Your blow-by-blow recap of the only vice presidential debate, with a lot of help from Twitter

Vice President Mike Pence and California Sen. Kamala Harris descended upon Salt Lake City, Utah, Wednesday for the lone debate between the two people vying to be the nation’s No. 2. The debate about the debate has been particularly fraught in recent days, after at least 27 people nearly three dozen people (including Donald Trump)—in the White House, the military, the press, and the upper echelon of the anti-mask, pro-reopening Republican Party— have tested positive for the highly contagious and dangerous novel coronavirus. Pence’s handlers reported at least two negative COVID-19 tests, and insist he doesn’t owe it to anyone to quarantine, despite attending the Hug and Smooch Rose Garden Superspreader event on Sept. 26. So adamant was Team Pence that there was no cause for concern or cancellation, they actually managed to turn the presence of a Plexiglass barrier into a debate death hill for most of Tuesday, before ultimately agreeing to requests that both nominees and moderator Susan Page sit behind them. The barriers were the most visible tweak to the debate stage, in addition to an increased distance of 12 feet, 3 inches between the nominees’ desks.

Despite the Plexiglass and Trump’s COVID-19 case dominating most recent discussions of the veep debate, an interesting event awaited the limited in-person audience—who the Commission of Presidential Debates (CPD) swore, for realsies this time, would all be wearing masks. It’s not a stretch to expect both Pence and Harris to run for the top spot in 2024, and both are seasoned politicians with plenty of experience on both debate stages and in courtrooms. Pence’s biggest job? Defending the indefensible, infected man who wishes he could sign Pence’s paychecks with a Sharpie; defending Trump’s failures, his controversies, and his classlessness, while attempting to simultaneously convince American voters that Pence is the grown-up in the room, but also that no such grown-up is necessary. Harris, on the other hand, needed to shred Trump (let us count the ways) and do no harm to her running mate—particularly as the Biden-Harris ticket continues to skyrocket in the polls. She’ll likely face some low blows from Pence and the peanut gallery, due to her gender, her race, and Pence’s deeply ingrained, wooden, and purportedly faith-based misogyny.  Let’s do this.

The debate was 90 minutes long, with not one break, just as the CPD warned us last month.

The debate will be divided into nine segments of approximately 10 minutes each. The moderator will ask an opening question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a deeper discussion of the topic.

Unlike Chris Wallace, who moderated the “shitshow” known as the first presidential debate on Sept. 29, USA Today’s Page did not release her list of topics in advance. Like Wallace, Page will not be fact-checking the nominees in real-time.

Harris has been preparing with former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg standing in for fellow Indiana Hoosier Pence, while Pence recruited impeachment attorney Pam Bondi to play Harris in his own debate prep, which makes no damn sense. However, all signs indicate that Mayor Pete and Momala weren’t playing around during their mock debates.

Pete Buttigieg - Fox News might not let you back after you destroyed their set like that 😂#Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/pWyCvBwxjo

— Nerdy Pursuit (@nerdypursuit) October 8, 2020

And just a few minutes after 9 PM ET, we were off. Page kicked things off by showing off the small but socially distant crowd, the Plexiglass, and insisting people would have to keep their masks on. The nominees came out to cheers and promptly took a seat. Pence had a noticeably red eye.

His eye is getting noticeably worse. pic.twitter.com/ZFooDFAOH8

— Jennifer Hayden (@Scout_Finch) October 8, 2020

Page sent thoughts and prayers to Trump and Melania, then vowed to enforce the rules that the campaigns and commissions had agreed to, and demanded a civil event.

2020: When All Good Things Are Indefinitely Postponed But Somehow We’re On Our Second Indoor Debate

— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) October 8, 2020

COVID-19 IS NOT UNDER CONTROL

Page asked Harris how January and February 2021 under Biden-Harris would look different than under Trump-Pence. After reciting the grave statistics that face us now, Harris turned back to what the White House knew in January. She promised that the difference would be that Joe Biden has a plan, while the Trump administration did not. As her time ran out, Harris insisted that Trump-Pence had “forfeited” the right to be reelected.

Pence was up next, and Page pointed out that the U.S. death toll (as a percentage of population) was higher than that of any other wealthy country, and asked him, quite simply, why. After a string of platitudes to the University of Utah, Page, and Harris, Pence said Trump was working hard from day one, and leaned into the “China travel ban” that wasn’t actually a ban, predictably bringing up Biden’s critique of that move as xenophobic. After admitting that he’s the head of the coronavirus task force, Pence boasted of testing rates and protective equipment delivery, as well as vaccine development, before he accused Biden of plagiarizing Trump’s plan. 

