Republicans are struggling to look on the bright side of life

Probably the only potentially blasphemous moment in Monty Python’s Life of Brian occurs at the very beginning of the movie when we get our only view of Christ as he delivers his Sermon on the Mount. It is as close as the movie gets to actual religion because, almost immediately, the film’s relationship to scripture recedes as the camera pulls back to the rear of the crowd where we join those on the periphery of history who can’t quite hear what’s being said. When Terry Jones squawks “speak up!”, we should realise this isn’t a film attacking religion but the misinterpretation of religion, as in the misheard beatitude “Blessed are the cheesemakers!” with the questionable theological commentary “obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products…”

In the coming days and weeks, we will probably grow well acquainted with something that should be called the “cheesemaker defence”, as Donald Trump’s legal team sets out to explain why the former president never directed rioters to storm the Capitol Building. They might even have a point. A video emerged this past week from the Just Security website (“Fight For Trump” Just Security – Incitement at US Capitol on Vimeo) that resembled a Python sketch. Trump is seen lecturing to the crowd before we cut to those watching from afar.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol,” says Trump.

“Storm the Capitol!” reply the crowd. “Invade the Capitol Building!”

One would be excused for waiting for the commentary, “Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any building containing a legislative branch…”

Many media outlets have presented the video as evidence of Trump’s crime and it is even believed it will be offered as evidence at the Senate trial. Yet nobody has thought to ask why. Certainly, the crowd were energised by Trump’s words but nowhere did he explicitly tell then to “storm the Capitol”.

The problem for the prosecution is that this is hardly an isolated example, though it typifies the way the case is being poorly litigated through the media. Ana Navarro, a very vocal and widely-memed CNN “political commentator”, appeared on the Don Lemon show on Monday night where she steamed like her thermostat had been set to “witless”. Talking about Trump’s treatment of Mike Pence, she said: “The one moment he [Pence] wasn’t willing to cross a bridge that was completely illegal and unconstitutional, Donald Trump sent people out to kill him. Literally! Not figuratively. Literally!”

Er… no.

Not “literally”.

Not even “figuratively”.

He didn’t even say: “that’s a nice constitutional federal republic you have there… I’d hate to see something happen to it.”

When Joe Biden talked about “unity” in his inaugural address, it was perceived by the harder Right (with considerable anger) as an attack on their worldview but, really, Biden’s appeal also applies to the other side where pundits like Navarro fail to provide balance and often go unchallenged. It is perfectly correct to point out that the relationship between Trump and Pence broke down when Pence refused to intercede in the Senate’s validation of the election result. Charges of election interference are also justified, especially given the pressure Trump put on the Department of Justice. Yet his crimes should be described for what they are, not how the other side would like them framed.

Trump never sent a crowd to kill Pence. The worst one can say is that Trump directed an angry mob towards the Capitol Building knowing that Pence would be in attendance. He fired them up to be angry towards his Vice President, but we can’t even say, at this stage, if he knew there would be inadequate security around Congress. What he essentially demonstrated was his talent for talking around a subject whilst leading others to infer the meaning. This is the mafioso tactic that Michel Cohen described back in 2019. “He doesn’t give you questions,” Cohen told Congress, “he doesn’t give you orders, he speaks in a code. And I understand the code”.

Another person who probably understands “the code” is Mitch McConnell who suddenly steered the Republican ship back towards the iceberg on Tuesday night. Just as the GOP was ready to steer itself around Trump, McConnell joined with 44 other Republican senators in a procedural vote objecting to Trump’s impeachment on the basis that it is unconstitutional (the consensus among constitutional experts says otherwise). The vote failed as five Republicans joined with Democrats – Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, Patrick Toomey and Ben Sasse – but, needless to say, five rebels won’t be enough to convict Trump in February and this vote is already being seen as confirmation that Trump will again escape a conviction.

So, what had happened to change McConnell’s mind? It was just a short time ago when The New York Times was reporting how McConnell would welcome Trump’s impeachment and might even vote against the former President in the Senate trial.

Well, there is always a chance that McConnell had been testing the temperature of his colleagues to see if they would back a move against Trump. Alternatively, he might simply have been reading the mood of the nation in the immediate aftermath of the Capitol riot when all sensible politicians (plus Josh Hawley) condemned the rioters.

There is, however, a third possibility. It was reported on Tuesday that McConnell and Trump have not spoken since December, with the Minority Leader of the Senate telling reporters: “The last time I spoke with him was the day after I declared that Biden had obviously won the election […] It would have been December 15.”

That does not mean, however, that messages have not been sent and received…

Last week, an under-reported story suggested that Trump was thinking of starting a new political party, provisionally called “The Patriot Party”. The claims were later denied by Trump’s team after fundraising efforts were started by an organisation called the “MAGA Patriot Party National Committee”. Trump, they said, intended to remain a Republican.

To which one might respond: how convenient.

Whether Trump is or is not behind the political action committee (more commonly known as a PAC), he probably did float the idea of a new party and he might well have done it as a message to McConnell. Even if McConnell does want rid of Trump (and both anecdotally and strategically that still makes the most sense), more important is the unity of the Republican party, disparate though it might be. Trumpism will be a short-lived phenomenon (neither Ivanka nor Don Jr has inherited The Donald’s charisma), though its populist underpinnings will continue to be a long-term challenge. Some Republicans, such as Hawley, are already betting that populism will be sustained beyond Trump, whilst Ben Sasse and others pursue a more traditional form of Republicanism.

That split has yet to manifest it as anything other than the rather harsh contrast between the two wings of the party but a “Patriot Party” with Trump’s backing would be a direct challenge to the GOP’s viability going forward. Such a populist movement would fracture the GOP base in a way that hasn’t been seen since the days of Ross Perot and the Reform Party, whose 19 per cent vote share in the 1992 election helped Bill Clinton win with only 43 per cent. It has been reported that such a move would go against Trump’s best interests, but it’s not yet clear what those interests are. Trump was a member of the Reform Party during his short-lived run for the presidency in 2000 and, unless he genuinely aspires to become the 47th president in 2024, then Trump as a figurehead in a new party makes a lot more sense than his being a bit player in a party seeking to escape his shadow.

Many Republicans have come to understand (to borrow from Python) that Donald Trump is no longer “the Messiah” but they clearly fear how much he retains the capacity to be “a very naughty boy”. As for always looking on the bright side of life? Not, it seems, if you’re a moderate Republican.