Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Maren Brannon's avatar

Tillis is my senator. Let's not forget he was on the fence about Pete Hegseth and he capitulated to Trump to confirm him. I am not confident this spineless fence sitter will block this nomination. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Expand full comment
Timothy Patrick's avatar

Thank you, Gabe! I really appreciate that this journalism took years of work to better understand how these politics function. I just wish the story weren’t so close to an HBO ensemble drama.

In American history, only two cabinet nominations have ever been confirmed by a Vice President's tie-breaking vote: Betsy DeVos for Education and more recently Pete Hegseth for Defense. Other Trump picks have regularly skirted through, only by those picks pretending they aren’t who their own past statements describe, like Martin is showing he is willing to do. This pattern of pushing through deeply problematic nominees makes me doubtful that Martin will be blocked.

Trump has consistently gotten away with associating with people who would tank any other politician's career. Just to pick a couple of names from the article: Steve Bannon was charged with defrauding Trump-supporting donors of millions of dollars in a border wall fundraising scheme, but still got a pardon, and is still a major player in Trumpworld. Roger Stone was convicted of seven felonies including lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstructing a congressional investigation - crimes directly related to protecting the president. These are the kinds of corruption and obstruction of justice charges that would end any normal political career through association, and send any normal politician into “denounce” mode. The list goes on (it seems like every day there’s a new story about how much power Laura Loomer has), yet somehow Trump emerges unscathed by association.

The revolving door of Trump's administration is legendary at this point. By the end of his first term, he had called numerous former officials "terrible," "weak," "dumb as a rock," or "a real nut job" - people HE personally selected and praised throughout their usefulness for him. If we call those denouncements, it seems like the only standard he has for a denouncement is whether those he is scorning have lacked sufficient loyalty. The count exceeds 40 former high-ranking officials he's publicly turned against after hiring them.

What's fascinating about Martin using the word "denounce" regarding Hale-Cusanelli is how Trump himself regularly avoids such clear language. When asked about Ghislaine Maxwell, Trump said "I wish her well." Regarding Jeffrey Epstein, he called him a "terrific guy" before later distancing himself without a clear denouncement. About David Duke's endorsement, Trump initially claimed "I don't know anything about David Duke" - a baffling response given that Duke is a former KKK leader and notorious white supremacist. What makes this claim particularly incredible is that Trump himself had left the Reform Party in 2000 specifically citing David Duke as a reason, stating then that "the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke... and I just cannot accept that." His later reluctance to denounce Duke's endorsement in 2016 represents everything that's come since. And now, with Project 2025, he's continued this pattern, telling voters he doesn’t know anything about it, but in reality playing a game of proximity without any ownership.

What powers do we actually have as citizens to hold politicians accountable for their associations? Voting is the obvious one, but that's years between opportunities, and diluted by election season sensationalism. Public shaming has proven remarkably ineffective in the Trump era. It's ineffective partly because his base views criticism from mainstream sources as validation, and partly because the news cycle moves so quickly that yesterday's outrage gets buried under today's. We need a new tool that permanently ties politicians to the company they keep.

As for Tillis, his position reveals the cynicism at work: he's not opposed to Martin on moral grounds but on technical grounds related to jurisdiction. This suggests he'll fold if the circumstances change slightly, which means the barrier to confirming someone with Martin's background is dangerously low.

Trying to hold Trump directly accountable is like nailing jello to a wall: nearly impossible and at this point people might be wondering if you’re sane while trying to do so. I have no faith in any direct approach. But we've seen that people in Trump's orbit aren't quite as teflon-coated as he is. Focusing our accountability efforts on the people around him - his nominees, enablers, and supporters - might be more effective. By holding them accountable, we indirectly apply pressure to Trump himself.

This is where an "accountability grid" might be helpful. It’s an idea that I was thinking about in previous Preamble comments, but this seems like a good example of when it might be useful. I wonder if other readers have thoughts about this.

Washington operates on collective voter amnesia. Supporting Trump through white supremacy controversies is a calculated risk: politicians assume voters won't remember in a few months, so they maintain Trump loyalty despite temporary heat. (And as we saw in the article, whatever temporary heat they might get from moderate voters, it won’t be anything near the heat they get from MAGA extremists for not toeing the Trump line.)

But what if we created a system that prevented this forgetting? What if there was incentive for doing the right thing?

The accountability grid I've been thinking about would list every public official in rows and their stances/actions in columns. A vote to confirm Martin would appear in the "white supremacy" column for any supporting senator. Think of it like a permanent record in school - students behave differently knowing their actions follow them throughout their academic careers. Similarly, if politicians knew voters had an easily accessible record of their most controversial positions, the political calculus would change dramatically. Just as detention slips accumulate in a student's file, votes and statements would accumulate in a politician's permanent record.

For the grid to work, the interface would need to be intuitive. Voters could answer questions about their values and see how officials align with those values. You could filter by issue - democracy, civil rights, economic policy - and see patterns emerge.

The challenge is making this grid seem legitimate across the political spectrum. To achieve that, we'd need a bipartisan board overseeing methodology, transparent sourcing of objective criteria (direct quotes, voting records, campaign contributions), and clear guidelines for what qualifies for inclusion.

The accountability grid wouldn't end partisanship, but it could make the costs of enabling extremism more permanent and visible. Politicians might still make cynical choices, but at least they wouldn’t assume our collective amnesia will save them from the consequences.

Expand full comment
14 more comments...

No posts