Harris fired back that the administration’s efforts hadn’t worked, before laying failures at Pence’s feet as the head of the task force. She brought up Trump’s infamous interviews with Bob Woodward, noting that the president kept his knowledge of both the deadliness of COVID-19 and the virus’ fast transmission quiet—so that Americans would stay calm. The crosstalk began immediately, and Harris won 15 seconds to look into the camera and ask Americans how calm they were as they navigated pandemic realities like not seeing their family, kids being stuck home from school, or not being able to find toilet paper. 

Pence looked into the camera and claimed he cared about people before he said Harris’ characterization of the administration’s handling of the virus thus far was an insult to Americans. He then claimed that Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx told them months ago that if they did “everything right,” they might still lose over 200,000 people. Pence then made a huge deal of standing up for the American people in the face of Harris’ assessment of his own failures, continuing to attempt to frame her delivery of facts about his and Trump’s failures as attacks against Americans. 

Page then asked Pence about his attendance at the maskless Rose Garden super spreader event on Sept. 26, and asked how the White House expected Americans to follow the rules while their leadership did not. Pence launched into a speech about how much he and Trump trust “the American people” (cue new debate drinking game) and mocked Biden and Harris for not trusting or respecting them.

Kamala Harris has the best “I can’t believe this bullshit right HERE” face I have ever seen

— Chris Redd (@Reddsaidit) October 8, 2020

Harris pointed out that “respecting the American people” requires telling them the truth when allowing them to make their own decisions. Pence attempted to interrupt but was denied soundly by Page. After a somewhat friendly exchange where Page apologized for calling Sen. Harris “Kamala,” Page asked if Harris would take a vaccine. She vowed to be first in line … if the scientists said it was safe, but not if Trump claimed it was.

THESE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE REALLY OLD

Pence was up first, but he railroaded Page and turned back to the vaccine, insisting that Harris was attempting to undermine confidence in it. He then circled back to Harris’ use of the word “failure,” and brought up H1N1, aka the Swine Flu, and spewed random numbers of people who did not die of it. His time was up, and he had not answered the actual question posed to him. This is how Pence debates.

The split screen suddenly became the great equalizer of the debate.

pic.twitter.com/BSPNsAlxtt

— Anna Holmes (@AnnaHolmes) October 8, 2020

Throughout the night, Harris silently voiced her thoughts on Pence’s evasive nonsense and lies.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO pic.twitter.com/d4kyMwVci4

— amorphous (@loneamorphous) October 8, 2020

Harris was given the full time to address Page’s actual question: Have you discussed with Biden what happens in the face of presidential disability, and should you? Harris focused on the history she’s made and the day Biden called her to ask her to be his running mate. 

TRANSPARENCY IS EVERYTHING

Pence was up first, and was asked if voters deserved access to detailed information about Trump’s health. He rambled about how much sympathy and kindness Trump received while hospitalized and congratulated Harris on her nomination, but didn’t answer the question. 

Every woman I know has given this look when some man attempts to mansplain or present an idea that isn’t theirs. #VPDebate pic.twitter.com/l02K8eIzO4

— Jamira Burley (@JamiraBurley) October 8, 2020

Harris was next, and focused on the importance of transparency, zooming in on Trump’s appalling tax returns and massive amount of debt, so that Americans know whether his self-interest is fueling his decisions. She reiterated the need for transparency and Biden’s commitment to it. 

Pence jumped in with a “47 years in Washington” dig at Biden before praising Trump for being a businessman and job creator, who turned the economy around. Page attempted to silence him but he just. kept. talking.

THE ECONOMY IS HURTING

Page thanked Pence for the segue into the next topic, and dropped startling—and recent—statistics and bad news from the job market. She asked if the Biden-Harris jobs plan and tax increases would stifle the economic recovery. Harris pointed out that Trump evaluates the economy’s health by checking in on how rich people are doing. She touched on their plan’s innovation, infrastructure, clean energy, and education opportunities, all while contrasting them against Trump’s first-term failures. 

Pence was asked if Americans should brace for a recovery that takes two years or more. Pence chided Barack Obama and Biden for taking too long to fix things after the Great Recession. He then claimed most voters got $2,000 back from Trump’s 2017 tax scam, before insisting that Biden-Harris want to raise taxes, ban fossil fuels, ban fracking, and force the Green New Deal onto Americans. Again, he refused to stop talking when his time is up.

📈 Searches for 'smarmy' are up 5000%https://t.co/GI3ESqdIWS

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) October 8, 2020

Harris insisted that this debate was supposed to be about truth and facts, and began to explain that Biden has vowed not to raise taxes for anyone making less than $400,000 a year or ban fracking. Pence interrupted her and Page did nothing. Harris refused to engage in crosstalk until Pence gave in.

