TOP
Mark Sanford
Chapters
The FRONTLINE Interviews
Mark Sanford
Former U.S. Representative (R-S.C.)
Mark Sanford served as U.S. Representative for South Carolina from 1995 to 2001 and from 2013 to 2019, and as governor of South Carolina from 2003 to 2011. He is the author of Two Roads Diverged : A Second Chance for the Republican Party, the Conservative Movement, the Nation ― and Ourselves.
The following interview was conducted by the Kirk Documentary Group’s Mike Wiser for FRONTLINE on May 24, 2022. It has been edited for clarity and length.
This interview appears in:
Text Interview:
Highlight text to share it
Trump’s Rise in the Republican Party
So in 2015, 2016, as you're watching Donald Trump gain momentum inside the Republican primary, what do you see in him?Are there warning signs that you're seeing even back then?
Absolutely.The degree to which he was reckless with facts or—he called it alternative facts, alternative truth.It had a variety of different tag names.But it was unsettling because at the end of the day, there needs to be a vigorous debate between left and right, between conservative and more liberal philosophy in the American political system, but undergirding it all has to be reality.It has to be truth.You have to debate facts.And this notion that there are no facts, there's no reality creates a quicksand, if you will, wherein ideas can't be debated.And so this wasn't about left versus right.It wasn't about conservative versus liberal.It was about, do facts matter in this larger political debate that we're all a part of?
Did you think that others in your party who you were talking to at that time in 2015, 2016—did they share your opinions of him, your concerns about him?
I think initially.There was a lot of backroom chatter about—wait a minute.I remember sadly, it made the national—CNN picked it up or somebody picked it up when he was there talking with the conference.This was as a candidate, and, you know, he said, "I'll support this, that, that and this," in terms of Bill of Rights.And he went down the list, and he went beyond the list.And I sort of casually observed, well, there is no whatever number it was in the list of the Bill of Rights.And that kind of thing people would notice.I wasn't the only person in the room to take note of "Whoa, that doesn't exist."I may have been the only person that day who made public comment on it.And I think that at that time, a number of people were just thinking this is sort of a publicity stunt.It can't go far.Therefore, I'll just look the other way because it doesn't matter.And because the thing that drives 99% of the folks in politics is self-preservation, you know, to make noise might not be good in terms of my own political interest.Therefore, I'll sit quiet.
Are you seeing concerns about democracy at that point?I mean, the very first contest is in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, and he accuses Ted Cruz of having rigged the election all the way back then.Did you see concern in that moment or in other moments that made you concerned about American democracy?
I've seen concern throughout because anybody who's a student of history believes in what [Friedrich] Hayek talked about in <i>The Road to Serfdom</i>.What he talks about is how over time, democratic systems get more and more cumbersome and the electorate gets more and more frustrated with things that go wrong.A strongman comes along, says, "I will take care of this problem for you, and you may have to give up a few rights in the process, but I'll take care of it for you."And the electorate, hungry for change, says yes.It's the story of Hitler's rise to power in pre-World War II Germany.It's a horrifying story, but it's been played out time and time again throughout the pages of history.And so I've said all along I don't think that he's Hitler, but I do think that he could be a precursor to a Hitler-like figure, or he could try and grab the reins of power himself.We don't know how the movie plays, but what we know is this pattern of deceit wherein it's embedded into the way that he campaigns is an incredibly dangerous thing in the American political system.
What was he doing that made you say he could be a potential strongman, or he could be a point on a road to autocracy?
I mean, strongman is his personality.That's what he embraces.I mean, he's a bully.That's sort of the mark for one who's maybe weak at the inner level but needs to project as much strength as possible.That's the play.I remember watching an interview—this was back when he was a candidate—in Charleston.Joe Scarborough, who I started in Congress with back in 1994, had—he and Mika [Brzezinski] had done some show with him, and I said to Joe afterwards—Joe's a pretty alpha guy.I said, "Joe, he totally out-alpha'd you," at which point Joe pushed back a little bit.But it's true.I mean, that's his shtick, if you want to call it that, is I'm a strongman; you don't mess with me.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump
We're interested in some of the choices that some of the characters who start out at that moment are going to make, and one of them is Ted Cruz, who you endorse, I think, in February.Can you help us understand—?
Let’s be clear about that endorsement.It's important.I had spoken out in different ways along the train against Trump.My campaign manager at that point—Cruz was the last guy standing against Trump.And I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz's, but his point was look, if you really think that Trump is a problem for our political system, then this is the last train leaving the station, and you need to endorse.So on the night before the primary—I mean, literally less than 24 hours before the primary—I said, you know, "I support this guy over here," though, again, I'm not a particular fan of Ted Cruz's, I just wanted to be on record saying I will support anybody that is going against Donald Trump.But anyway, sorry for that sidebar.
That's that moment where it seems like, is the party going to get together in a way to confront Trump?And was it—were you frustrated in watching the party's response to candidate Trump at that moment?
Totally, and even with Ted Cruz—I mean, keep in mind, Ted Cruz's game at that point had been to appease and cajole Trump all the way through so that he might be the last guy standing and then he could go against him.But prior to that, he had been sort of Trump's cheerleader throughout the primary process.Anybody who had sort of spoken up early—let's take somebody like Jeb Bush—was taken out early on in the process.And it was a dangerous game.I'm going to sort of not say anything against this guy till it could be the last two of us standing.That's a strange and dangerous political game, but that's a game that Ted Cruz played, and it didn't exactly accrue to his benefit.
You focused in a lot on truth and on lies.And in that confrontation between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, he calls Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted," and Ted Cruz says at one point that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.I mean, you have your own history with this that you write about in the book.As you're watching that moment, that conflict between Trump and Cruz, what are you thinking?How important is this accusation of lying and of being truthful?
It totally matters in our political system.I had a personal experience dating back to '09 wherein I told a, quote, "little white lie" that I thought was going to be picked up by maybe one person, and it became a national punch line.1So in essence, the lessons for me at a personal level of '09 cemented my demise later in the world of Donald Trump and the political mess that unfolded with it.But I would say it absolutely matters because I go back to what I said earlier: If there is not objective truth, if there is not some objective reality that we can debate from our different political perspectives and different personal perspectives, then we have nothingness.We can't have a debate.And debate is vital to solving the problems that confront us as Americans.And yet that's not what a strongman wants.That's not what Putin wants.That's not what any despot across the pages of history wants.They want it to be about them and what they say, period.They are the law and all that falls from it.
