Bad Times in the Hawls of Ivy

On Tuesday, I posted on social media about an article in The New York Times that called Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) a kind of "working class" hero, suggesting he supports lower-income Americans over the elite, claiming that although Hawley is an elite son of a banker and Ivy League graduate, he embraces populist ideals.  And according to the Times,  Hawley represents a growing schism within the party formerly known as Republicans.

In reality, Hawley is a disingenuous. Trump-loving opportunist.  It made me wonder if it was a slow news day for the paper.  After all, in case they had forgotten, lone wolf pseudo-populist Josh Hawley is the guy who urged on the Jan. 6 Insurrectionists and then went running away when they entered the Capitol.

I subscribe to the New York Times, and like the paper, even though I don't agree with it all the time -- and am even bothered by it more often than I like, especially when they bend over backwards to be "neutral" to those who have done next to nothing to deserve the consideration.  And boy, did the Times blow it here, bending over so far backwards that they probably broke their nose in the effort.

To be fair, I’ll note that, no, of course not everyone agreed with my take on the article, including some I usually agree with.  My friend Tony Blumberg – a very thoughtful, even-handed guy who’s an attorney and member of the Highland Park (IL) city council – felt that the article was fairly balanced and neutral, and that it suggested Josh Hawley isn’t really a populist, but more superficial and self-centered.
 
I understand Tony’s point, and much-respect his opinions. And yes, he’s right, the article did point out some contradictory views. I just didn't find their weak efforts remotely well-balanced. For all the occasional refutations, the overriding premise throughout was that Hawley was a populist, and where his supposed populism came from.  Ultimately, to be clear, my quibble wasn't with how Tony saw the article, but with what the NY Times wrote.  After all, for whatever attempt at balance there was, (and, yes, there was some), the article began with a glowing headline about Josh Hawley being “at war” with his party.  Which is ludicrous.  After which, near the very top of the article, they compared his supposed-populism to the wildly-popular Senator Bernie Sanders across the aisle.
 
Let's be clear:  Bernie Sanders has been a populist for over 60 years, two decades longer than Josh Hawley has been alive.  On the other hand, Hawley – as the article itself states – is “a full-throttle champion of socially conservative causes” and a lifelong opportunist.  And that's not just my opinion, but the Missouri politician who helped promote Hawley's career -- the even-handed, well-respected John Danforth -- said in 2021 that he not only regrets ever pushing Josh Hawley, but said on a podcast that it is “what Dr. Frankenstein must have felt”!!!
 
Indeed, even the Times itself had a hard time supporting its own premise of a “war” in the party -- writing "Mr. Hawley may be a lonely voice" and "still, Mr. Hawley is regarded as a loner who has not built coalitions." Some war. And their few examples of this supposed populism ignores the vast scope of his voting record that almost fully aligns with his fellow-MAGOPs. Indeed, checking an "ideology score" from GovTrack shows Josh Hawley comfortably in the top 40% of the far-right part of Senate MAGOPs. Hardly the at-war portion of the party the Times wants to portray him in.
 
So, for starters, while the paper does suggest there is a growing divide in the party, the fact that they even just suggest this, let alone that Hawley represents it, is -- to me -- ludicrous and creating a false narrative. The party today is MAGOP, and has long been. And it is unanimity that has long identified party, both the "formerly known" and current. After all, Ronald Reagan famously referenced the "11th Commandment" of Republicans -- "Tho shalt not criticize another Republican." No matter how much the NY Times wants to suggest a war within the MAGOP, there isn't a battle or brushfire in the party over policy or conscience. It votes near unanimous (House and Senate) on almost everything. Significantly more than Democrats do. Just the other day, Lisa Murkowski actually stated in public that its members are afraid to vote against leadership. A year or two ago, I wrote that the former-GOP is now the fringe group, and MAGOPs control it.  There is no war in MAGOP.  The party is solidly MAGOP.
 