Kamala needs to say, Susan, you must give me the 2 minutes Pence has taken going over limits.

— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) October 8, 2020

She then reminded the room about Biden’s work with the Affordable Care Act, and Trump’s determination to crush it. Page attempted to cut her off, but Harris reminded her that Pence had interrupted her moments ago, and reclaimed her time.

"He interrupted me, and I'd like to just finish" - every woman in America, every single day.

— Suzanne Maloney (@MaloneySuzanne) October 8, 2020

She looked into the camera and warned people with preexisting conditions: “They’re coming for you.”

.@KamalaHarris has a message: "They're coming for you."@realdonaldtrump and @Mike_Pence are suing the American people right now to rip away protections for pre-existing conditions. Health care is on the ballot. VOTE like your life depends on it. #VPDebate #VPDebate2020 pic.twitter.com/GfViHVYoQL

— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) October 8, 2020

Pence tossed a canned line about opinions and facts … and Harris told him it was a good line. He then rambled on and didn’t answer his question, repeating that Biden was going to ban fracking.

CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

Pence was asked, as Hurricane Delta looms and wildfires ravaged the west coast, what the Trump-Pence administration planned to do about it. Pence dove deep into his delusions, rambling about forest management, more fracking, and deregulation.

Harris repeated that Biden would not ban fracking, or raise taxes on anyone making less rhan $400,000, before listing the environmental crises Biden has seen and is determined to fight. She also brought up the Trump-Pence administration’s war on science, and reminded us of Trump’s pesky habit of claiming the he knows more than scientists. 

Pence was then asked if he believes climate change poses an existential threat. Pence spent five seconds saying that the climate was changing before he veered right back to Biden’s vow to repeal the Trump-GOP Tax Scam, and repeated that Biden was going to ban fracking … again … and kill jobs. He then insisted that Biden-Harris are going to force the Green New Deal onto Americans.

Pence has the aw-shucks nonchalance of a priest telling you it's okay to take your pants off. Without the moral stature.

— Bradley Whitford (@BradleyWhitford) October 8, 2020

Harris zoomed in on Pence’s mention of jobs, bringing up the failed trade war with China, our struggling manufacturing sector, and struggling farmers. She brought up her stepdaughter in the context of high school and college graduates worrying about what jobs await them, thanks to the Trump administration. 

Pence used his time to ramble on about how many jobs Trump has created, insisting Biden and Obama ruined the economy. Harris pointed out that Biden saved the automotive industry, and Pence voted against it.

CHINA: FRIEND OR FOE?

Page brought up Trump’s continued war with China, and asked Pence where he thought we stood with China. He spent the bulk of his time attempting to frame Harris as a far-left demon before backing up Trump’s blame of China for the coronavirus, and bringing up the Chinese travel ban that wasn’t a ban, and Biden’s opposition of it. He then refused to stop talking, and Page did nothing.

She talks to him the way I talk to my children when I'm angry but someone is watching

— Taffy Brodesser-Akner (@taffyakner) October 8, 2020

Harris was given the same question. She pointed out the aftereffects of Trump’s war with China, and brought up his obsession with erasing all things Obama, including an agency devoted to pandemic preparation. She then brought up the COVID-19 death toll before bringing up the ripple effect of Trump’s tariff-driven trade war. She also pointed out that Trump has decimated the United States’ standing in the world. 

Page then asked Harris what she thought America’s place should be in the world moving forward. She leaned on Biden’s relationship-focused approach to governing, noting that it’s important to keep your word to your friends and keep your adversaries in check. She then pointed out that Trump did the opposite, bringing up Russian intelligence attacks, NATO, and the Iran Nuclear Deal. 

Pence claimed that Trump “kept his word” by moving an embassy to Jerusalem before shifting to ISIS, claiming that Trump “unleashed” the military and destroyed the Caliphate. He then told the story of humanitarian Kayla Mueller, who’d been held hostage during the Obama administration, insisting that servicemembers had told him that she’d be alive if Trump had been president.

This lying ass motherfucker

— Meena Harris (@meenaharris) October 8, 2020

While Page tried to call Pence for time, he continued to talk, and talk, and talk, bringing up the strike that killed Qassem Soleimani in January of this year. 

Page then gave Harris a chance to respond, warning her to not talk as much as Pence did so they could move on. Harris demanded equal time, then expressed condolences to the Mueller family, who was in the audience, before noting the injuries sustained by U.S. soldiers in the wake of the Soleimani assassination. She then brought up Trump’s disrespect of soldiers writ large, and John McCain specifically, as well as the bounties on U.S. soldiers that Trump’s ignored.