1
The beauty of our political system was that we were to be a system based on certain ideological beliefs in terms of—here's the framework of how we might have a robust debate.And again, foundational to it all is truth.And so the danger of what was unfolding between Cruz and Trump at that time was "You're a liar"; "No, you're a liar."OK, you get a lot of that in politics, but in this case, what Ted Cruz was saying was absolutely the truth, and a lot of people in sort of political circles in D.C. knew it to be so but weren't saying a word.
I mean, the other thing that's remarkable is your story is a sort of conventional story in the sense that there's a lie that leads to consequences.In this case, Donald Trump, saying—in many areas, but saying about Ted Cruz, his dad may have been involved in the JFK assassination, and there's allegations of an affair, and there's lots of things coming out, and are you seeing consequences, political consequences for Trump in the way there might be conventionally?And what did that tell you?
It says basically three things: One, the propaganda minister for Hitler had made the point to Hitler himself, "If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big lie, or tell lots of lies," because at that point, the regular working person can't imagine somebody would be that audacious to tell a lie that big or that many lies.Therefore, they're going to accept it as truth.And so what—Goebbels was his name—was talking about, I think, is sadly true in the way that the human psyche works.Secondly, I think that what was troubling about this notion of lots of lies and no consequence is it said that the electorate was incredibly thirsty for change and frustrated.They'd had a lot of little lies told to them over the years by folks of both political parties saying, "If you elect me, we'll do this."I mean, for instance on the Republican side, what voters had been told, primary voters had been told was, "Look, if you just give us the House"—and I was part of this back in 1994—"just elect Republicans to the House, and we will make change."
And in fact, it was advertised as a, quote, "revolution," which was a crazy statement because the very design of our political system is to guard against revolutions.But it was called the Republican Revolution back in 1994.I was a part of it.And there were some changes, yes.Revolutionary changes, no, because that's not what our system is to give us.And then they said, "Well, look, I'll tell you what.If you just give us the Senate, then we'll get these things done."The electorates go out—the Republican electorate goes out, captures the Senate, and still not the kind of changes."Well, if you just give us the White House as well, then we'll make changes."And so I think that the Republican primary voter was frustrated with the amount of "change is just over the hill" kind of talking, and here's a guy who comes along, says, "Change isn't over the hill; I'll bring it to you now."He's bold in the way he makes statements, and people were frustrated and ready for something different.
And in fact, I had voters at that time tell me that the nature of insanity, the old saying we've all heard, is continuing to try and do the same thing and expect a different result.So yeah, he's different; yeah, he's rough around the edges; yeah, he is a little bit loose with truth.But maybe he'll get us the change that we've been hoping for.
… What was being said internally, especially in the sort of Tea Party caucus?And was there a difference between what people were saying to you privately and what they were willing to say publicly?I'm sorry, the Freedom Caucus at that point.
Yeah, Freedom Caucus which, again, like so many institutions in D.C. at that time, ultimately, was completely morphed into a pro-Trump entity.But at that time, they were very outspoken about being against Trump and how he represented threats to democratic ideals and traditions, and how the group ought to make a stand against him.Again, all that evaporated once he became president and people wanted to be relevant, wanted to be in the room, and wanted to therefore cozy up.But at least prior to him winning the presidency, there was active talk about how do we push back against him.
What Trump Offered Voters
… He gets the nomination.And what is the choice that you face, that others inside the party face?He's up against Hillary Clinton.What's the choice you face at that moment?And looking back on it, how do you evaluate the choices you made, the choices that the party made?
Yeah, so what happens then is, you know, you have somebody who's much closer to you philosophically in that he says, "I'm going to represent these different conservative ideals," versus Hillary Clinton.And so I was very nuanced in my wording at that time.I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I said I would support him as president.I wanted to work with whoever became the next nominee.And so I remember a reporter in Charleston County says, "Will you support the president?""Yeah, I'm going to support whoever the president is, and if it's Donald Trump, I'm going to support him."But in retrospect, looking back on it, even then, I should've said, no.He's a much bigger threat than even I had realized at that time.And again, in the same way that I supported Cruz as a last step against him, probably should've looked at other things.
But, you know, at that point, you've got a lot of different Republican voters coming up to you and saying, "Well, wait a minute.We may not like him, but he's our guy, and we've got to go with our guy."
… He gives that speech, and he says, "I alone can fix it," in that convention speech that he gives.And you write in your book, "Autocracy sells."What was it that he was selling?What was the ideology or however you describe it that Trump was selling?
He was selling what a lot of people want to hear, which is a fix.They're tired; they're worn out.If you look at the income from sort of the big-picture standpoint for most folks out there, it's gone down, not up in real terms.Not in nominal terms but in real terms, their wages have eroded over the last 20 years or so.And people were worn out with it, and they're desperate for something different.So he was selling what people wanted to hear, which is, "I'll fix it for you."And there's incredible appeal to that in that political philosophy goes out the window when you can't feed your family or can't get a job; you can't have the kind of job that you'd hoped for.And I think that that was the case, sadly, with a lot of the Republican electorate.
And so you look across broad swaths of Middle America and you look at where a lot of those folks were on economic terms.They're struggling, and they wanted an answer, so he told them what they wanted to hear.But more importantly, it should've set all the alarm bells in the world off to the rest of us when somebody's telling you what you should not be wanting to hear, which is if I'm the answer, then the institutions of the American political system that our Founding Fathers created over 200 years ago is not the answer.And those two don't go together.
Thank you.So we talked about Ted Cruz.He goes to the convention, and he says, "Vote your conscience."Were you at the convention, by the way?
Yeah, this is the one in Minneapolis, or somewhere out in the Midwest?
Yeah, it's 2016.
Yeah, I went by for a day and a half. Absolutely, yes.
And were you there when Ted Cruz gave that speech?
I was not, no.
Because he's booed, and the next day he goes and meets with the Texas delegation and apparently gets an earful from people from Texas.And by the end of—at least by the fall, he actually endorses Donald Trump.What do you think watching that, watching—?And you write a letter to Ted Cruz in your book.What do you think was driving Ted Cruz's change of heart, and how important was that?
The change of heart is the obvious, which is blinding political ambition.And a lot of folks will give up most anything as they're slaves to their own political ambition.What I wrote about in the book was, wait a minute, if a guy goes out and calls your wife these certain things and says these certain things about your father, says these certain things about you, how do you get up and say, "It's all cool with me.You're my buddy"?I don't get.That's not real.It's certainly theater.It's political theater.But it's all about political theater that leaves the rest of us out.It's about political self-preservation and trying to somehow stay politically relevant and being blinded through one's political ambitions.And that's what you saw play out with Cruz, who's a smart guy, but he's unmoored from the standpoint of being able to stand for what he believes.