Again, to be clear, I'm not refuting Tony’s reading of the article at all. Just suggesting that the paper's foundational premise, which required a balancing act, was (to me) deeply flawed.
 
If there is going to be a divide in the party, I would suggest it's not now, but will be closer to the Mid-Terms when members see their re-election at risk by being tied to Trump. But that won't be a divide over conscience or political belief, but expedience and fear for their jobs.
 
Equally important -- because I don't expect many of the MAGOP base to subscribe to the paper, let alone ever dream of reading it, I was bothered all the more so -- because there was plenty in it for MAGOP to pull from it in some article they would read about how the New York Times wrote a long profile praising Josh Hawley as a champion of the common man.  And though, no, the Times didn't exactly do that, they did plenty enough where they did write it.  From all I've seen of Josh Hawley, he is not even remotely a “neutral” kind of person who some can see as being on the side of the Little Guy.  He is a far-right opportunist with no particular moral center who has long-supported almost everything Trump.
 
But mainly…
 
I decided to write about this not just because of how disappointed I was by the New York Times, but even more because of how it lets me bring in my good friend Bart Baker.
 
Whenever I see even half-praise of Josh Hawley, it allows me to note it online and start a countdown until Bart, who lives in Missouri, the state Hawley represents, pops in to respond with one of his classic, trademarked BartRants ™.
 
A few months back, Bart got a Writers Guild of America nomination for writing the Lifetime TV movie, Forever. While well-deserved, I've always thought, though, that what he should have gotten nominated for was his many years of BartRants (tm), but especially those on Josh Hawley.  Alas, the WGA doesn’t cover political bombasts.
 
Anyway, after I posted my initial comments about the New York Times article, I followed it by adding – “The floor is yours, Bart Baker.”

Because as insanely pathetic as the NYTimes story was, there was a side of me that likes it because it gave me the opportunity to tweak Bart’s attention – and then I get to sit back and revel in the BartRant (tm) that I know is coming...”

His response did not disappoint.  Bart uses rants like Shakespeare uses sonnets.  And so, I give him the final word on Josh Hawley, no matter how “even-handed” and “neutral” the New York Times wanted to be about him.

I will not reformat it to put in paragraphs for easier reading.  A BartRant (tm) deserves to be read in its stream-of-consciousness fullness.

I’m sorry, Bobby, I can’t stop laughing, wondering what the fuck is floating through the air vents at the NYT. Clearly something stronger than heroin if this article is any indication. We should hold the next rave there. Mr. Masculine himself, paper thin, lying, sanctimonious sack of shit, Joshie Hawley, was put in office by Peter Thiel’s millions and has his lips firmly attached to Trumps ass and to Project 2025. The closest Hawley gets to working class populism is when he gives the maid a fruitcake for Christmas as a bonus. Hawley has done everything to cater to the uber rich and screw the working class. Pretending you give a shit about actual living people has never been high on Hawley’s attention meter. Too busy pretending to be human - which is work for Hawley, because he’s less a man than a cipher of modern Republican cliches. If it’s found out that he’s actually an AI invention of the prompt “Can you make a replica of a modern Republican asshole” I would nod and mumble, “Now it all makes sense.” He is, was and will always be an elitist. He loves telling people how to live their lives from a perch, not in the trenches. To go to the Missouri state fair in a checkered shit and when the cameras are off run for the waiting limo. And it’s easy to pretend for a moment - when even some Republicans are starting to say “hey, wait a fucking minute, egg prices are still high and there’s no toilet paper on the shelf,” that you aren’t “that kind” of Republican. When in fact your voting record and your actions tell a different story. He’s everything wrong with politics today. ?He is a slick talking liar, grandstanding tight ass, who will never deviate from the 2025 playbook - because he sold his soul - if he ever had one - a long, long time ago. Putting his name and the words ‘working class’ in the same sentence without the word ‘hate’ between them is simply another lie. Pretending now you are of the people when you know that won’t get any real traction and all it does it make you look like you care is right on character for him. And really gross. But he doesn’t care as long as it plays.