Pence rolled right over Page when she attempted to stop him from talking. She pointed out that he’d had more time than Harris but he just kept talking. As he spoke about Trump’s love for the soldiers, Page played the “your campaign agreed to the rules” card, and he finally shushed himself.

Laughing about the memes of debate night, but then remembering this is the actual future of our country #Debatenight pic.twitter.com/6paCihbcmQ

— Dom McHenry (@dommymchenry) September 30, 2020

WHAT IF AMY CONEY BARRETT HELPS OVERTURN ROE v. WADE?

Pence was asked what would happen in his home state of Indiana if a newly-conservative Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Pence went right back to the previous topic, and said Biden didn’t want Obama to kill Osama bin Laden, before saying that he hoped Coney Barrett wouldn’t be attacked for being Christian during her confirmation process, and stated that he hoped she’d be confirmed, without ever answering the question at hand.

Harris was asked what she’d like to happen in her home state of California if Roe is overturned. She noted that she and Biden are religious people. She voiced opposition to confirmation hearings, citing public opinion. She briefly answered the question—the choice belongs to the pregnant person, not Trump—before circling back to Trump’s war on the Affordable Care Act and preexisting conditions. She then offered some tidbits from Biden’s health care plan.

WHAT HAPPENS TO MY PREEXISTING CONDITION?

Pence was up first and dodged the question, instead lying about late-term abortions, and Biden-Harris’ support for them, before deciding he was the new moderator.

Moderator: We’re moving on now. Pence: Ok I hear you but I’m actually going to go back and talk about the previous topic instead#VPDebate

— philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) October 8, 2020

He directly asked Harris if Biden was going to pack the Supreme Court if Coney Barrett is confirmed as Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.

Harris instead thanked him for bringing up the history of the Supreme Court, and launched into a quick lesson herself, noting that Abraham Lincoln declined to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. Pence repeated the packing question, and—without letting Harris speak—insisted that they plan to do just that.

Pence demanding that Harris answer *his* own personal questions when he won’t even answer the moderator’s is gross, and exemplary of the gender dynamics so many women have to deal with at work.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 8, 2020

He then looked into the camera and told viewers that if they respect the Supreme Court, and want a nine-justice Supreme Court, they would vote for Trump.

Harris then pointed out that Trump had packed the court with judges during his first term, making lifetime appointments, and not one of them was Black.

THE TRAGEDY OF BREONNA TAYLOR

Page offered the broad strokes of the Taylor case before asking Harris if she believed justice had been served. Harris said it had not. She touched on her conversation with Taylor’s mother before bringing up the murder of George Floyd that Americans watched in May and June. She brought up the protests, noting that she didn’t condone violence, but supported fighting to achieve our ideals. Noting that “bad cops are bad for good cops,” Harris vowed that a Biden win would bring the end of cash bail and private prisons, the decriminalization of cannabis, and a ban on choke and carotid holds.

Pence kicked off his time by saying he was sad she died but he trusts the justice system. He then accused Harris of being dismissive of the Taylor grand jury and said he hoped justice would be served for Floyd’s murderers.

In the case of Breonna Taylor, Kamala Harris, a former state attorney general, says she doesn't believe justice was done Mike Pence says "I trust our justice system" and says it is "remarkable" Harris would assume a "Grand Jury got it wrong"https://t.co/VZTi41JXWn #VPDebate pic.twitter.com/kAfvMNVjsE

— BBC North America (@BBCNorthAmerica) October 8, 2020

He skipped right past marches and protests to riots and destruction with a big fly stuck in his white hair. It was there for two minutes.

Pitch in $5 to help this campaign fly. https://t.co/CqHAId0j8t pic.twitter.com/NbkPl0a8HV

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 8, 2020

Pence claimed that acknowledging systemic racism was an insult to law enforcement. He then muttered a few talking points about Trump being great for Black Americans.

Mike Pence's answer about racial justice was such bullshit it started attracting flies. pic.twitter.com/NrVmtO3SIZ

— Jennifer Hayden (@Scout_Finch) October 8, 2020

Harris responded by pointing out that she was the only prosecutor on the stage. She then rattled off Trump’s long—so long—history of cultivating racism, bigotry, and hate in this country. From the Muslim ban to Charlottesville, to his “stand back and stand by” nod to the Proud Boys at the first debate. 

Pence kicked off his time by raging against the media and holding up Trump’s Jewish grandchildren as proof he’s no bigot. His time was up, but Page let him kick off a rambling attack on Harris’ record as a prosecutor. He kept talking and talking as Page tried to stop him, slipping in more “Trump loves Black people” talking points, including school choice. 

