Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

For Republicans, Vilification of Enemies Is All That Matters – Washington Monthly

If anyone fails that test, they are unpatriotic at best, and potential traitors at worst.

| 6:00 AM

In the wake of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Donald Trump and his enablers have said a lot of ignorant things. But during an appearance on Sean Hannitys show, Nikki Haley installed herself at the top of the list.

It is both preposterous and offensive to suggest that Democrats are mourning the loss of Soleimani. The issue that has been raised is that his assassination has made Americans less safe, especially those serving in the Middle East. Given that one of the primary responsibilities of our federal government is to ensure the security of Americans both at home and abroad, those are important concerns to voice.

Meghan McCain pulled something similar when she questioned the words that Elizabeth Warren used to describe Soleimani.

First of all, Soleimani is both a member of a group that has been classified as a terrorist organization and a senior foreign military official. For McCain, he must be one or the other, because referring to him simply as a military official isnt sufficiently demonizing. Unless Warren uses the right words to describe him, she failed the patriotism test.

This is reminiscent of the time that Trump accused Democrats of supporting the MS-13 gang because theyobjected to his use of the word animals to describe undocumented immigrants. It is also similar to those days when Republicans suggested that, unless Obama used the words radical Islam to describe ISIS, he wouldnt be able to defeat them. Finally, the same issue came up during a debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the topic of Benghazi.

Obama pulled a zinger and proved Romney wrong: he had used the word terrorism to describe the attack in Benghazi. But what if he hadnt? Did the use of the word terrorism change the fact that four Americans died during the attack? Did it change how the administration responded? The answer to those questions is clearly, no.

The truth is that, for too many Republicans, the only issue that matters is the vilification of enemies, which is demonstrated by the words we use to describe them. If anyone fails that test, they are unpatriotic at best, and potential traitors at worst.

What is eliminated from that kind of conversation is anything related to context or strategy. It posits a black-and-white world where using the most incendiary words to describe an enemy indicates that you have taken the side of good against evil. Under those circumstances,Trump doesnt need to think through the ramifications of assassinating Suleimani. All he needs is some chest-thumping about how hes taken out a really bad guy and damn the consequences. Somehow that kind of recklessness is never deemed unpatriotic, even as it puts American lives at risk.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really worksand how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, Ill make a donation

Read the original post:
For Republicans, Vilification of Enemies Is All That Matters - Washington Monthly

Opinion: Why Republicans will stick with Trump in 2020 – Los Angeles Times

Recently, a close friend and fellow Republican told me he was personally shocked at what the evangelicals have been willing to stomach from Donald Trump. Im not shocked at all.

My friends sentiment a variation on the empty if Obama had done this, Republicans wouldve impeached him has become a staple of Democrats and Never Trumpers. Are you ready to turn on him yet? Republicans are asked over and over.

No one ever says yes. The Republicans who make a living hating Trump today hated him before he was elected. The rest of the party remains solidly behind him. The reason for that, as we enter this election year, is less granular than feeling happy or sad about a specific presidential behavior. Rather, it has to do with the general direction of the nation: Trump and whoever the Democrats nominate represent such fundamentally different directions for our country that it is almost unthinkable for a Republican voter to be seriously torn.

Imagine standing at a train station in Louisville, Ky., staring at the schedule board. You want to get to Los Angeles, and you have a choice of two trains one headed to San Diego and one headed to Washington, D.C. Neither gets you exactly where youre heading, but theres really only one choice as the alternative to San Diego is to go precisely the wrong way.

Even if the San Diego train sometimes hits bumpy tracks, and the conductor comes on the PA and says crude and dumb stuff, and there are people on the train you really wish would get off: It is still taking you basically where you want to go.

To the average Republican voter, like the passenger on that train, the destination is what matters.

I tried to explain this to my friend. I told him that, for Christian conservatives, the choices are Trump versus people who prefer full-term abortions and believe that that our country should functionally have no borders. To vote against Trump is to vote for a party that fundamentally believes Republicans are deplorable and racist.

The decision isnt hard.

But the porn stars! The crudeness! The immorality! my friend says.

To a Christian conservative voter, the individual behavior of an imperfect human pales against the importance of protecting human life. If the imperfect president appoints pro-life judges and takes your values into account when making policy, you dont worry so much about one sinners struggles with morality. You just pray for him, while also giving thanks for all he does to advance your cause.

