Read on Twitter
I thought about writing something a bit more extensive about this, but no time, so you’re getting a tweetstorm:
The case of Marjorie Taylor Greene elucidates a dysfunctional political party in some really sharp ways.
(Thread.)
The case of Marjorie Taylor Greene elucidates a dysfunctional political party in some really sharp ways.
(Thread.)
Premise: Perhaps the most essential purpose of a political party is to establish a broadly appealing brand that can win elections.
I think it is pretty clear that MTG actively hinders this. Say what you want about the Trumpy/populist movement we are in; I still think she’s easily a net liability for the GOP. Yes, she can win her district in rural NW Georgia.
But to the extent she is the “face” of the GOP, it’s going to drag down Republicans running in 2022. Democrats will put her front and center in their messaging, much like Republicans do with AOC. (I don’t mean to imply MTG and AOC are comparable in other respects.)
How does this sort of problem get handled when a political party is behaving functionally? Two things.
First, MTG probably doesn’t get elected in the first place, because the Party would use money and endorsements to stack the deck against her in the primary. They would recruit a team player, and *that* person would probably win.
Second, if she *did* win, she would be rendered inconsequential by virtue of her extremely junior status. Her looney musings just would not be the sort of thing that would command much attention.
Imagine converting this situation to how things worked in the 80s. If a reporter asked Kevin McCarthy, “What’s your comment on this weird thing Marjorie Greene said?”, I think his response might have been, “Marjorie who? Is that one of our freshmen?”
Privately, she would have been told, “Keep your head down and play nice. We’ll be able to fund a bridge in your district and you can run for reelection on that. Build up some policy expertise and in six or ten years, maybe you can chair a nice subcommittee.”
To be sure, not everything about that arrangement is perfect, but it rewarded relationships and cooperation. ( @jon_rauch has done great writing on this.)
The McCarthy of today, however, does not have the luxury to ignore MTG the way he once might have. Campaign financing rules make her less reliant on the party to run. Social media lets her build her *own* brand and following, without the party’s help.
Pathologically, she gets *rewarded* for her looniness—not relegated to the margins as she once would have been. The most junior member of a 435-person institution just has no business controlling its agenda and media coverage. During the first 100 of a new admin! But here we are.
Side note: All this notwithstanding, I think it’s a mistake for Democrats to strip her of committee assignments, at least without GOP buy-in. It’s just a bad precedent for the majority party to unilaterally demote a member of the minority—the tables can too easily be turned.
I also think it’s bad politics! As I say above, I think MTG is a liability for the GOP. Why solve GOP’s problems for them, and make her a martyr in the process? The smart thing for the Democrats to do is to let her build a track record of craziness, and then run against it. (end)
