Skip to main content

Changing stripes or just colors


It's amazing how easy it is for politicians and pundits to flip. A couple recent examples are John Fetterman and Bill Maher. Here they can be seen together on "Real Time" lamenting the direction the Democratic Party is taking and how they are seriously considering switching parties or voting for Republican candidates, JP Vance in Maher's case, whom he also recently interviewed. 

To this point Fetterman has considered himself a Democrat. He even took a progressive stance in his 2022 run for the Senate before suffering a massive stroke. Takes a lot to bring down a big guy like that but he spent much of his campaign in the hospital. Since then it has been hard to tell where he stands. "Libertarian" perhaps? A convenient moniker for those who no longer want to align themselves with a political party, but here he was supporting Trump's ballroom because he thinks it will give the president better protection, Trump's foreign policy including the Iran War, and the Republican SAVE Act, if only they dropped the provision on mail-in voting. He's also supported most of Trump's cabinet and judicial appointments. This has put him in direct confrontation with the entire Democratic establishment, not just the "Democratic Socialists," whom he abhors

He often finds himself alone on Senate votes in siding with Republicans, such as a resolution to end the US war in Iran. Three Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats on the measure. John was concerned there might still be nuclear dust and voted against it.

This is a far cry from the Lt. Governor we saw during the COVID crisis, who was urging the measures Dr. Fauci and other immunologists put forward to contain the deadly virus. He gained a lot of positive notoriety during this time, spurring him to run for the vacant Pennsylvania Senate seat. It was good to see him defend Fauci during the humiliating Senate hearings this past week. It seems that when it comes to health care he continues to side with Democrats.

Bill Maher is another story. It is hard to tell whether he is a comedian, political commentator or social gadfly or all of the above. He has made a name for himself with his talk show on HBO by challenging guests in his acerbic way. For the most part he had gone after conservative guests but ever since the war broke out in Gaza, he has been venting his ire on liberal guests that don't support Israel. He's long harbored a grudge against Muslims but it has now become a deep loathing. 

He's been particularly harsh in his appraisal of highly popular New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and believes that Democrats are taking a wrong turn by embracing the Democratic Socialist Mayor, who also happens to be Muslim, thinking it will drag them down in the midterm elections. Nevertheless, Bill continues to attract liberal and conservative guests far and wide, although he has yet to invite Mamdani on his show.

Bill has invited JD Vance and they seemed to have a great time together. Given the current state of the Democratic Party, Bill now considers JD a viable presidential candidate for 2028, assuming Trump doesn't try to run a fourth time.

It isn't unusual. There have been any number of disgruntled politicians who switched parties or at least didn't like the direction their party was going and supported the other guy. A famous example of this was Chuck Hagel, a Senate Republican who chose Barack Obama over John McCain in the 2008 presidential election and served in Obama's cabinet as Secretary of Defense. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman threw his support behind McCain because of their longtime friendship and became an Independent in the next session of Congress, although he continued to vote mostly along Democratic party lines.

It's a free country. You're allowed to go which ever way the political tide takes you. In Hagel's and Lieberman's case, they made decisions that cost them a lot of political clout within their party. These days, politicians seem to be making these decisions largely for political gain. Fetterman saw that Trump won a the tightly contested Pennsylvania election and realigned himself accordingly with the hope of retaining his seat in 2028. This came about long before Democratic Socialists started winning primaries across the country. He just now uses it as a convenient excuse on talk shows, hoping to generate support from Independents and Republicans.

Maher lost favor among his liberal audience for his rigid stance on Israel and now seems to be catering more and more toward conservative listeners to make up for his sagging ratings. He loves to reminisce on his dinner with Trump, his budding relationship with JD Vance, and is calling out the "woke left" more and more often in an effort to gain a broader audience. Maher and Fetterman claim they are maintaining independence, but this has nothing to do with keeping an even keel. Politics like entertainment is heavily dependent on ratings and when your net approval is -18 among Democrats, Fetterman finds himself seriously considering a change in parties. This is a logistical turn, not one driven by core values.

Of the two, Fetterman is the most worrisome as his votes affect policy. We ran into this before with Joe Manchin, the former West Virginia senator who is now actively promoting an "Independent Leadership Council" that he hopes will eliminate "D" and "R" from politics. Most of their arguments ring hollow because they are supported by industrial lobbies. Fetterman knows how important fracking is in his state and despite the well-documented evidence of the environmental harm it causes, continues to support it. Manchin is a big coal guy despite coal no longer being a vital part of the West Virginia economy. Much of their angst is aimed at environmental groups. So much for political independence, especially in the wake of Citizens United, which allowed lobby groups to pour huge sums of money into political campaigns.

Maher is just an outlier, one who is constantly being made fun of in Reddit, viciously so. You do wonder how this guy won the Mark Twain Prize, sponsored by Netflix, with the oddest cast of characters cheering him that you ever will see. He is neither particularly funny nor politically astute, which of course were Mark Twain's hallmarks, but what can you do in this day and age?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Team of Rivals Reading Group

''Team of Rivals" is also an America ''coming-of-age" saga. Lincoln, Seward, Chase et al. are sketched as being part of a ''restless generation," born when Founding Fathers occupied the White House and the Louisiana Purchase netted nearly 530 million new acres to be explored. The Western Expansion motto of this burgeoning generation, in fact, was cleverly captured in two lines of Stephen Vincent Benet's verse: ''The stream uncrossed, the promise still untried / The metal sleeping in the mountainside." None of the protagonists in ''Team of Rivals" hailed from the Deep South or Great Plains. _______________________________ From a review by Douglas Brinkley, 2005

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

  Welcome to this month's reading group selection.  David Von Drehle mentions The Melting Pot , a play by Israel Zangwill, that premiered on Broadway in 1908.  At that time theater was accessible to a broad section of the public, not the exclusive domain it has become over the decades.  Zangwill carried a hopeful message that America was a place where old hatreds and prejudices were pointless, and that in this new country immigrants would find a more open society.  I suppose the reference was more an ironic one for Von Drehle, as he notes the racial and ethnic hatreds were on display everywhere, and at best Zangwill's play helped persons forget for a moment how deep these divides ran.  Nevertheless, "the melting pot" made its way into the American lexicon, even if New York could best be describing as a boiling cauldron in the early twentieth century. Triangle: The Fire That Changed America takes a broad view of events that led up the notorious fire, not...

The People Debate the Constitution

As Pauline Maier describes in Ratification , there was no easy road in getting the Constitution ratified.  After 10 years of living together as a loosely knit confederation, a few forward thinking men decided that the Articles of Confederation no longer worked and it was time to forge a Constitution.  Washington would not go until he could be assured something would come of the convention and that there would be an august body of gentlemen to carry the changes through.  But, ultimately Maier describes it was the people who would determine the fate of the new Constitution. This is a reading group for Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution 1787-1788 .  The book has been well received by fellow historians like Jack Rakove , among others.  Maier has drawn from a wealth of research piecing together a story that tells the arduous battle in getting the Constitution ratified.  A battle no less significant than that Americans fought for independence.