Choosing any of the Democrats running for president isnt simply boarding a train headed in a slightly different direction, or one going the same way with a nicer conductor. It means completely turning around. For goodness sakes, Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden have both proposed plans that would spend taxpayer dollars on gender assignment surgery!

And thats what has been so illuminating about this Democratic primary race: Because of their extreme tilt to the left, none of these candidates have a prayer of peeling off a statistically significant number of Republican voters. No matter what the Never Trumpers in your Twitter feed tell you, Trump win or lose will have the support of more than 90% of his party.

Some people used to argue that the two parties are basically the same. It wasnt true then, and its especially not true now. Most of Trumps governance has been what youd expect from any Republican president (conservative judges, lower taxes, deregulation, an embrace of pro-life policies), and the wild extremism of his would-be opponents is causing some center-right voters who were lukewarm on Trump three years ago to feel closer to him than ever before.

The exception to that is the cohort of suburban women who clearly abandoned the Republicans in the 2018 midterm and strongly disapprove of Trump now. But will losing them be enough to derail the Trump train?

I consulted the impeachment polling aggregator on Nate Silvers FiveThirtyEight website on Dec. 29, and it said that 48% of Americans prefer impeachment and removal versus 46% who did not. As has been true for three years, the polls say men basically want Trump and women basically dont.

Impeachment has become a political Rorschach test, and Trump might easily win reelection with a two-point deficit in the popular vote. The question isnt how Republicans can still vote for Trump, but how the Democrats became so radicalized as to present no viable alternative to huge swaths of nonurban America.

Scott Jennings is a former advisor to President George W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and a CNN contributor. He is a contributing writer to Opinion. Twitter: @ScottJenningsKY.

Here is the original post:
Opinion: Why Republicans will stick with Trump in 2020 - Los Angeles Times

How population growth will impact Republicans in the 2024 election – Yahoo Finance

Reliably Republican-voting states like Texas have undergone population changes that could transform the countrys political landscape, according to anew report from the Brookings Institution.

I think people have been waiting for a long time for Texas to turn from red to blue. It could certainly happen. And if it does happen, then Democrats will have three additional seats in Congress, and three additional votes in the Electoral College, says Brookings Institution demographer William Frey.

The fallingbirth rate in the U.S.and increasing number of deathsover the past decade mean that the U.S. had theslowest population growthin history. The projected population growth between 2010 and 2020, is 7.1% even lower than the 7.3% growth during the period of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., holds the gavel as House members vote on article II of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

States such as Vermont, West Virginia, and Illinois are projected to have negative population growth over the past decade. States in the Northeast, including New York, Maine, New Jersey, New Hampshire, as well as Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa in the Midwest, are projected to see population growth of 0% to 5% from 2010 to 2020.

States seeing the strongest population growth are mainly in the South and West. Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Utah are among the states that have a projected population growth of 15% and above for the past decade, according to Census figures Brookings used in its report. (The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act likely factored in here too: it lowered the cap on state and local tax deductions andaccelerated migration out of high-tax states.)

The Census, taken every 10 years, is meant to help determine how to apportion members of Congress based on each states population. The final numbers will be announced in December 2020. Based on Census projections, Frey estimates that the South and the West will be the big winners in Congressional seats.

Most states in the West are projected to gain seats, except for California which will be losing one seat. Numerous states in the Northeast and Midwest including New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Illinois will be losing one seat in Congress.

Texas is projected to gain three seats, the most of any other state, followed by Florida which will be adding two, and North Carolina with one. Montana, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado are forecast to add one seat each, according to Brookings.

Graphic by David Foster/Yahoo Finance

Any Congressional reapportionment will surely impact the 2022 midterm elections, as well as the Electoral College and by extension the 2024 presidential elections. (The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of Congressional representatives and senators they have. The District of Columbia is the exception, having three electors.)

The projected change in representation would seem to favor Republicans. Among the states projected to gain seats, five out of seven voted for President Trump in 2016: Texas, Florida, Montana, Arizona, and North Carolina.

Story continues

However, Frey says the reverse might happen: the composition of the population growth in red states like Texas, Florida, or Arizona, could, in fact, favor Democrats and turn those states blue. Part of the reason theyre gaining seats is because the population growth there will be from voting blocs that traditionally dont vote Republican, like Latinos, like African-Americans, like college-educated white women, who might be moving there from bluer states, he says.