The Democratic Response
What about the Democrats?They were warning about Donald Trump, and there was talk of his authoritarian tendencies.But of course, mixed up in that message, Hillary Clinton mentions the "deplorables."Did the Democrats know how to respond to the threats that they saw and that you were also seeing in Donald Trump?
No.I mean, again, I'm not saying the average Democrat on the street in Charleston or in Biloxi, Mississippi, or wherever.But I think that the Democratic leadership absolutely failed the causes that they allegedly believe in because they were completely tone-deaf to the degree of pain and frustration and angst that people had in both economic terms and in the deterioration of their belief in our political systems to solve problems that they faced in their neighborhood or in their hometown.And that's why people begin to talk about, yeah, you've got the two blue lines on either coast.You've got elites and people that are in finance and making a ton, but they're not facing the realities that the people do that are just trying to make it one day to the next.And so I think that Hillary was particularly tone-deaf to how real and how relevant the frustrations were for a lot of these Republican primary voters.They're called deplorables, but they're anything but.They're regular working people.
The Republican Response to Trump’s Early Presidency
… He is elected president, and he comes in.And what is the mood?What are the expectations among your colleagues in the House in that House Republican Caucus about who this president is, about what they think his presidency will mean and whether they think that he's a threat?
You know, politicians are kind of like dogs in that it's like dogs sniffing dogs when they first get around each other.Politicians, at the end of the day, are very conservative in burning their own political capital, so you didn't see people making moves one way or the other.They wanted to just sort of sniff and get a sense of what was coming.I was there on the Inauguration Day, and I remember it was just sort of surreal the degree to which it was about self-adulation.This guy—I mean, I've never seen anybody with as much of a need for outside praise as I saw with Trump.And it was really weird.I remember thinking—at one point, he went up to the edge of the platform because the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court and Cabinet sit behind the president when he is inaugurated.And I remember at one point, he walked up alone to the edge of the platform, and all I could think was, man, back when I was married, if I didn't grab my wife's hand and pull her up there with me, there would be hell to pay, and rightfully so, when you got home that night.
I mean, it was just weird.It was all about not them as a couple—I mean, she was sort of a sidebar; not them as a family—they were sort of pawns on the larger chess field.But it was about him and him alone and his moment in the sun.I do remember that standing out.
So you're talking about when Trump arrives into office and what the expectations were, and people were sort of watching.Did they think that he could be controlled?We've talked with some people who said that they thought Trump would be a showman, would be there to sign legislation.Did they underestimate him?
Certainly.But they weren't inaccurate.I remember being—I guess it was a health care bill at the time.I remember we'd gone, and we were in the old executive office building.We'd met with Bannon, and he had said that this piece of legislation is a shit sandwich, but you're going to eat it.And a number of us were like, who is this guy?You're not going to tell us as members of Congress that we're going to eat this piece of legislation.And I remember at that same day, Mick Mulvaney, who was—I can't remember which position he held for the president at that time—but he sat me down and sort of Godfather style and said, "The president hopes that you'll vote against this so he can run against you.He will crush you."And you're like, what is going on?I've been to the White House many times.I've never had conversations like this.So it was all kind of weird.
But the reason I think that people thought that he could be controlled was going back to another visit at the White House where a number of us had been called to the doghouse.He was there.He had absolutely no grasp of the details of the legislation, and his point was, "I just want to win."And our point was, "OK, but win at what?This isn’t a win."And his point was, "I don't care.It looks like a win; therefore, I want to win."And so somebody who had that little bit of focus and mastery of the details of a given piece of legislation would be one that, frankly, a lot of insiders in Washington thought, OK, this guy will be controlled because he is not watching for the details that make up any piece of legislation coming down the pike.
There's a Tim Alberta article which is very early on in the Trump presidency about your criticisms of the president.Why do you do that, make that decision, and why do others not?Why are you one of the few examples?
A number of reasons.My own personal experience back in '09, and the importance of truth, absolute truth and how much that mattered.A lot of conversations that came with my four sons in the wake of that experience on truth and how much it mattered, and things that are much bigger than politics, and that is how you want to be viewed and remembered by your sons.Anyway, it was sort of a white line.And so you make your determination to be where you are.But it was very costly.I mean, the four of us who spoke out early against Trump were all exorcised from Congress.So you had Corker and Flake in the Senate; you had me and Amash in the House.It was political extinction for all four of us.
And is that why nobody else—there were only four of you?
Yeah, I mean they’re not dumb.I mean, you know, they look around—and again, people move in waves.Politicians, at the end of the day, are very conservative, again, with their political capital.And they look at, OK, it's not working out so well for Sanford; I don't think I'll go there.And in fact, the president, at the time of my primary loss, came into HC5, which is down in the bowels of the Capitol, for a meeting that was supposedly on policy.And thankfully, my flight had been delayed in coming back to D.C., and I wasn't in the room.But he's like, "Is Sanford in the room?Yeah, well, I want to"—and he sort of goes about pouring acid on my head.And he was doing it intentionally, which is to send a signal to every other Republican in that room: If you mess with me, I'm going to mess with you, and it's going to be costly.And given his degree of political power at that time, front end of his presidency, it was not to be lightly considered.And if politics was your life, which it is for all too many people in the political sphere, they're not about to give up their life on behalf of a couple of political ideals.
I mean, one of the people who changes in a rather dramatic fashion is Lindsey Graham, who had been so outspoken, and who then stops criticizing the president and actually works to become very close personal relationship with him.What are you thinking as you watch somebody who you've known for a long time have that transformation?
Can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.On that one, you know, he's a hometown guy.I'll leave it alone.Obviously, I'm aghast; I'm frustrated; I'm bewildered.But I'm not surprised.I mean, I go back to the basic of the basics, which is for a lot of people, the name of the game is staying in the game.
And was it hard—if you don't want to say what you think about exactly what he was doing, was it hard for you to watch, believing what you'd believed and seeing that transformation?
Yeah. I mean, even to this day, you end up wondering if you watched certain people continue to rise in the political world that are just absolutely unmoored from the standpoint of belief systems.But it seems to work for them.And you're like, well, maybe I'm the fool in the equation given that, you know, I'm now doing other things that aren’t nearly as interesting as being in the United States Congress.But I sleep well at night, and I think that's the part that ultimately matters.I have a fabulous relationship with my four sons, and that's ultimately what matters the most.And I feel good when I go to church on Sundays.So everybody's got their own barometers for what matters to them.And so I'm still bewildered and saddened by the transformation I've seen in a bunch of folks in what they allegedly once believed, or supposedly believed.