Page attempted to move onto the next point but Harris fought for equal time AGAIN.

Kamala Harris is every Black woman who had to remain calm in a work meeting when lesser qualified white men rudely spoke over them, spouting less than mediocre ideas while the person "in charge" does nothing to stop it and everyone judges *you* for "appearing" frustrated

— Shanita Hubbard (@msshanitarenee) October 8, 2020

Harris spoke to the reforms she implemented in San Francisco, including officer-worn body cameras. Page attempted to cut her off, but Harris wasn’t playing nice.

BUT WHAT IF TRUMP LOSES?

Page posed the last question of the night: What if you win, and Trump won’t leave? Harris painted a picture of a broad coalition of support, before telling everyone to vote. She told viewers we have the power to shape the future of our country and protect our democracy by voting.

The election is fly-ing by. Make sure to make a plan to vote. https://t.co/dMhxJsRcW7#BidenHarris2020 #VPDebate2020

— Nancy Pelosi (@TeamPelosi) October 8, 2020

She then brought up Trump’s effort to suppress the vote, specifically at the first debate last week.

Page then asked what Pence would do if Trump refused to concede power after losing the election. Pence instead insisted that his ticket was going to win, and touted the Trump administration’s “movement” and some vague accomplishments, including appointing conservative judges and supporting law enforcement. He then told Harris that her party was trying to overturn the 2016 election, and somehow, SOMEHOW, managed to sneak in a thinly-cloaked “BUT HER EMAILS.” He then railed against voting by mail. 

THE GREAT DIVIDE

The final question came from Brecklynn, a Utahn in eighth grade. She noted the constant fighting she sees on television. among politicians and among citizens, and asked what each nominee thought their good example might do to effect change and foster unity.

In closing, an 8th grader thinks you should suck less. Thoughts?

— Mike Mackert (@mackert) October 8, 2020

Pence was first, and insisted that she shouldn’t trust her local news before touting that RBG and Antonin Scalia were good friends, implying that people can agree to disagree.

Harris brought up Biden’s decision to run: the hatred in Charlottesville, and exactly what the eighth-grader described. She noted that Biden has a long history of working across the aisle and uniting people. She then promised Brecklynn that it would get better, and encouraged her leadership. And then, thankfully, with one more round of thoughts and prayers for Trump and his COVID-19 cluster, this horrible debate was over. 

The low-hanging fruit of this night? The damn fly.

Coming up after the break, a @CNN exclusive pic.twitter.com/3p4SN7uFws

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 8, 2020

It’s fun, I get it. And I’m always here for Obama clips.

real presidents kills flies with their bare hands pic.twitter.com/vzliIkXd2S

— alex (@alex_abads) October 8, 2020

But the reality is that Mike Pence just did a polite version of what Trump did last week. He railroaded and ignored the rules, and used the exact same right-wing lies and talking points to avoid the topics at hand. He just does it without raising his voice.

What Mike Pence adds to the ticket is that he lies in a calm voice.

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) October 8, 2020

The reality is that Susan Page did a terrible job moderating this debate. She deferred to the white guy every time, at the expense of a woman of color. 

Only a white man could get away with not answering any questions from the moderator, then demanding your opponent answer your ridiculous gotcha question.

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) October 8, 2020

Kamala Harris fought a battle on that debate stage that will be familiar to many women, particularly Black women. In the end, CNN’s official timers insist that she only clocked a few seconds less time to speak than Pence, but she had to fight for it, again and again, as Page and Pence had no intention of letting her be heard.

This debate? It was as much of a shitshow as last week’s was, just in a different outfit. 

How Trump’s willing Republican collaborators make excuses to justify their treachery

In Dante’s Inferno, the ninth, most terrible circle of hell is reserved for the worst type of traitors. Dante specifically includes Judas, who betrayed Christ, and Cassius and Brutus, who betrayed and slew Julius Caesar, as the only named persons who inhabit the fourth and final round of this circle. Each is condemned to be gnawed within the three mouths of Satan for all eternity. Judas is being chewed on head first, his legs forever dangling out of Satan’s mouth.

The revulsion felt towards treachery—and particularly treachery against one’s country—is well established. Children in the U.S. learn about Benedict Arnold’s treachery in middle school. Students of World War II learn about the treachery of Vidkun Quisling. Their names (along with that of Judas) have gained such notoriety that they have become epithets describing traitors in general. From a political standpoint, there is not much if any practical distinction between outright treachery and “collaboration.” The Petain government of Vichy France collaborated with the Nazis, as did Quisling’s Norwegian government. Both Petain and Quisling are now universally viewed as traitors, with each possessing a unique litany of justifications for his actions—justifications that are now viewed as shabby excuses for complicity with evil.

