’s be the example to our leaders of how we should treat one another instead of bringing hate to the table
Thank you for sharing this information. It’s interesting to hear the perspective from Utah specifically.