You're left with two thoughts.You're left with, one, did they ever believe in the first place?Is there a belief system that is core to driving them in politics or not, other than staying in the game?And you're also sort of bewildered at a cosmic level that I thought that God, if you will—call it universal powers, call it the cosmos, whatever you want to call it—was sending me certain signals on the importance of truth and its relevance and what it meant in '09 based on my own personal journey.And then you watch just a number of years later, and the people who were going the furthest afield from the standpoint of truth were the people most rewarded in politics.And you're like, is this a cruel joke?I mean, what is going on?So I am still bewildered by the whole thing and saddened by it.But I guess you come back and you simply say it is what it is.People in politics are going to do what they think is necessary to staying in office, and that's awfully sad.
… These were guys, some of them, who came in on the Tea Party wave who said, "I didn't come to Washington for a career.I'm going to sleep in my office.I'm going home."Was that even more surprising to you than a Lindsey Graham or a Ted Cruz, to see the transformation of the people inside the Freedom Caucus?
It's mind-blowing.It is beyond bewildering.It is like, are you kidding me?Exactly because of what you describe.I mean, it's one thing to have one who's sort of a forever politician, always wants to stay in the game.They're going to bob and weave.They're going to do their thing.But to have folks allegedly from the outside coming in for a chapter of their life to make a difference, and then they give up making a difference so they can stay politically relevant is mind-blowing, and particularly as a group.It's one thing to have an outlier here or there, but as a group—I remember the time that Trump came hard at me.At that time, Justin Amash—I'll never forget this—stood before the Freedom Caucus and said, "Look, if Trump will come after Sanford like he did, then ultimately he'll come after any one of us, and we need to have a formal statement as a group about how this is wrong."
I don't remember what the episode was, but I do remember him standing there, and everybody is looking at their feet, looking away, looking at their toes.And these are the folks that you thought were your friends, and you're going, oh, my goodness, where am I?And you live and you learn in life.
Trump and Charlottesville
When Charlottesville happens, what are you thinking as you're watching?It's another point where there is tension and there is some criticism of the president.And now, I mean, looking back and seeing some of those images and seeing the images of Jan. 6, you can see echoes in it.What are you thinking as you're watching that moment?
Well, a couple of different things.I went to the University of Virginia for graduate school, so I spent two years of my life in Charlottesville, and I subsequently had two sons who went to the University of Virginia, so Charlottesville's a very real place to me.And so the idea of that kind of conflict in a town as pleasant and pastoral, if you will, as Charlottesville was like, hey, this doesn't fit.What in the world is going on?And two, you were struck by the degree to which Trump began to show himself a coward; that because of this empty vacuum that defined his movement on every day where he just needed constant self-adulation—I've never seen anybody, again, as insecure trying to project security in my life.But you begin to see in very real ways—and his comment at the time was, "You know, there are good people on both sides."What?That sounds like a standard politician to me: On the one hand, on the other hand.
There was not a declarative statement against violence, against what had gone on, which there needed to be, but there was not.It was an empty vacuum.And you're like, whoa.Doesn't fit with Charlottesville, and who is this non-leader leader that we have who won't even condemn in sound, resounding voice what took place?
… Does it surprise you that in the Woodward book, it's reported that Trump said, "Those were my people"; that he didn't want to be more critical because he saw them as part of his base?
It's true.I mean, in politics, everybody, you know—they always speak out against the other side in politics.Rarely, on either side of the aisle, will you see somebody go against their base.Clinton did it briefly in the Sister Souljah moment and some of the stuff on welfare, but outside of that, I don't remember anybody.I don't remember Obama going against his base.I don't remember Trump going against—it just rarely happens.And so what you begin to see was more and more of the degree to which Trump was a prisoner of this thing that he had tapped into, he didn't completely understand.It was by no means his personal base.Here's a Manhattanite who'd never spent time in the country in his life somehow now becomes the billionaire, I'm-one-of-the-guys guy, which he wasn't.But he struck a chord with them.So he wanted to do anything he could to stay relevant to this crowd.
As has been observed by many people in the political world, he brought in a new group.When I'd go to a Republican meeting, a lot of the faces I didn't recognize.These were not the conventional Republicans that you've seen over the years.This was a new group that he brought into the fold, and he was fearful of them.
And what did you think of the party's response?There were statements issued condemning, certainly, the violence by a lot of senior Republicans.But some of them wouldn't mention the president by name and wouldn’t criticize him.And by the fall, it seems like he's consolidated control.What do you make of that moment and the Republican response to Charlottesville, and to Trump's response?
Just that it reminded me of the old saying that says the only way that evil prevails in this world is when good people stand on the side and do nothing.And there was a lot of do-nothings from the standpoint of Republican leadership at that time wherein there ought to be outright condemnation.There was relative quiet given the alarm bells that should've been going off with all of us.
And that's the moment where the open warfare really starts to break out, especially with Flake and Corker.Are you talking to them?Are the four of you talking at that moment?Are you watching as the president really is hammering them on Twitter?He goes to rallies in Arizona.Can you describe that moment and what you're seeing?
No, because, you know, everybody's got their own political fires to deal with, and I was dealing with mine at that point, so I wasn't talking with Corker or Flake.I was talking with Amash.We'd compare notes fairly regularly.Amash was becoming louder and louder at that point.I do remember seeing one scene.I don't know exactly when it was, but there was some presidential rally, and I remember Jim Jordan, who'd been a collegiate-level wrestler—I mean, somebody who was strong.I remember him being—Trump had trashed me, and somebody sent me the clip.Trashed me at this rally.And then I remember him calling up Jim Jordan, and I remember him giving Jim Jordan a hug, and it was like a little boy hugging his dad.I remember how real the image was, like, wait, this guy's a college wrestler, and supposedly he's my friend.The president just trashed me, and he says nothing.Like, "Let me take exception.I think Sanford's a good guy," or whatever.No comment.
Just wanting a hug from Daddy.I remember seeing that image so vividly.So I just remember being disappointed at that stage by a number of different things that the president would say and people's reaction to it.
The one major legislative victory that year is the tax bill.Did you go to the signing ceremony?
I did not.
At the White House.Have you seen it?It's a moment where a lot of senior Republicans, including Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell, stand up and give the president credit for the bill.And Paul Ryan describes "exquisite presidential leadership."What does that represent in a moment like that when Republicans are coming together in a moment of a major victory, and it's really very much about praising Donald Trump?