With an embattled and unstable Donald Trump making alarming noises about unleashing the military on American citizens and his attempts to delegitimize an election that looks increasingly likely to go against him, there seems to be no better time to examine the motivations of those in the Republican Party who have collaborated with him and are allowing him to be in a position to make these threats. As Anne Applebaum—a renowned historian of the Soviet Union and the former Communist bloc—demonstrates in a tour de force just published in The Atlantic, it’s not as if Republicans looked at their reflections in the bathroom mirror one morning and decided they would betray their country for the interests of Donald Trump. There was self-reflection involved, a weighing of self-interest, costs and benefits—all leading to the conclusion that fealty to Trump outweighed their sworn oaths to defend the Constitution.

The oh-so-telling title of Applebaum’s essay is “History Will Judge The Complicit.” In it, she cites several examples of collaborators throughout 20th Century history—most significantly those who supported totalitarian Soviet puppet regimes in Eastern Europe—and analogizes how the rationales and excuses each used to try to justify their actions mesh perfectly with the behavior of today’s Republican Party in their nearly-collective decision to pay meek obeisance to Donald Trump.

Applebaum explains just what a “collaborator” is.

In English, the word collaborator has a double meaning. A colleague can be described as a collaborator in a neutral or positive sense. But the other definition of collaborator, relevant here, is different: someone who works with the enemy, with the occupying power, with the dictatorial regime. In this negative sense, collaborator is closely related to another set of words: collusion, complicity, connivance. This negative meaning gained currency during the Second World War, when it was widely used to describe Europeans who cooperated with Nazi occupiers. At base, the ugly meaning of collaborator carries an implication of treason: betrayal of one’s nation, of one’s ideology, of one’s morality, of one’s values.

Applebaum notes there can be two types of political collaborators: voluntary and involuntary. People forced at gunpoint to cooperate with a regime out of necessity or a duty to preserve other people’s lives are among the involuntary class of collaborator. Voluntary collaboration, on the other hand, implies either a willingness to collaborate for the sake of “ the national interest,” or an enthusiastic embrace of the enemy borne of outright admiration or alignment with one’s ideology. Describing the latter variety, Applebaum cites Harvard scholar Stanley Hoffman, who in 2007 “observed that many of those who became ideological collaborators were landowners and aristocrats, ‘the cream of the top of the civil service, of the armed forces, of the business community,’ people who perceived themselves as part of a natural ruling class that had been unfairly deprived of power under the left-wing governments.”

But curiously, as she notes, just as “equally motivated” to willingly collaborate were the country’s “losers,” the “social misfits” and political deviants who also saw an opportunity to raise their own standards of living by joining forces with an occupying enemy.

If this is beginning to ring some bells, it should.

Applebaum also cites the work of Czesław Miłosz, a Nobel-prize winning poet who wrote about the mindset of collaboration based on his experiences in working for the Polish government after WWII. In The Captive Mind, Milosz uses a series of biographical portraits to depict the various justifications that collaborators use to justify the betrayal of their principles. As Applebaum points out, these are all transferable to the behavior of the modern Republican Party in selling out their principles, and even selling out their oath to serve the American people, to a demagogue like Donald Trump. In fact the near-total abdication of their souls to Trump—even in the face of his blatantly apparent cruelty, crudeness, self-interest, and lack of any commitment to democratic principles—is closer to the historical reality of collaboration than are those voices that dissent or object. That is because collaboration is a way of ensuring conformity, and conformity is more pleasurable, more rewarding, and ultimately safer than nonconformity.

Using Lindsey Graham and Mitt Romney as examples, Applebaum illustrates how two men, both claiming to have some semblance of principles, behaved once they fell under the presidential orbit of Donald Trump. Noting that both had vehemently criticized Trump prior to his election, she shows how Graham ultimately showed his so-called principles about “patriotism, duty and honor” (which he had attributed to his military experience in the JAG corps) to be nonexistent, turning himself into one of Trump’s fiercest supporters beyond all logic, despite the amorality, corruption, and self-absorption of Trump himself:

It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president.

Graham’s surrender to Trump was shocking, but Applebaum thinks she understands it. His behavior, and most importantly his rationale, mirrored the same justifications that officials in the Nazi-collaborating Vichy French government employed. The Republican Party is displaying exactly the same rationalizations for their behavior that collaborators in the Vichy regime—as well as collaborators in Sovietized Eastern Europe—exhibited. As Applebaum observes: “These are experiences of people who are forced to accept an alien ideology or a set of values that are in sharp conflict with their own.”  

