Democrats generally have wasted their breath appealing to Republicans’ patriotism, love of democracy and empathy. Maybe Democrats would get further with appeals to blatant self-interest.
Vote with their feet: Let’s start with elected Republicans in red-state governments. “Republican-dominated states are pushing out young professionals by enacting extremist conservative policies,” Timothy Noah wrote last year in the New Republic. “Abortion restrictions are the most sweeping example, but state laws restricting everything from academic tenure to transgender health care to the teaching of ‘divisive concepts’ about race are making these states uncongenial to knowledge workers.”
In particular, living in a red state has become injurious to women’s health given the prevalence of “maternity care deserts” (multiplying in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.) Thirty-nine percent of counties in states that restrict abortion have “no hospitals or birthing centers that offer obstetric care and no individual obstetric providers (not even midwives)”; in Texas, that number is 46.5 percent.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
Moreover, as I have written, red states on average have more gun deaths, shorter life expectancy, more child poverty and inferior rates of education. Though some red states can tout that they are gaining population — largely due to cheaper housing (query whether that will be sustainable in places such as Florida that now have a housing and home insurance crisis) — “the college-educated minority, which moves much more frequently, prefers relocating to a blue state,” Noah wrote.
Democratic governors in blue and purple states facing shortages of skilled workers can make attractive offers to lure red states’ skilled workers (and students) — just as labor agents recruited workers from the South in the early 20th century. Everything from liberal transfer policies for college students to reciprocal professional licensure to relocation stipends for government workers should be on the table. (Some states might prioritize skilled manufacturing workers. Others might focus on medical professionals or teachers.)
Such targeted recruitment would have two benefits. First, the recruiting states would increase their wealth and quality of life, and Democratic leaders would gain recognition for policies that make those states attractive. Equally important, red states would come under pressure to reexamine the policies that diminish the health, economic opportunity and well-being of their residents. Losing taxpaying residents and the services they provide could have serious ramifications for Republicans.
Until they pay a price for backward policies, red states have little reason to change. The best result would be red states improve the availability of health care, modify gun laws and take other steps to prevent drifting into Third World status.
Senate Republicans’ self-interest: Hardly profiles in courage, Senate Republicans occasionally can be pushed to do the right thing. They rebuffed the nomination of Matt Gaetz for attorney general because congressional Republicans hated him and credible allegations about sex with minors proved too embarrassing. Well-founded allegations of sexual misconduct, drug or alcohol abuse or financial misconduct (and in the case of Pete Hegseth, all three!) — rather than a nominee’s loopy ideas (e.g., no women in combat) — seem to be effective motivators for GOP senators to oppose Trump nominees.
In short, the way to spur Republicans to nix the most objectionable and dangerous appointments is to appeal to Republicans’ political self-interest. Consider unhinged, vindictive characters such as Kash Patel, who can easily turn his ire on Republicans or their allies. Fear of malicious characters is not the exclusive province of Democrats. Reminding Republicans of Patel’s threats, insults and hostility demonstrated toward fellow Republicans (including former Trump advisers) may trigger their survival instinct.
Moreover, making the case to Republican senators that they will be responsible for the possible consequences of unfit nominees’ tenure (such as the return of polio without vaccines or a possible terrorist attack due to poor national security) should at least give them pause. The more serious the stakes (nuclear war, compromised intelligence), the more traction the objection is going to get.
In sum, if Republicans are convinced a nominee will embarrass them, threaten them and/or leave them holding the bag for a national disaster, they might reject at least a few of the worst picks. Alas, that still leaves us with the “merely” unqualified, conflicted and incompetent nominees.
Vote with their feet: Let’s start with elected Republicans in red-state governments. “Republican-dominated states are pushing out young professionals by enacting extremist conservative policies,” Timothy Noah wrote last year in the New Republic. “Abortion restrictions are the most sweeping example, but state laws restricting everything from academic tenure to transgender health care to the teaching of ‘divisive concepts’ about race are making these states uncongenial to knowledge workers.”
In particular, living in a red state has become injurious to women’s health given the prevalence of “maternity care deserts” (multiplying in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.) Thirty-nine percent of counties in states that restrict abortion have “no hospitals or birthing centers that offer obstetric care and no individual obstetric providers (not even midwives)”; in Texas, that number is 46.5 percent.
Follow Jennifer Rubin
Moreover, as I have written, red states on average have more gun deaths, shorter life expectancy, more child poverty and inferior rates of education. Though some red states can tout that they are gaining population — largely due to cheaper housing (query whether that will be sustainable in places such as Florida that now have a housing and home insurance crisis) — “the college-educated minority, which moves much more frequently, prefers relocating to a blue state,” Noah wrote.
Democratic governors in blue and purple states facing shortages of skilled workers can make attractive offers to lure red states’ skilled workers (and students) — just as labor agents recruited workers from the South in the early 20th century. Everything from liberal transfer policies for college students to reciprocal professional licensure to relocation stipends for government workers should be on the table. (Some states might prioritize skilled manufacturing workers. Others might focus on medical professionals or teachers.)
Such targeted recruitment would have two benefits. First, the recruiting states would increase their wealth and quality of life, and Democratic leaders would gain recognition for policies that make those states attractive. Equally important, red states would come under pressure to reexamine the policies that diminish the health, economic opportunity and well-being of their residents. Losing taxpaying residents and the services they provide could have serious ramifications for Republicans.
Until they pay a price for backward policies, red states have little reason to change. The best result would be red states improve the availability of health care, modify gun laws and take other steps to prevent drifting into Third World status.
Senate Republicans’ self-interest: Hardly profiles in courage, Senate Republicans occasionally can be pushed to do the right thing. They rebuffed the nomination of Matt Gaetz for attorney general because congressional Republicans hated him and credible allegations about sex with minors proved too embarrassing. Well-founded allegations of sexual misconduct, drug or alcohol abuse or financial misconduct (and in the case of Pete Hegseth, all three!) — rather than a nominee’s loopy ideas (e.g., no women in combat) — seem to be effective motivators for GOP senators to oppose Trump nominees.
In short, the way to spur Republicans to nix the most objectionable and dangerous appointments is to appeal to Republicans’ political self-interest. Consider unhinged, vindictive characters such as Kash Patel, who can easily turn his ire on Republicans or their allies. Fear of malicious characters is not the exclusive province of Democrats. Reminding Republicans of Patel’s threats, insults and hostility demonstrated toward fellow Republicans (including former Trump advisers) may trigger their survival instinct.
Moreover, making the case to Republican senators that they will be responsible for the possible consequences of unfit nominees’ tenure (such as the return of polio without vaccines or a possible terrorist attack due to poor national security) should at least give them pause. The more serious the stakes (nuclear war, compromised intelligence), the more traction the objection is going to get.
In sum, if Republicans are convinced a nominee will embarrass them, threaten them and/or leave them holding the bag for a national disaster, they might reject at least a few of the worst picks. Alas, that still leaves us with the “merely” unqualified, conflicted and incompetent nominees.