But theres a caveat: population changes may also work in favor of Republicans in traditionally blue states that are losing Congressional seats.

States like Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, even in 2016, have turned from a long pattern of voting Democratic to voting Republican, he says adding [Since theyre] not gaining a lot of these new Democratic voters and still retaining a lot of these sort of Republican-leaning voters, [they] may [continue as] Republican voting states. Im not saying that will be the case, but it could be the case based on the demographic shift.

Frey says the 2009 Great Recession curbed domestic migration in the U.S. At the start of the past decade, we were still feeling the aftershocks of the recession and the housing bust, he says.

As the economy gradually began to improve and better job opportunities became available, migration picked up as Americans sought new opportunities in states with lower costs of living. As a result, the population of states like New York and Connecticut shrunk.

For instance, between 2010 and 2013, New York had a population growth ranging from 0.3% to 0.5%. As the economy improved, New York saw negative growth rates from 2015 to 2019.

Meanwhile, states like Texas and North Carolina saw some of the countrys highest influxes over the past year. Texass population grew by 1.3% from July 2018 to July 2019, and North Carolinas grew by 1% over the same time period. Idaho saw 2.1% growth, the highest rate of any state over the past year, according to Brookings.

More from Sibile:

We squandered a major economic recovery: Harvard professor

New Top Gun will be good for Paramount but doesnt change the narrative

Millennials are spending more on almost every vice, survey finds

Wilbur Ross and Ivanka Trump tout womens prison program that teaches coding

Wilbur Ross reveals biggest obstacle for China trade deal

See the article here:
How population growth will impact Republicans in the 2024 election - Yahoo Finance

Devin Nunes: Republicans have ‘active investigation’ into intelligence inspector general – Washington Examiner

House Republicans are investigating Michael Atkinson, the Intelligence Community inspector general who notified Congress of the whistleblower complaint that sparked an impeachment effort against President Trump.

California Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, told The Sara Carter Show on Monday that Atkinson still faces "serious questions" after his testimony in October, which to this day remains under wraps. Democrats have not released the transcript of that deposition despite mounting pressure by Republicans.

"Everyone needs to see that testimony," Nunes said, adding that the reason it has not been released is "because it's very damaging, not only to the whistleblower but also to Atkinson himself."

Nunes said House Republicans have "an active investigation" open into Atkinson. They have sent a letter to the inspector general, but Nunes said they "gave us a very typical IC response, which is to not answer the question." He also conceded that, as the minority party in the House, Republicans cannot subpoena Atkinson or force him to testify again.

A representative for Atkinson declined to comment for this report.

Atkinson received the complaint from a CIA analyst, whose identity has not yet been confirmed, in August and deemed it to be urgent and credible. The complaint raised concerns about Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the Trump pressed for an investigation into his political rival Joe Biden. It also raised concerns about an effort to conceal details of that conversation and others using a highly secure computer system.

Atkinson forwarded the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who did not give the watchdog permission to share it with Congress after seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department, but it did allow him to notify them of its existence. After a clash over access with Democratic lawmakers, the complaint was declassified on Sept. 25, the same day the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call was released, and it was made available to the public the next day.

Republicans have complained that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who had a leading role in the House impeachment process, had foreknowledge of the whistleblower's complaint and misled them about what he knew. With some allies of Trump pointing the finger at CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower's lawyers and Democrats have argued that the whistleblower's identity is no longer relevant and that outing the whistleblower would put that person's life in danger.

After testimony by dozens of witnesses, the House passed two articles of impeachment nearly three weeks ago that charged Trump with abuse of power in dealing with Ukraine and obstruction of Congress.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat from California, has been withholding articles of impeachment because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled he may not call any witnesses. The Kentucky Republican said he will not agree in advance to the Democrats' demands.

See the original post here:
Devin Nunes: Republicans have 'active investigation' into intelligence inspector general - Washington Examiner

Will Hurd Wants to Improve the Republican Brand – The New York Times

Representative Will Hurd of Texas occupies a unique position in Republican politics. He is a moderate in a political moment in which moderation is rare. He is also the only black Republican in the House and represents a district Texas border-hugging 23rd that is majority Latino and not Republican. These factors, along with his skill at retail politics and constituent services, have led some observers to point to Hurd as a politician who could help forge a more inclusive future for Republicans. (A few have even speculated about a presidential run in 2024.) Despite his rising-star status, Hurd, who is 42, has already announced that he wont be running for re-election to Congress this fall, choosing instead to find other ways to serve his party. If the Republican Party of America doesnt start looking like America, Hurd said, there wont be a Republican Party in America.