I'd say two things.I'd say one, he had little to nothing to do with the bill.He certainly didn't know its contents.And you can like or dislike the bill, but this is something that Paul Ryan had worked on for years, as had Kevin Brady in the House, who's head of Ways and Means Committee at that point in time.And so, you know, Trump was not engaged in legislation.He did not care.He just wanted wins, whatever they were.But that was not his focal point.A bill like a tax bill has all kinds of intricacy in it.He cared little of detail or intricacy.And people like Paul Ryan or Kevin Brady would've really dug in deep, and did for years of their lives trying to advance that legislation.
The other thing that really stands out on praise points, since you're talking, is that that's what Trump lived for.And people like Lindsey Graham begin to see that wait, the way to his heart, the way to impact him, the way to get in his good graces is simply to load it up and tell him how great he is.And you begin to see more and more people doing that, and that, again, should've given every one of us pause because it's so contrary to what the Founding Fathers wanted.They didn't want any system based around one man or one woman.They wanted a system of checks and balances, and you begin to see more and more of—it's about Trump; it's about what he's done; it's about what he's going to do; it's about how he's this, that or the other.And that is poison in our political system.
Exile from the Republican Party
Your primary—why do you think he focuses on it so heavily?Why would the president of the United States get involved in a House primary race?
It was sort of a perfect storm.And so I remember early on Paul Ryan coming to me on the floor of the well of the House, and I was walking up.He grabs me, goes, "Why are you shooting at the president?"I said, "What are you talking about?"He goes, "Why are you shooting at the president?"I said, "I'm not shooting at the president."And he says, "Yes, you are.I was just down at the White House, and the president has 535 knuckleheads to worry about on Capitol Hill, and he's picking out one name, and it's yours.What's the deal?"And so this was before other things began to manifest and sort of spin.But I think that the original friction point with the president with me was a reporter had come to me early on prior to him getting the nomination and asked me the simple question, "Do you think that the next presidential nominee ought to release their tax returns?"
That wasn't an illogical question from a reporter's standpoint because at that point, I don't even think Charlie Crist [D-Fla.] was in.So I was one of one or maybe one of two former governors who was now in the House of Representatives.And as a former governor, as a former chief executive, I had to release my tax returns twice when I'd gotten the nomination in both instances.And so, pretty logical question: "Here's a guy who's released his tax returns twice; I'll ask him."And so I give sort of a standard answer about, yeah, it's a 50-year tradition.It's been held by Republicans and Democrats alike.But at the end of the day, you're not asking me because of that.You're asking me because I've released my tax returns a couple of times when I got the nomination in both runs for governor.And yeah, I wouldn’t have released mine if they weren’t doing the presidential level.Our tradition exists at the gubernatorial level because it exists at the presidential level.
And so I give my answer.Anyway, long story short, the president gets the nomination, or Trump gets the nomination, becomes president.And—same reporter comes back and sticks a microphone in my face, asks me the same question.And I'm not dumb.I know that the right answer is not to give the same answer I gave before, but I give the same answer.And at that point, Trump was always hiding something in his tax returns, and I think he still is….There's something in there that he went nuts over, and I think that that tax return thing created me as sort of public enemy number one on the House side, and things devolved from there.
And do you think he wanted to make an example out of you?
He did make an example of me.
What's it like to be attacked by him?How do you see it in your district?What is it like?
It's not good when you're a lowly member of Congress and the president of the United States of your party is coming out against you.I mean, it's just not a good movie.It doesn't work out well, and it didn't, particularly given he was sort of the apex of his own political power at that moment in time.
Let me just ask you, because this is something that comes up after Jan. 6.I mean, did it lead to threats against you, or was it mostly a political threat?
No, it was political threat.I mean, I come from the South.Maybe it'd be different if I lived in New Jersey.Nothing against New Jersey, but, you know.And again, I've been part of the community for my whole life.And so people who know me either like me or they don't like me.… But I never got any personal threats.You got a lot of political pushback, and you had voters who you thought had been with you for, I mean, a real long time, and ups and downs and all that went with it turn the other way in the age of Trump.And that was, again, different.You're like, wow.It's this whole notion of people who you think might be your friends in politics, in fact, aren’t.
And I had a number of different instances where people would be screaming at you.I mean, if that's personal threat, yeah, I guess, but where it's really unpleasant, really awkward and really uncalled for.I mean we can agree to disagree, but if you've got somebody, and you're at a football game, and somebody's screaming at you in a public place, a bunch of people are looking at—that doesn't feel real good.But it is what it is in the world of politics.
Did you feel abandoned by the other Republicans, elected Republicans, by the leadership?
They were never your friends. I mean Kevin McCarthy is, again, a pleasant guy, affable, but he's not your friend.He wants to stay relevant, he wants to stay in power, and he'll bet on the next horse in two and a half seconds, and did.
Trump and McCarthy
What was his position in the early Trump years?We've talked a little bit about Ryan.
Complete suck-up mode and just wanting to be, again, relevant and in the inner circle of the president.
And would you see that in the caucus meetings?How would you see that?
In that setting, there wasn't a lot of conversation for or against the president.It was generally about policy.But it was about, "I just spoke with the president, and he had this to say," —it's the oldest game in politics where you're like, "I just spoke to whoever," and now you're relevant or you raised your stature because you've got the inside angle that somebody else doesn't have in talking to somebody that allegedly holds power.
The 2020 Election
Can you tell me about election night when you've lost and you describe it as an emotional moment, but one where you also see something bigger at play than just your own career?Take me to that night and the emotions and what you're thinking.
Well, I've been involved in politics for 25 years and had never lost an election before.So at one level, it was like, OK?And we could see the numbers.When the president's tweet was up, you could just see massive things happening in terms of the way that was being retweeted and whatnot.So at one level, it was sort of surreal, like, OK, I see the tide's turning.And a lot of folks that had been your folks were no longer your folks.And that's its own journey in the world of politics of you're relevant until you're not.You're relevant in one time period, and then you're not.I mean, I've since read about Winston Churchill and being turned out to pasture.Wait, this guy?He helped save England, and then he's no longer relevant?But that's the way politics goes. I get that.So one part was about your own journey of what's relevant and what's not and who are your friends and who are not.
But there was a much more personal, much more spiritual journey of my boys coming to me—all four sons were with me that night—and after the election, the cameras leave.We went to some little hamburger place and stayed up till 3:00 in the morning that night talking.And to a boy, they're like, "Dad, if you've got to go, this is the way to go.We are so proud of you.You've said that politics is about ideals.You tried to teach us these different lessons.And if you've got to go, this is the way to go." …
And were you concerned about what it might represent for the Republican Party, for American democracy when you saw that power that the president could exert?
