A Party of Platitudes

What do "fighting" and "America First" even mean?

Sasse Says No

A week ago, Senator Ben Sasse from Nebraska released a statement that announced he was voting against confirming Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. There are very few politicians that I have more respect for than Senator Sasse, so his announcement certainly caught my eye. One of the reasons that I respect Sen. Sasse so much is because he isn’t known as a wildly partisan person that merely tows the Republican Party line. In fact, he was 1 of only 7 Republican senators that voted to impeach Donald Trump after January 6th.

It is Sen. Sasse’s willingness to go against the Republican Party that made his refusal to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court catch my attention. I knew that his refusal was probably not a product of partisan politics, but the product of a carefully considered conservative philosophy. After reading his statement, I was not only correct in my assumption, but I thought his statement provided an excellent example of the way Republicans should handle themselves.

First, Sen. Sasse displayed remarkable respect for Ketanji Brown Jackson and did not impugn her motives. He wrote, “Judge Jackson is an extraordinary person with an extraordinary American story. We both love this country…” This comment stands in stark contrast to so many criticisms from Republicans today that denounce the “radical Left socialists” who “hate America.” This type of argumentation does not provide any substantial refutation of progressive beliefs but serves only as a character assault. It is the Republican equivalent of calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist.

Also, Sen. Sasse made clear that Judge Jackson has admirable qualities that, apart from her judicial philosophy, would make her imminently qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. He wrote, “Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials and a deep knowledge of the law…” It is obvious that Sen. Sasse has respect for Judge Jackson and even ended by wishing Judge Jackson and her family the best.

Finally, Sen. Sasse was specific and direct about why he felt like he could not vote for Judge Jackson. He cited their disagreement on judicial philosophy saying she “refused to claim originalism as her judicial philosophy.” He pointed to three specific cases that he felt proved she was not going to be guided by an originalist judicial philosophy. This, Sasse argued, was not because she didn’t understand originalism, but because she viewed originalism “as just one of the tools judges use – not a genuine constraint on judicial power.”

Whether one agrees with Sen. Sasse’s critiques or thinks they justify voting no on the confirmation or not, it is refreshing to get such a thoughtful explanation from a politician about their actions. The sad reality is that the only reason Sen. Sasse’s statement stands out so much is because of the lack of substance the public gets from so many other politicians. This isn’t a new phenomenon, nor is it a uniquely partisan one, and the message to voters remains the same: we think you’re stupid.

Party of Platitudes

While I think Democrats lack plenty of substance, I want to direct my fire at the side that claims to be conservative. The Republican Party has increasingly become a party of platitudes that says a lot without saying anything valuable. As demonstrated by Sen. Sasse’s statement, I don’t think that every Republican politician is shallow, but I have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of substance from so many of them.

To give some background, I have started to attend my county’s local GOP monthly meetings. While I live in a democratic county, I live in a VERY Republican U. S. House district that is currently holding a primary. This means that I have heard many of the candidates speak at the county meeting to an audience that is about as base of the GOP base as anyone will find. While I certainly have a skewed perspective as I largely see Republican candidates cater to their base with little need to appeal to moderates, I also get to see firsthand Republican politicians shape arguments that they believe the base of the party wants to hear and will give them the best chance of winning the election.

So far, the vast majority of Republican candidates have offered platitudes that sound pretty, but are ultimately meaningless. Like the favorite sign of progressives, Republican politicians have tossed together a few sayings that offer no real insight into their beliefs but sound profound. I want to briefly talk about a couple that will surely be used more and more as the midterms approach.

Fight

Almost every Republican candidate that I have heard has promised to “fight” against a litany of opponents: big tech, radical left, wokism, etc. This isn’t necessarily surprising considering one of the most appealing aspects of Donald Trump to so many Republicans was that they felt like he was the only one willing to “fight” for them. It is clear that Republican politicians are trying to tap into that same sentiment.

The issue is that “fighting,” like all other platitudes, is way too broad to communicate anything of substance. Does “fighting” mean to take up arms and participate in violence? As January 6th demonstrated, people can take fighting to mean just that.

Does “fighting” against big tech mean infringing on their rights as private companies or legislating them out of existence? That is what the revocation of Section 230 would essentially do. Or, does “fighting” big tech mean putting public pressure on them to respect the views of conservatives without using the power of the state? This would be preferable, but there is no way of knowing unless Republican politicians specify.

Does “fighting” the radical left mean silencing political opponents? That would be obviously unconstitutional. Does “fighting” the radical left simply mean working with moderates to pass legislation that goes against the policy positions of the most progressive Democrats even if a compromise is required? That’s the way that the Madisonian system is supposed to work. Or, does “fighting” the radical left mean staying so principled that nothing gets passed? Again, the specific meaning is left up for interpretation, and this isn’t even getting into trying to define what exactly is meant by the “radical left.”

What about “fighting” wokism? Is “fighting” wokism passing legislation that are usually overly broad in an attempt to ban Critical Race Theory in K-12 schools? Or, is “fighting” wokism banning transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports? These are two wildly different uses of government power but can both be considered fighting wokism.

I could go on about what exactly it means to “fight,” but I’m sure I have made my point: saying that you will “fight” broadly is useless unless politicians specify exactly what they are fighting against and how they will fight against it.

America First

The other meaningless phrase that Republican politicians are throwing around is “America First.” Like “fighting,” this is another attempt to hitch one’s wagon to the Donald Trump train with his “Make America Great Again” slogan. It also reveals about as much; that is nothing.

First, what exactly is included in an America First agenda? This could be in reference to a wide variety of different topics from foreign policy to economic policy. Even when the topic is specified, the policy position within that topic isn’t clear.

For example, what does an American First foreign policy agenda look like? I believe that I have a very “America First” foreign policy agenda, which is why I would have kept American troops in Afghanistan. As I wrote at the time, I think withdrawing troops from Afghanistan was the product of naive isolationism, of which Donald Trump was just as guilty. I still believe that keeping American troops in Afghanistan was an “America First” policy because it was in America’s best interest. However, I have a feeling that many “America First” politicians would disagree with me.

Similarly, an “America First” economic agenda is just as unclear. Does this mean hiking tariffs on foreign goods in an attempt to build more things in America? If so, I don’t think this is putting America first at all. I think putting America first would mean encouraging free trade as it leads to more economic prosperity for the maximum number of Americans. I believe tariffs increase input costs which leads to higher prices for everyone and less money in their pocket. Do these “America First” politicians agree with me? Maybe or maybe not, but without further explanation, it isn’t clear.

Conclusion

I started by talking about Sen. Sasse’s statement because it stands in such stark contrast to so many other Republican politicians. Unlike Sasse, Republican politicians purposely stick to broad statements that can be interpreted whichever way listeners want. They frequently impugn the motives of their opponents as being “weak” or “anti-American” instead of giving the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking in platitudes is appealing to politicians as it is in the details that many disagreements are found; therefore, the best way to appeal to the most people is to avoid the details. While this is understandable, it should be viewed as cowardly and offensive by voters. Cowardly because it removes the responsibility that politicians have to thoughtfully consider and defend policy positions. Offensive because it communicates to voters that they are too stupid to understand reasoned arguments.

My hope is that Republican politicians will emulate the example set by Sen. Sasse’s statement and move away from speaking in platitudes. If they refuse, then I hope Republican voters will vote them out of office.

God Bless,

Hunter Burnett