And that, according to Applebaum, is exactly what Trump has done from the outset to the Republican Party: He imposed an alien ideology, by claiming to possess different values from “traditional” Republicans. Examples cited by Applebaum include Trump’s campaigning as a “populist” and his phony promises to “drain the swamp,” and above all, attacking fact-based reality at every turn.

This began with his patent lying about size of his inauguration crowds, a seemingly trivial matter that gradually cascaded into a habitual and relentless refashioning of “reality” to be whatever he said it was. The number of absolute lies (over 19,000 at last count) delivered by Trump, the wholesale corruption of our federal agencies with political supporters lacking any experience in government or even their agency’s subject matter, and the insistence on his own infallibility were, according to Applebaum, not intended to convince thinking Americans of their truth but instead to convince his supporters in the Republican Party that he could simply lie and lie again with impunity and get away with it; that he could corrupt an entire branch of government and get away with it; and now, that he can grossly mishandle a national public health crisis and still get away with it. As Applebaum states: “Sometimes the point isn’t to make people believe a lie—it’s to make people fear the liar.”

As Applebaum states, corruption to a large body of people does not happen suddenly—it happens gradually, like a “slippery slope,” as people (here, Republicans) “abandon their existing value systems” through a process where such corruption is normalized. Republicans have normalized Trump’s lies and learned to reflexively blink at his corruption. In doing so, and by allowing their own sense of competence and “patriotism” to be co-opted by Trump, they have abandoned whatever responsibility they once felt towards the American people.

Meanwhile, with this kind of sycophantic following Trump has done whatever he wants, which is to fulfill his own interests and create what is certainly the most corrupt administration in American history while using racism and xenophobia when necessary to achieve those ends. His antipathy towards any legal or Constitutional restraints on his power are established; his sneering dismissal of science, the military, and our intelligence services are all matters of record; his complete abandonment of our strategic alliances is probably irreparable. As Applebaum puts it: “He meets his own psychological needs first; he thinks about the country last. The true nature of the ideology that Trump brought to Washington was not ‘America First,’ but rather ‘Trump First.’”

By now the disaster of the Trump presidency is laid bare. We are experiencing an economic calamity even as people are dying from a grossly mishandled public health crisis. Our streets are literally on fire with people protesting chronic racial injustice, and the rest of the world looks on, aghast at what this country has become. Why then do Republicans continue to act as collaborators with such a regime?

Applebaum says that the same justifications are those set forth in Milosz’ work, The Captive Mind, noted above. They are the same tortured excuses collaborators have told themselves throughout history to justify their betrayal of the people they are supposed to represent. Applebaum distills some of them for us.

 “We can use this moment to achieve great things.”

“We can protect the country from the president.“

“I, personally, will benefit.”

“I must remain close to power.”

“My side might be flawed, but the political opposition is much worse.”

“I am afraid to speak out.”

Applebaum deftly shows how each one of these excuses/rationales has been trotted out or otherwise displayed by Republicans to justify their collaboration with this lawless and amoral regime. From the dubious “bravery” of Anonymous, who you may recall piqued the nation with their “inside account” of the administration’s foibles while claiming to be part of the Resistance, to unnamed officials who decide to ignore the massive onslaught of corruption as long as they get their own pet projects to work on. From people like John Kelly and Jim Mattis, who said they believed they could act as a “failsafe” to prevent the country from imploding but proceeded to quit and fade out of the public view, to cowards like John Bolton and Paul Ryan, who left the administration and their party, respectively, because of Trump and Trumpism yet were too afraid or too opportunistic, even afterwards, to call him out. Of course, there’s also the blatantly self-interested—the Sonny Perdues, the Scott Pruitts, and any of those who view a plum administration position as a mere stepping stone to lucrative careers on K Street. All of these collaborators have exhibited one classic excuse or another.

It is Applebaum’s analysis of the true sycophants—such as Mike Pompeo, William Barr, and Mike Pence, whose collaboration with Trump is not based on excuses but dogmatic religious fanaticism—that is most horrifying.  

The three most important members of Trump’s Cabinet—Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr—are all profoundly shaped by Vichyite apocalyptic thinking. All three are clever enough to understand what Trumpism really means, that it has nothing to do with God or faith, that it is self-serving, greedy, and unpatriotic. Nevertheless, a former member of the administration (one of the few who did decide to resign) told me that both Pence and Pompeo “have convinced themselves that they are in a biblical moment.” All of the things they care about—outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage, and (though this is never said out loud) maintaining a white majority in America—are under threat. Time is growing short. They believe that “we are approaching the Rapture, and this is a moment of deep religious significance.”