Youre a moderate conservative, but your voting record in the House aligns with President Trumps position about 80 percent of the time. No one would call him a moderate anything. So what does moderate mean to you? I believe that Americans agree on 80 percent of stuff. I try to focus on those things. Thats separate from my voting record. Heres what I know: All the pieces of legislation that Ive introduced under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, theyve supported and ultimately signed. So trying to define a philosophy based on voting record alone is not accurate. Let me step back. What Ive learned, from representing a 50-50 district, is that people care about putting food on the table, having a roof over their head and making sure the people they love are healthy and happy. We focus on those things. If somebody wants to call that moderate, thats up to them.

But how do you define moderate Republicanism? Im a person who believes that the way youll solve problems in the future is the way youve solved them in the past: Empower people, not the government. The way youre going to help people move up the economic ladder is through free markets, not socialism. When it comes to foreign policy, we should be nice with nice guys and tough with tough guys. We should also be making sure that were paying attention to the folks who may not have access to the opportunities that others may have. Thats my governing philosophy. People can use whatever adjective they want to describe that. And can I take a second to clarify your question about the Trump score?

Of course. It oversimplifies votes. The president doesnt write laws; Congress does. Of all the bills Ive put on the presidents desk, he has signed all of them. So the president agrees with me 100 percent of the time. The question also presupposed that all of the presidents positions are wrong. I voted to keep the government open, give disaster relief, for the First Step Act and criminal-justice reform.

When you say that your focus is on the 80 percent of things on which Americans agree, I wonder if that way of looking at things isnt slightly Pollyanna-ish?

I was going to say distorting. Isnt the 20 percent on which people disagree what constitutes the key differences between politicians and the crucial issues for voters? Im not saying the 20 percent is unimportant. But you have a political system in which you win in November by creating contrast. So youre always creating contrast. That is the structural system. The difference with a district like mine is that when you solve problems and work across the aisle, youre rewarded because people on both sides, and independents, ultimately end up voting for someone like me. Thats the kind of system we should have. The only way big things have ever been done in this country is in a bipartisan way.

What have you learned about winning elections in a politically-split community that other Republicans can apply to their own campaigns? Its simple: Dont be a misogynist, dont be a homophobe, dont be a whatever-phobe and show up. You probably have seen the story Ive told about being in Eagle Pass. The first time, I showed up to a party of 700 people, and they were like, Why are you here? My response was, Because I like to drink beer and eat barbecue, too. The second time you show up, theyll shake your hand. The third time you show up, theyll tell you a problem. Ive seen my voting numbers in my community increase, and thats an overwhelmingly Latino, overwhelmingly Democratic district. So winning elections is not some complicated thing. Show up. Listen. Solve problems. Most people probably think, Doesnt every politician do that? The answer is no.

Will Hurd at his victory party in San Antonio after the 2018 midterm elections. Darren Abate/Associated Press

Texas is an increasingly purple state, in part because of the states rising Hispanic population. Is there any concern on your part that your approach the success youve had in connecting with that demographic is undermined by broader divisive Republican rhetoric? Of course. Texas is indeed purple, and when you look at the three largest-growing groups of voters communities of color, women with a college degree who live in the suburbs and people under the age of 35 the Republican brand is not that great. So we have to be able to show those three communities that the Republican Party cares; then we talk about our policies. What often happens is that when one Republican says something crazy, it is taken to apply to all Republicans.

It matters when that one Republican is the president, right? I realize that my megaphone is not as big as others. But the Republican Party is not a monolithic entity.

Im not sure I fully understood the distinction you just made between showing people that the Republican Party cares and its policy. Isnt it possible that Republican branding is not that great among the demographics you identified because the party pursues policies that alienate those voters? No. If people believe that you dont care about them, then theyre not going to listen to your ideas. Even if those ideas are actually helpful. Lets look at economic growth: Unemployment is low. Wages are increasing. I think October was the first time wages increased faster than interest on homes in decades, which is a key indicator. More workers have retirement accounts now than they did before. You could look at those positive actions. But if people believe youre a racist or a misogynist, that is going to get in the way. Have people in my party said racist things? Yes. But that doesnt define the broader party. If you do not think someone cares about your community, its hard for you to evaluate whether theyre doing something thats actually helping you.

