The Platner/Paxton Symmetry/Asymmetry

My article about how I don’t like Graham Platner but would still vote for him generated feedback both positive (people like the SenateBot 5000 joke!) and negative (people want to see me struck by a train!). Some people noted a similarity between my logic (i.e. Platner sucks but would be a net benefit for the country because he’d check Trump more than Collins) and the logic that many Republicans are using to stand by their own ethical Chernobyl of a Senate candidate: Ken Paxton of Texas. Many examples of Republicans standing by Paxton exist, but I think the most succinct formulation 𝕏came from Dan McLaughlin of The National Review.

There it is again: The Flight 93 election logic. That is: Finding a way to convince yourself that the other side is worse even as your candidate runs through a nursery school with a flamethrower. This type of thinking is a boil on the taint of American civil discourse*. *And I wonder: Am I guilty of it? I’d like to say “nah” and go back to praying for my critics to be tied up on the beach and devoured by crabs, but…maybe I am guilty. Let’s talk about this.

Convincing yourself that your opponent is Hitler-if-Hitler-also-said-“schedz”-instead- of-“schedule” (the only thing I can think of that would make Hitler worse) is a great way to avoid all ethical choices. There is never any real decision to be made if the alternative is an eternity of darkness. This type of thinking is the calling card of brainless partisanship and the philosophical core of every cable news channel.

Of course, your ethical standards for the candidates you support can’t be absolute: You will inevitably vote for candidates who do some things that you don’t like. And if you think about it: You will *only *vote for candidates who do some things that you don’t like — no candidate holds your views on every issue, and no candidate is a flawless paragon of unimpeachable virtue. There are no Christ-like candidates, including — hypothetically — Jesus Christ, who, though possibly the son of God, was obviously a bad hang. At the Last Supper, his “banter” is just airing grievances about other people in the group — some party, Jesus! Every candidate you support has flaws, the real issue arises when a candidate’s flaws become so big that just having their sign in your yard starts to feel like making an animal sacrifice to Cthulhu, The God Of Blood.

Which is to say: A decision is never automatic — there are always different considerations and tradeoffs. It doesn’t make sense to say “I would never vote for a candidate who ______,” because you might end up with a choice between a candidate who ______ and a candidate who ______ *and also says “schedz”. “I would never vote for someone who suspends habeas corpus” sounds *reasonable, except that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, so now you oppose Lincoln, so you support slavery, and bad news: You are cancelled just for *reading *this sentence.

Bias is introduced when a person inflates the failings of the other side or minimizes the failings of their own side. IMHO, this is exactly what McLaughlin does in that tweet. I share McLaughlin’s aversion to court packing, an idea that has become disturbingly mainstream among Democrats (though I don’t think it will happen), but I have no earthly idea what McLaughlin means by “efforts to shatter the American constitutional system of government”. I can’t think of anything he could mean that isn’t Blanche Dubois-level histrionic. McLaughlin also claims to know which interpretation of Christianity is true and which versions will “cost [people] their immortal souls" — I’d say that claim needs substantiation! I would also argue that “your candidate will cause people’s souls to be cast into the fiery pit of hell” is somewhat catastrophizing rhetoric.

But look — the left can exaggerate their opponents’ flaws, too!

Collins is not my cup of tea, but calling her “one of the most evil people in public life” proves that if this Simpsons joke did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it.

Am I exaggerating the threat Trump poses? I don’t think so; I’ve spent years trying to precisely quantify the exact level of Trump’s badness. Just yesterday, I gave a lengthy response to a question about how bad things have gotten. I sometimes feel like an anesthesiologist — I’m trying hard not to overshoot or undershoot the mark — and I hope I’ve accurately described Trump’s badness without succumbing to McLaughlin-esque “he’ll compromise your immortal soul” characterizations.

Am I downplaying Platner’s flaws? Boy I don’t think so — just how hard am I supposed to roast this clown? Platner’s mistakes — all 105 of them — paint a clear picture of a guy with terrible judgement who is also an edgelord asshole. Recent news that he either cheated on his wife or tried hard to cheat on his wife but failed (which is worse?) didn’t faze me, because my take on Platner was already “He’s an unstable shithead”. Platner also continues to talk like a total dummy: ▶Here he is complaining about “collapsing housing markets” even though the problem with housing is that prices are too high! Literally the only thing Platner has going for him — besides the piercing blue eyes of a Yeti — is that he might serve as a check against a guy who has all his same flaws times 100.1

And then there’s the murky question of how much Collins would check Trump. The answer is “some” — the debate is really over whether she’ll check Trump “loads” or “just a smidge”. Collins voted to convict Trump of impeachment the second time but not the first. She vote against Pete Hegseth but in favor of RFK, Jr., Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, and every other Trump cabinet appointment. The effort to round Collins up to a cackling supervillain is clearly absurd but so is the notion that she’s a floodwall holding back Trump’s ocean of insanity.

My math still leads me to extremely tepid Platner support, but a reasonable person could plug different values into the same equation and reach a different conclusion. I honestly think we might grope our way towards sanity if we at least cut the bullshit about who these people are. Paxton is a sleaze and a con man who enthusiastically supports Trump’s most destructive habits. Platner is an unstable dickhead who just happens to match an idiot’s idea of what working class guys are like. Whether those are big enough negatives to alter your voting person’s depends on your values, but we can stay sane if we at least agree that these fellows are less than ideal.

And we should try hard to avoid situations in which we’re forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Speaking of which: Janet Mills would 𝕏like you to know that she is: 1) Still alive, and 2) Still on the primary ballot. And 𝕏this guy is running, I know absolutely nothing about him, but he talked for 60 seconds without saying anything idiotic or whipping out his dick — he might be the class of the field! I assume that Platner will win and we’ll be treated to whatever unspeakable horrors are sitting in a Republican oppo research file right now, but I’m hoping for a miracle. And I don’t know how to do the math about how bad is too bad; the best I can do is talk about what values I think the variables hold and let people run the numbers themselves.

The similarities between Trump’s defects and Platner’s are pretty striking (if not identical in scale). A history of philandering and being shitty towards women? Check. Uncomfortable proximity to extremist views? Check. Gobsmacking economic ignorance? Check. Odd affinity for the bad guy in a foreign conflict? Check. Obvious liar? Check. Asshole? Check.