The fact that collaborators in the Trump administration tell themselves comforting stories to justify their actions is bad enough, but when the collaborators are motivated solely by a desire to impose their religious nuttery on the American population and are given the power to do just that, we are in truly perilous territory. This is particularly the case with Barr, whose role as attorney general and head of the Justice Department gives him nearly limitless power to impose his delusional worldview on the most vulnerable in our society. Our country was specifically designed to prevent the imposition of an official “religion” for this very reason.

But the consequences of collaboration probably reached their apotheosis in the conduct of Republicans during the impeachment saga. The GOP-controlled Senate failed to muster a single vote, save that of Mitt Romney, to convict a patently guilty president on charges of obstruction of justice. Applebaum, probably correctly, attributes this appalling inaction to fear of speaking out. As she points out, we are living with the fatal consequences of that act of cowardice and collaboration today:

[I]in March, the consequences of that decision became suddenly clear. After the U.S. and the world were plunged into crisis by a coronavirus that had no cure, the damage done by the president’s self-focused, self-dealing narcissism—his one true “ideology”—was finally visible. He led a federal response to the virus that was historically chaotic. The disappearance of the federal government was not a carefully planned transfer of power to the states, as some tried to claim, or a thoughtful decision to use the talents of private companies. This was the inevitable result of a three-year assault on professionalism, loyalty, competence, and patriotism. Tens of thousands of people have died, and the economy has been ruined.

All of this, and all that waits for us in the coming months, are the consequences of a knowing Republican collaboration with an administration whose incompetence and malevolence is unmatched by any in U.S. history. And yet, Republicans still show no sign of opposition. No voice of objection is raised to decry the torrent of perpetual cruelty and inhuman disregard, even as a deadly virus sweeps through the population, even as the world turns its back on an America it no longer recognizes. Applebaum frankly asks of these Republicans: How low will you allow the country to go?

Come November, will they tolerate—even abet—an assault on the electoral system: open efforts to prevent postal voting, to shut polling stations, to scare people away from voting? Will they countenance violence, as the president’s social-media fans incite demonstrators to launch physical attacks on state and city officials?

To these open questions Applebaum simply attaches a small piece of advice to those who have compromised whatever integrity they once possessed in the service of this one awful man. She quotes Władysław Bartoszewski, a survivor of Auschwitz and former prisoner of both the Nazis and the Soviets, who later rose to the position of foreign minister in his home country of Poland. Bartoszewski’s advice? Just try to be a decent human being, because that is the way you will be remembered.

Whether any Republicans will actually follow that advice remains to be seen.

Republicans give Pelosi just what she wanted with outrage over ripped up State of the Union

Republicans really, really want Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ripping up of Donald Trump’s State of the Union address to be A Very Big Thing. They desperately need to frame her act of incivility as equal to or worse than all of Trump’s trespasses against democracy and decency, especially in the wake of Sen. Mitt Romney denying them their narrative of a purely partisan impeachment. (And yeah, they want to retaliate against him, too.)

Rep. Matt Gaetz is leading the asshat charge by filing an ethics complaint against Pelosi with, get this, the claim that “Nobody is above the law.” Gaetz is calling for a criminal referral, claiming that Pelosi violated a statute dealing with “Concealment, removal, or mutilation of documents,” as if every single physical copy of a document is sacred. This temper tantrum about Pelosi tearing up a document is especially special given that—as Dana Houle pointed out on Twitter—Trump is known tear up papers after he finishes with them, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Gaetz isn’t the only Republican in high dudgeon about Pelosi, of course. Rep. Kay Granger is touting a privileged resolution expressing disapproval for Pelosi’s “breach of decorum.” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tried his hand at a viral video ripping up the impeachment articles and saying “acquitted for life.” 

But Mike Pence had the creepiest take, telling Fox News that “I just have a strong feeling that she's going to be the last Speaker of the House to sit in that chair for a long time.” Which could just mean he understands that Democrats are going to keep the House and Pelosi will remain speaker, but it sounds more like he’s joining Trump in having some extremely unconstitutional things in mind.

Pence aside, you wonder if these Republicans realize how much they’re playing into Pelosi’s hands. She surely did not rip up that paper live on national television without knowing exactly the response it would draw—which means she was inviting their ethics complaints and resolutions of disapproval, shifting attention from Trump to her reaction to Trump. So Gaetz and Granger and all their buddies should feel free to bring it. It couldn’t be clearer that Pelosi welcomes their outrage.