As a result, the Republican Party has become less open to dissenting views and a big-tent approach to policy and instead more dominated by a loyalty to former President Donald Trump. So what will determine whether intra-party disagreement proves to be a healthy back-and-forth among Democrats or a dysfunctional rivalry? There are a few things to look for. First, the depth of the policy disagreements. That said, within the party, you can still see the stirrings of disagreement around whether the country needs some of its basic structures overhauled — including the economy and income inequality , voting rights protections, and questions like admitting new states or restructuring the courts.
These issues could become widely held Democratic priorities, or they could expose serious variation in the way different legislators and their voters view American politics. The other danger is that the divisions among Democrats start to look like those in the party system at large — that is, more splits rooted in social identities that are increasingly focused on winning rather than on identifying common goals.
In fact, the incentives will ultimately go the other way, making it more attractive to take a stand than to pass a bill. While it may not always seem like it, the different factions in the Democratic Party still represent policy differences — not fault lines. Carolyn Bordeaux of Georgia, for instance, represents a majority-minority district that has substantial populations of Black, Latino and Asian residents.
And while someone like Jayapal, who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, represents a far more diverse district with a lot of college-educated voters , Rep. As a result, ideological differences are not likely to create permanently warring factions in the Democratic Party — at least at this point.
Party divisions are inevitable in big-tent coalitions. Acknowledging his own country's electoral reality, however, was a step Scalise simply would not take. This is not a situation in which the GOP congressman is a shrinking violet, lacking the temperament to denounce ideas with which he disagrees.
During the same interview yesterday, Scalise said those who equate Georgia Republicans' new voter-suppression law with Jim Crow are pushing "flat-out lies. In other words, Scalise is capable of condemning ideas he finds objectionable in no uncertain terms. When it comes to the Republican Party's Big Lie, however, Scalise repeatedly insisted that states didn't follow election laws last fall to his satisfaction, which in his mind justifies his skepticism about the results.
Three times, Wallace tried to get Scalise to acknowledge the truth. Three times, the high-ranking GOP lawmaker refused. A tiny number of congressional Republicans were displeased. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, for example, wrote via Twitter, "Millions of Americans have been sold a fraud that the election was stolen. Republicans have a duty to tell the American people that this is not true. Perpetuating the Big Lie is an attack on the core of our constitutional republic. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois called Scalise's rhetoric "unacceptable.
He later deleted it. While working for the Trump campaign, current White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany interviewed a QAnon supporter who discussed the conspiracy theory. Trump and his campaign have touted the endorsement of right-wing commentator Paul E.
Vallely, a retired U. Army major general and QAnon conspiracy theorist. Matt Wolking, the Trump campaign's deputy director of communications - rapid response, criticized Illinois Republican Rep.
Adam Kinzinger on Twitter after he denounced QAnon.
0コメント