Yeah, I did that in my concession speech.I said, you know, "I don't take one thing back.But here is the bigger picture of what's at play here."And I did talk about the danger of a strongman.I did talk about the incredible wisdom of the Founding Fathers and how they set up a balance system—a cumbersome system, an awkward system, a frustrating system, but far better than the world of one man and one voice, which is ultimately what Trump personifies to me.
There had been some initial pushback.As you say, there was four of you who were sort of more outspoken.By the end of that first year, the end of the first two years, to what extent has the president exerted a control?I mean, a lot of people have left Congress.What's the state of the party, of Trump's control of the party as you're leaving Congress?
Well, I mean, I think it took those first two years to consolidate power.So, you know, I was there for the first two years, and then I was gone.And then after I left, then a number of other folks left as well.But I was sort of an early bellwether and the first Republican primary casualty to the Trump train.What you begin to see, though, after that election, after the first two years, was one, I was a real guinea pig.And a lot of folks said, OK, look at what happened.Here's a folk who's weathered a fair number of political storms, ups and downs, all kinds of things, but the one thing he couldn’t weather was Trump.Whoa, I think I'm going to make sure that I am in line and not on the outs with Trump.
And so I think he really consolidated power in that election cycle, and, you know, had pretty much free reign the following two years till he took himself out, or the American public took him out, or, as he would describe it, until the election was stolen.
… Those are the years of talk of impeachment and the dossier and the Mueller report.And what do you make of how the Democrats handled themselves in opposition and whether they were effective or self-defeating?How do you evaluate the Democrats' response?
You know, every martyr needs an oppressor.Every villain needs—I don't know the right analogy.But they played into his hand in that, you know, he was then able to say, well, the deep state, the other team, they're just mounting against me because I want to—it was all smoke and mirrors.I think there was legitimacy to what they were getting at.But I'll put it this way: Nancy Pelosi as the figurehead for speaking out against Trump is a bad contrast.And so she came across as San Francisco, an elite.It further alienated the more rural voter in South Carolina.It's like if she's for it, I'm against it.And so it was not so much the issues at play, but the cosmetics or the appearances of the way things aligned that I think further ostracized the, quote, "deplorable" voting base, and it further emboldened Trump to say, "I'm the guy, and I'm being a martyr in this case because of these folks coming after me as they are."
That's interesting.I mean, that might help to explain something we've been wondering about, which is that first impeachment where only Mitt Romney votes for it.Even Liz Cheney, who becomes very critical later, doesn't.I mean, when you look at that, do you see that as an example of that polarization inside the Congress and the effects that it might have?
Yeah, people vote their own political interests, and they vote their base.And at that point, the base was pretty fired up against impeachment and against them coming after Trump.I mean, in other words, by coming after Trump, then a lot of people circled the wagons around Trump, not necessarily because they liked him, but because they thought, look, if this is what Nancy Pelosi wants, I don't want it.So the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or whatever the saying is, began in some places to apply there.
… Were you surprised, though, that by 2020, there were not more Republicans who were outspoken?Because we talked to people who said in 2016, they didn't think he was going to win or that the warnings about him weren't that bad.But now you've had three and a half years, three years of the Trump presidency and seen what it was.Were you surprised that there wasn't more of an open opposition by the time you get to 2020?
Amazed.I mean, why there wouldn't be—I mean, again—I was involved in the political process at home for 25 years, and you get to know a lot of folks.And you're like, either they went out and lobotomized all these people I've gotten to know over the years, or they took them off in a spaceship, or as John Boehner had said at one point, "The Republican Party is out there somewhere, but it's sleeping.I don't know where it is."I mean, I don't know what in the world happened, because people who I'd met with Saturday after Saturday at Republican meetings who held beliefs about government spending—again, Trump considered himself the king of debt.He made it—the deficit exploded under the Trump administration.And yet Republicans were not saying a word.And why there wasn't more resistance to that, both at a philosophical level and a political level, I will never know, other than it's the king-of-the-hill phenomenon, and people circle the wagons around the person that they perceive to hold power because they want to be in his or her good graces.And that is not the American political system.
We've talked about a lot of warning signs and a lot of things that disturbed you about Donald Trump.Where on the scale is it that moment after the election when he comes out and he says, "Frankly, I did win this election," on election night?
We just know he'd completely gone into full-blown crazy world at that point.And my point back home was wait a minute; we have an incredibly divided political and electoral system designed to safeguard against elections being stolen, and so you're talking about some grand conspiracy where at the precinct level, you would infiltrate thousands and thousands of people across the country in different precincts to actually create the, quote, "stolen election" that Trump talked about.I mean, either you just don't believe in our political system and its different safeguards or you do.And what the president was advancing at that point is a line of reasoning that says, "I don't believe in our political system."And if you don't believe in that, well, Katy, bar the doors, because we're in for real trouble.
And that is the cancer that has grown, because you talk to a lot of the Republican electorate these days, and they'll say the election was stolen.They've heard it enough on Fox News and other places to have believed it because it's been beaten in and beaten in.And yet judges who were appointed by Republicans have said no, that's not the case, conclusively.And yet it's the grand lie that's out there, and it fits very much with what Goebbels talked about: If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, because that way, people will see it as true.And sadly, it's seen as true with all too many Republicans across the country these days.
In the first days after the election, it's Donald Trump, it's Trump’s son, Don Jr.,Alex Jones pushing the conspiracy theory.And by the end of the week, people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are out raising questions about the election.How important when you look back on it do you think it was for other elected Republicans and Republican leaders to amplify the claims that the president started making?
It's important if you want to destroy our democratic traditions, yeah.I mean, it is absolutely wrong what Lindsey did in that instance and what Ted and others did because by doing it, it creates a safeguard for others to do it, and then it multiplies and it grows from there.And so, again, I just use the word "cancerous."I mean, it is cancerous when this kind of lie begins to spread because of the way it undermines the very premise of one man, one woman, one vote in the American political system.
How many of the House Republicans, and maybe the Senate Republicans or Republican leadership, who have been elected, as you have, know the electoral process, know how votes are counted in great detail in some cases, how many of them do you think actually believed the president's claims?
