Given Mike Lee's lack of consistency in describing his actions in facilitating Jan 6th, I'm surprised that you have given him so much grace. Even before this, he balanced his "constitutional expert" persona with silly performative antics on the Senate floor. As for which tweets go viral, conflict and humor will always trump sustenance when trying to feed social media. We often ignore the bias of a medium itself and social media has a bias for instant, controversial and brief content.
It's hard being a constitutional conservative in the time we live in. So few members of Congress, and far fewer Senators, are interested in clawing back the power of the imperial presidency, re-asserting the role of Congress as the pre-eminent branch of federal government, and limiting the encroachment of federal government into state and local government. Mike Lee has checked these boxes unlike almost any other Senator, he truly was for a time, the best electoral candidate to come onto the scene in the Tea Party days. The only other Senator I can think of who was more committed to these goals in a constructive and effective manner was Ben Sasse, and he's now moved on to other things. And so, you try to make do with the allies you have, But Mike Lee's transformation has been disturbing and surprisingly all encompassing. He had a lot of goodwill in Utah, and so many of us figured he was just "playing the game" with a lot of his pandering, but at this point he had no reason to pander the way he does, he just got re-elected to six-year term last year, and it appears we've simply just lost another promising statesman to the siren-sound of populism.
Being a political progressive and having a strong belief / loyalty to our constitutional system, I too see the need to claw back the power of the presidency (and I'm confounded by the more extreme--and mostly from conservatives lately--views about the unitary powers of the executive), and to reassert the role of Congress (but a deeply reformed Congress that does not resemble today's), but I hesitate in empowering the states, as this has proven to to be a tool to suppress civil rights of citizens and has breed a great deal of public corruption in the last 150 years.
But that's not why I replied back. It was your Ben Sasse comment. Now that was a conservative politician that I had a great deal of respect for and he broke my heart. While Lee showed his ideological opponents that he had buffoonish traits with his silly props on the Senate floor, I read a couple of Sasse's books and I felt he was a someone who could build bridges and could connect idealogical opposites. But in the first months of the Trump administration Professor Sasse folded and politician Sasse prevailed. That he only felt it "inappropriate" that a US President attempted a quid pro quo with foreign government to undermine a domestic opponent showed me Sasse lacked the moral compass to pull us away from the approaching abyss. (Sasse should have called for Trump censure.)
Folks like Lee and Sasse make me very, very cynical of so-called constitutional conservatives. I'm 62 and I've interacted (debated) many a conservative. I've often being called a Marxist who wants to undermine the Constitution, blah, blah, blah. I've met to many people who bragged about carrying a pocket Constitution who, based on their words and actions, never read it. So I admit, I have a chip on my shoulder when people start advocating the virtues of constitutional conservatism, only for them to reveal blatant hypocrisy (like Lee and many, many Federalist Society types--don't get me started on the ridiculous Originalist Theory) or weak-kneed moralism (Sasse). Sure many progressive leaders have their issues, but many uphold the norms and traditions that have made this nation what it is. In fact, let's not forget that when US Senator Markwayne Mullins wanted to start a fist-fight in a Senate hearing, who told him to sit down and behave like a United States Senator should? It was Bernie Sanders. Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings (if you got this far). Have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving.
There are many instances where the intra gets more attention than the inter. Maybe because a post castigating a position by a Sanders or Whitehouse from a conservative source would be seen as typical. Perhaps intra disputes are more emotionally laden because of the proximity of ideas, and who controls them. Intra religious conflicts such as the 30 Years War or the Iran Iraq War were horrific in their scope and savagery. Yet of the two posts, the more pertinent tweet was the one noting the importance of this election for the future of the party, and the Republic.
Given Mike Lee's lack of consistency in describing his actions in facilitating Jan 6th, I'm surprised that you have given him so much grace. Even before this, he balanced his "constitutional expert" persona with silly performative antics on the Senate floor. As for which tweets go viral, conflict and humor will always trump sustenance when trying to feed social media. We often ignore the bias of a medium itself and social media has a bias for instant, controversial and brief content.
It's hard being a constitutional conservative in the time we live in. So few members of Congress, and far fewer Senators, are interested in clawing back the power of the imperial presidency, re-asserting the role of Congress as the pre-eminent branch of federal government, and limiting the encroachment of federal government into state and local government. Mike Lee has checked these boxes unlike almost any other Senator, he truly was for a time, the best electoral candidate to come onto the scene in the Tea Party days. The only other Senator I can think of who was more committed to these goals in a constructive and effective manner was Ben Sasse, and he's now moved on to other things. And so, you try to make do with the allies you have, But Mike Lee's transformation has been disturbing and surprisingly all encompassing. He had a lot of goodwill in Utah, and so many of us figured he was just "playing the game" with a lot of his pandering, but at this point he had no reason to pander the way he does, he just got re-elected to six-year term last year, and it appears we've simply just lost another promising statesman to the siren-sound of populism.
Being a political progressive and having a strong belief / loyalty to our constitutional system, I too see the need to claw back the power of the presidency (and I'm confounded by the more extreme--and mostly from conservatives lately--views about the unitary powers of the executive), and to reassert the role of Congress (but a deeply reformed Congress that does not resemble today's), but I hesitate in empowering the states, as this has proven to to be a tool to suppress civil rights of citizens and has breed a great deal of public corruption in the last 150 years.
But that's not why I replied back. It was your Ben Sasse comment. Now that was a conservative politician that I had a great deal of respect for and he broke my heart. While Lee showed his ideological opponents that he had buffoonish traits with his silly props on the Senate floor, I read a couple of Sasse's books and I felt he was a someone who could build bridges and could connect idealogical opposites. But in the first months of the Trump administration Professor Sasse folded and politician Sasse prevailed. That he only felt it "inappropriate" that a US President attempted a quid pro quo with foreign government to undermine a domestic opponent showed me Sasse lacked the moral compass to pull us away from the approaching abyss. (Sasse should have called for Trump censure.)
Folks like Lee and Sasse make me very, very cynical of so-called constitutional conservatives. I'm 62 and I've interacted (debated) many a conservative. I've often being called a Marxist who wants to undermine the Constitution, blah, blah, blah. I've met to many people who bragged about carrying a pocket Constitution who, based on their words and actions, never read it. So I admit, I have a chip on my shoulder when people start advocating the virtues of constitutional conservatism, only for them to reveal blatant hypocrisy (like Lee and many, many Federalist Society types--don't get me started on the ridiculous Originalist Theory) or weak-kneed moralism (Sasse). Sure many progressive leaders have their issues, but many uphold the norms and traditions that have made this nation what it is. In fact, let's not forget that when US Senator Markwayne Mullins wanted to start a fist-fight in a Senate hearing, who told him to sit down and behave like a United States Senator should? It was Bernie Sanders. Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings (if you got this far). Have a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving.
There are many instances where the intra gets more attention than the inter. Maybe because a post castigating a position by a Sanders or Whitehouse from a conservative source would be seen as typical. Perhaps intra disputes are more emotionally laden because of the proximity of ideas, and who controls them. Intra religious conflicts such as the 30 Years War or the Iran Iraq War were horrific in their scope and savagery. Yet of the two posts, the more pertinent tweet was the one noting the importance of this election for the future of the party, and the Republic.