But what youre fundamentally talking about is positioning or messaging. Dont you think that, for example, the Republican Partys being the party generally in favor of stricter voter-ID laws laws that have a disproportionately negative effect on communities of color is as much a hindrance to the partys ability to attract voters from those same communities as messaging? Im not agreeing or disagreeing with your premise. Im of the opinion that more people should vote. This notion that we cant be competitive if there are more voters is insane. The more voters, the better off were going to be. Lets fight for every single vote. I was on a panel with a digital director and producer for Dwayne Johnsons studio when Moana came out. She said: If Moana fails at the box office, what are you going to say? Youre going to say it was a crummy movie. By the way, I think Moana was a good movie. Im not implying it was a crummy movie. Then she said, But in politics, if only 30 percent of people come out to vote, we blame the voter. So lets give the voter a better product. Lets make sure everybody has access to that product and can vote. Thats my philosophy.

Does that philosophy have wider traction in the Republican Party? I think its a growing belief. When you have more people voting, thats more work. But there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle who dont want increased work. Ill go anywhere. Ill talk to anybody. Ill defend my positions. Ill communicate and listen to communities and say, Hey, how can we be helpful? So its hard for me to say if its a growing perspective or not a growing perspective. Its somewhere between zero and 100 percent.

The other thing that comes up most often when people write about you, besides your being a moderate, is that youre the one black Republican in the House of Representatives. I have two questions about that. The first is whether that fact makes you feel any particular responsibility. The second is how you understand your partys being the same party thats the political home to the Steve Kings and Stephen Millers of the world? Its a statement of fact: I am the only black Republican in the House of Representatives. But I would also say that there have been a number of African-American voters who vote for conservative elected officials. Im also proud that, when you look across the country, there are several dozen African-Americans running for Congress as Republicans. Im pretty sure that number was only three in 2018. Im sure we can sit here and come up with people who identify with the Democratic Party and make the rest of that party cringe when their names are mentioned. I dont think you can define a whole set of people based on outliers.

Its one thing to make somebody cringe. Its another to be credibly accused of espousing white supremacy. This is not something that I monitor. Again, I cant refute or agree with your premise, because I dont track that. I dont follow that.

A big chunk of your district is up against the Mexican border. Whats something happening there that more people should understand? Its a humanitarian crisis. The reason we have this unbelievable pressure at our border is because of violence, lack of economic opportunity and extreme poverty in the Northern Triangle of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. If we address their economies and political systems and lack of rule of law, that is going to take away the biggest push factor for what is happening. Also, the country does not treat human smugglers and drug-trafficking organizations the way we treat terrorist organizations. Theyre not considered a national intelligence priority. Why are we not going after the infrastructure that is causing things to be moving illegally back and forth across our borders? I spent nine and a half years as an undercover officer in the C.I.A. Im the guy who was in the back alleys at 4 oclock in the morning. So I know this is something that we could be solving using more intelligence. And then a third piece is that the technology that were using along the border is super outdated. Theres a program called the innovative tower initiative that uses some of the latest sensor technology so somebody in border patrol can use a smartphone to look at whats over a ridge. Some of that technology exists, but its not pervasive throughout Border Patrol.

Hurd at a news conference outside the Capitol in December, urging the House to pass a new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Are there politically feasible solutions to those push factors you mentioned? Sure. Right now we shouldnt be decreasing aid to those countries. We should be increasing it. USAID and the State Department support a number of initiatives, and one that I think is super effective is that in Honduras and Guatemala, theyve basically purged the local police, then hired new people and taught them community policing. Guess what happened when they did that? You saw violence decrease, and you saw a decrease in the number of people who are leaving those countries to come to the United States illegally. Weve got to be able to grow those kinds of programs. I also believe that we should have a Marshall Plan for that region to address some of these structural issues within its economy and political system. The International Development Bank needs to be involved. The Organization of American States needs to be involved.

Another area youre involved with is cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. How worried are you about the degree of foreign interference in the 2020 elections? Its happening! But whats different about what the Russians and other countries are trying to do in our elections is that disinformation is not technically part of cybersecurity. As a former C.I.A. officer, I categorize disinformation as part of covert action, and counter-covert action is the responsibility of the C.I.A. But the National Security Act of 1947 says the C.I.A. cannot do counter-covert action here in the United States of America. So the entity that is best prepared to deal with countering covert action cant do it. Whose responsibility is it, then? My frustration is that we havent been having enough conversations in Congress to talk about who is focused on this. Defending digital infrastructure is one thing. When it comes to protecting the vote-counting machines, the Department of Homeland Security has been focused on that. Defending against disinformation is very different. Someone says something crazy about somebody else how do you take that idea out of their head? How do you inoculate a community from a message? Its hard.