Very few, because you can't have been a part of the process—I mean, I was elected twice governor, and I had primaries; I had runoffs; I had generals.I mean, you're talking about six elections just in those two elections alone.And were there certain weird spots in Hampton County or Allendale County?Yes.But you're talking a handful of votes.You're not talking about enough to completely overturn or change an electoral result.And so are there certain wards within Chicago that'll always be weird? Yes.Are there certain other places around the country that'll have spots where there's something weird or strange? Absolutely.But that doesn't, again, tip the balance of an overall election.It just means that, yeah, you've got a couple precincts where there's corruption.But it's not whole scale.There's no way you can believe in our system and believe that there are enough precinct and poll workers out there to go infiltrate the system en masse to change the outcome of big elections.And so I think that, in essence, none of them believe it that have been around the political process and really watched their own election results as closely as they would have.There's no way.But they're foisting it because they, again, think in this weird time we're living in that it's key to staying relevant in the age of Donald Trump.
We know from some of the books that Kevin McCarthy, behind the scenes, was saying, "Mr. President, maybe it's time to give up," but that with the caucus, he was indicating he was going to vote not to certify the states.What do you make of Kevin—and he's clashing with Liz Cheney at that point.This is in the run-up to Jan. 6.What do you make of Kevin McCarthy in that moment as you've known him, as you've seen the reporting around his actions in those days?
He's a chameleon.I mean, he just wants to be relevant.He will say or do that which will keep him, you know, in the political flow.And I think that's a sad way to live your life.
Are you surprised by Liz Cheney, who begins in that moment a clash with the president that would in some ways echo yours?Are you surprised by what she did and how she responded?
Yeah. I mean, initially she'd been on the other side of the equation and quite supportive of the president.So yeah, initially I was surprised.But she dug her heels in deeper and deeper, which very much fits with her father.I think the interesting thing about Liz is she has a longer political horizon or tradition that I think does impact her view.I mean, whether you like or dislike her father, he was vice president of the United States of America, and he's a long-term congressman from the state that she now represents, and so that experience gives a context to this larger political playing out that most members don't have.And it makes it less about her as an individual than about, "Wait a minute, I'm here, yeah, but my dad was here before that, and there'll be somebody after that."And I think it gives a context that's given her real wisdom in the way that she has indeed dug her heels in.
And I think having grown up with politics as she did, and she's seen some of the pomp and the ceremony and the things that come and the things that go also gives her a context that says this fight's worth fighting.And I admire the way in which she's done so.
And what about Mike Pence?I think you didn't overlap in the House, right?
No, we did not.
I think he comes in right after you leave.What do you make of his response?Because he's seen as somebody who's so, you know, always praising Trump, never criticizing him, and then this moment of real, incredible pressure on him from the president.What do you make of how he responds at that time?
I mean, I just made—I think what a lot of people would think, which is, finally.I mean, this is the guy who sat there and looked, you know, fawningly at the president at a million—or, obviously not a million, but literally thousands and thousands of press conferences.And you're like, how does any guy with just a small degree of sense of self-worth do that?But you figure, OK, he figures that's the cost of admission.But I mean, I'd for years wondered, how do you do that?Because I mean, we're not just talking being at his side.We're talking about looking like, again, fawningly at his daddy, his father, his whoever.
And so finally he makes a break, which is to say, you know, as much as he wants to be relevant politically—and he certainly proved that over his time with the president—there is finally a fine white line.And once it crossed, he began to push back.And I very much, again, admire it.It was a long time coming.Should've come a long time before, but it finally got there, and he did the right thing in saying, "No, we're not going to go the way the president wants to go on this one."
I mean, it reminds me of that warning that you said Amash issued to the members of the Freedom Caucus: No matter how loyal you are, there can become a moment with Donald Trump where you could be turned on.I mean, did you see that in how Trump turns on him right after that?He mentions him in the speech and–
It's crazy.We're living in a crazy time with a crazy and reckless person in a position of power in our country.And so the degree to which the president has no allegiance to anyone or any ideal save for himself and his own self-advancement is astounding.And you saw it play out in the Pence example.The guy just sat there and jumped on grenades and stayed silent and looked glowingly at the president through press conference after press conference, had been his right-hand guy.And yet when something comes along that puts the two of them apart, forever Pence is cast aside because the president has no loyalty to any set of ideals, any person save for himself, and that's a scary place to be.That's a scary person in whom to place political power.And I hope that there are lessons going forward given the president talks about running.I hope that's not the case, but given the fact that Trump has certainly entertained the idea of continuing to stay in the world of politics and run for president.
Jan. 6 and the Aftermath
So Jan. 6 happens, and you use the word "sedition" talking about Trump and his actions, presumably over the period before Jan. 6 as well.What do you mean by that?
If you're inciting a crowd with the purpose of overturning an election, that is sedition, period, end of story, and that's what the president did there with the crowd that day as he sent them up to the Capitol.Pure and simple sedition, absolutely textbook style, and it ought to be called out as such, and he ought to be judged accordingly for it.
And what are you thinking as you're watching the place you had worked be attacked?What are you trying to do in the moment?What are you seeing as you see those images?
I wasn't even aware of it.I was busy because I'm back in the world of work and private, you know, free-enterprise system, all that good stuff.And a buddy of mine from, actually, out of the country calls me, says, "What in the world is going on at your old place of work?"And I had no idea what he's talking about.And flip on the television, and I was just aghast.And so it was like a movie playing out.It's like, this can't be.I've walked those halls; I've climbed those steps.I know every corner.I had two different stints in the United States Congress.And I lived there.I slept in my office for 12 years.Not during the day—in the evening time.And this is a place I spent a lot of time.And to see what unfolded was surreal, unimaginable and disturbing.
And to what extent do you think it was the result not just of Trump, but of the decisions we've been talking about going all the way back to 2016 about how to respond to him, about truth, about decisions that were made along the way?To what extent is there responsibility for other members of your party in the decisions that they made all the way along?
You know, I think that they absolutely bear some of the responsibility because again, it goes back to the old adage of the only way that evil prevails in this world is when good men or good women sit on the sidelines and do nothing.So the Trump phenomenon grew in good measure because it was not resisted and people didn't push back in force against it.But it always takes a catalyst, and we need to be unmistakably clear in recognizing the fact that Trump was and is the catalyst for much of what's going on.
I mean, it's sort of an unusual combination of a perfect storm in political terms that brought him to power.But he has been a catalyst, and he's continued to act as the catalyst for things that are ultimately destabilizing, not just in Jan. 6, but in the larger political ethos that's playing out right now.There's a more relaxed notion of truth in political debates around this country as a result of Trump.There's a coarseness in the way that people will attack each other that didn't exist prior to Trump.I mean, there are a number of different things, all of which are destabilizing for the American political system and the balance that it's predicated on.