Given your intelligence and overseas background, what did you take away from the way impeachment witnesses like Marie Yovanovitch and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman had their integrity questioned by the president and Fox News? I was in the unit that ultimately prosecuted the war in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. If you would have told me on Sept. 12 that there would not be another major attack on our homeland for 18 years, I would have said youre crazy. The reason there hasnt been is because of the men and women in our military, federal law enforcement, intelligence agencies and diplomatic corps. Having served alongside these amazing men and women, I know what they do for our country, and the American people got to see the quality of some of our diplomats.

But the question was more about the presidents response to the testimony of those diplomats. Did you think it was fair? Theres no need to criticize these people who are actually going out there and working hard. You dont have to agree with them all the time, but to allow some of the discrediting that went on no, thats crazy. That shouldnt have happened. But the men and women in the diplomatic corps and the intelligence services are doing their job regardless.

Hurd questioning a witness in November during the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump. Samuel Corum/Pool, via Reuters

What goes through your head when you hear your colleagues refer to the Russia hoax? Im not defending anybody, but I will say this: I do not know a Republican in Congress who does not believe the Russians tried to influence our elections. Everybody agrees with that. When people are saying the Russia hoax, its that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. You know, the intelligence community refers to the Russian activity in our elections as Grizzly Step. That is going to go down in the history of Mother Russia as the greatest covert-action campaign ever. Why? Because we are still debating this issue, even though it is clear that Republicans and Democrats alike believe what was outlined in the first section of Robert Muellers report: that the Russians took extensive measures to try to influence our elections. Both sides need to use better language to articulate this, so that were not contributing to the Russian goals. The Russians want the press to criticize Congress for doing oversight. They want the Congress and the executive branch to be fighting. They want us all to be questioning the value of the news media. When were doing this, guess what were not doing? Talking about how to kick the Russians out of Ukraine because they invaded that country. Or how to prevent the Russians from buying the Venezuelan oil companies and continuing to prop up Nicols Maduro. Or preventing the Russians from going farther into Syria and becoming a real dealmaker in the Middle East. When were fighting one another, were playing into the Russians hands.

Do you believe that bipartisan political consensus and civility is still a real possibility? Its easy for people to be cynical about that. Of course people are cynical. But why does a black Republican continue to get elected in a 71 percent Latino district? Because I reach across the aisle and try to solve problems. There are other examples of that. Has anyone ever clicked on a headline that said Congress Worked? No. Even though the last Congress, under Paul Ryan, signed 990 bills or so into law, and all but 13 were done in a bipartisan way. When I look at the relationships in Congress between members that cross the aisle trying to get things done the people that do that, their voices need to be amplified. When that kind of behavior is rewarded, youre going to see more of it.

Youve been discussed as a possible presidential candidate in 2024. What will the nature of the Republican Party look like then? Or to put it another way, is President Trump a transient anomaly or a transformative figure for the G.O.P.? There was a Republican Party before him; theres going to be a Republican Party after him. When you look at the largest-growing groups of voters, if were not resonating with those communities, its going to be hard for Republicans to be successful in the future. But I also believe that our principles and theories can resonate everywhere. I think we should be going to California. We should be going to New England. We should be engaged in a competition of ideas, and we have to focus on what unites us, not what divides us. When we do that, were going to make sure that our countrys best days are still ahead of us.

That didnt quite answer my question. Surely we can say that there have been transformative figures in the Republican Party, people like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. Is President Trump one of those figures? He has obviously had an impact on the Republican Party. But I also believe that in this day and age, there are all kinds of folks who identify with the party. Is he the main person to define the party right now? Yes, hes the titular head. But I think a better way of defining the party is based on the people who are voting on behalf of individual politicians. That is what drives the definition of the party: the people who actually vote for the politicians.

David Marchese is a staff writer and the Talk columnist for the magazine.

This interview has been edited and condensed from two conversations.

Read the original post:
Will Hurd Wants to Improve the Republican Brand - The New York Times