Do you think that there's—we talk about Lindsey Graham.He has that speech that night of Jan. 6, and he says, "I'm done."McConnell gives a strong speech.We know privately McCarthy is talking about asking the president to resign, and we know that now, and he would give a strong speech, though would not vote to impeach.Did it seem like this might be a breaking point, that maybe the party was catching up to where you were?
Yeah, how it could not have been a breaking point is just, again, unfathomable.I mean, I watched with great pride—I remember sending an email or a text to Lindsey that night after his talk because I thought it was magnificent.He's like, "I'm done."Sadly, just a matter of hours thereafter, he was not done, and you saw a retrenchment on other folks, too, who'd sort of said definitive things based on their personal experience of having hordes of crazy people coming into the Capitol and them basically running for their lives.But it's a testimony to how, sadly, people will do most anything to hang onto political power.And in that process, all of us can be harmed and poisoned in that it degrades the political debate; it degrades the strength and value of the political institutions that are so key to balancing power in our system.I mean, yeah, it seemed like a tipping point that it turned out not to be.
I mean, was that all that it was?If they had gotten together and said, "We're going to go forward on impeachment and conviction; we're going to just—as the leaders of the Republican Party, we're going to make clear where we stand," I mean, did they have a choice at that moment?
They absolutely had a choice.And, you know, the hard thing about leadership is it requires leadership.I mean, you have to lead if you want to be a leader, and what we have are a bunch of pastry chefs that are basically saying, "Oh, you don't like this dessert?Well, how about this one over here?"I mean, people are appeasing, and they're cajoling, and they're just trying to stay relevant, but it's coming at great cost to the institutional fabric of what the Founding Fathers created.So could they have led? Yes.Did they? No.Will we be harmed by it?We'll find out how much, but absolutely at one level or the other, we're going to be harmed by the lack of leadership that came in the wake of Jan. 6.
And for those who did speak up—and Mitch McConnell, he does not vote to convict, but he gives a strong speech—is that enough, or is more required of a Mitch McConnell?
Yeah, more is required.I mean, I was mesmerized.And Mitch isn’t exactly a great speechmaker.Historically, he could put you to sleep pretty fast, but I thought his speech was just eloquent.It was spectacular, and I was taken by it.But ultimately leadership requires more than a speech.It requires building coalition, building teams to push back against that which you spoke on, and he did not go that next step.
And Kevin McCarthy—there's a photo of him not long after he gives his own speech with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago.When you saw that, what did that moment represent?What did it say about Kevin McCarthy?
It just cemented what I'd always known about Kevin McCarthy, which is, as I said earlier, he's a chameleon.He'll change any stripe necessary to be relevant.He lacks core conviction—not to the extent that Trump does; Trump's off the scales on that front—but there's not a governing philosophy that drives somebody like Kevin McCarthy.It is the chance to stay relevant and hold and accumulate political power that drives him.
You write in the book about the idea of major Republicans coming to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Donald Trump.What is going on there, and why does that image disturb you?
Because it's going to kiss the ring.What our country was founded on was the notion of not kissing the ring.No man wants to be subservient to the other.We're all out there.We can have our fights; we can have our debates.It ought to be robust.I might be a conservative, you might not be, or vice versa, and we can have a robust debate.But we're equals in the political system.That's what the Founding Fathers created.And what we saw and what we've consistently seen with people going down to the palace, if you want to call it that, to kiss the ring of the king is what we rebelled against as a country a couple hundred years ago.But we're seeing that come back in, and it's 100% toxic, and it represents a cancer in the American political system that needs to be exorcised.
Liz Cheney and the Future of the Republican Party
The last resistance against Jan. 6 and its control inside the party seems to be the moment that Liz Cheney is voted out of leadership of the Republican Caucus.What do you see in that moment that they decide that she, if she's going to talk about Jan. 6 and talk about the 2020 election, can't be a leader of the party anymore?
Acquiescence; capitulation; the toxic elements that Hayek writes about in his book <i>The Road to Serfdom</i> playing out in real time here in our political system.Dissent ought to be embraced.It's a sign of a healthy political system.And yet the idea that somebody can't see something differently, and if they do, they need to be exorcised is not the hallmark of a democratic political system, and certainly not what we've seen in our system, for all its warts and blemishes over the last 200 years.And so I think that Adam Kinzinger, people like Liz Cheney have been real bulwarks, if you will, against the tyranny that is represented by people saying, "If you don't hold our view, we kick you out."But that's what they play these days.
Let me just ask you, because you would've served with him, about Adam Kinzinger, and were you surprised about his response to Jan. 6?
You know, they say that people are sometimes made by the times.In other words, the real them of them comes out given an extraordinary or difficult situation.Adam's a great guy.He's an Air Force veteran.At one point, there's a story of—there was some skirmish, and a man was holding a knife on a woman, and he jumps into the fray.I mean, he's a guy that will jump into the fray, and he's certainly done that in the wake of the 6th, and hadn't backed down one iota.And so I just say he has lived up to the Air Force ideals that he swore way back when he became an officer in the Air Force in a way that I think has been extraordinary.
... This is not true of all elected Republicans now, but many of them speaking up against Jan. 6, speaking up saying the election wasn't stolen has become a very dangerous thing inside the party.What is the threat of that, of the "big lie," of the lie about the election being so alive inside the party?
The threat is if you don't believe in our electoral system, then you don't believe in those who get elected and that there's no real legitimacy to their hold on power.I mean, the value of the Founding Fathers' system was we vest power and authority with the individual, the individual chooses to loan it to those who hold political power.It doesn't come from the top.It comes from the bottom up.And based on the legitimacy of the electoral system, this power is vested from the individuals that make up America to these different elected leaders.If you don't believe that the election is real, you don't believe that there's legitimacy to the power and voice that is contained by those who are in elected leadership, which is to say, what do you believe in?
Well, you believe in, then, a king or a queen deciding things for you because their voice is preeminent, and their voice is louder; they may have a bigger microphone.And there's no legitimacy to where these other folks are coming—it sends a cascade of different bad political ramifications in our political system if you don't believe the elections are real and that they're rigged.
Latest Interviews
Latest Interviews
Policies
Teacher Center
Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation
Koo and Patricia Yuen
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding is provided by the Abrams Foundation; Park Foundation; the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation, and additional support from Koo and Patricia Yuen. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation. Web Site Copyright ©1995-2025 WGBH Educational Foundation. PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
