Jack Danforth swings for decency against Trump—and, in Missouri, he misses

If you’re a liberal in St. Louis or a moderate or even a vegetarian conservative when it comes to red-meat politics, it’s time to pull up an easy chair and grab some popcorn.

These Republicans have become really entertaining.

Best Supporting Actor goes to former U.S. Senator Jack Danforth, who recently penned a searing op-ed piece in the Post—the Washington one, not ours—headlined “The real reason Trump is not a Republican.” Danforth sharply criticized Trump for tearing the nation apart:

“Trump is always eager to tell people that they don’t belong here, whether it’s Mexicans, Muslims, transgender people or another group. His message is, ‘You are not one of us,’ the opposite of ‘e pluribus unum.’ And when he has the opportunity to unite Americans, to inspire us, to call out the most hateful among us, the KKK and the neo-Nazis, he refuses.”

In his most earnest St. Jack voice, the lifelong Republican torched Trump with language that would be decried as overheated partisan hyperbole if it came from anyone this side of Trump’s fascist pals in the alt-right.

Consider this tidbit: “Now comes Trump, who is exactly what Republicans are not, who is exactly what we have opposed in our 160-year history. We are the party of the Union, and he is the most divisive president in our history. There hasn’t been a more divisive person in national politics since George Wallace.”

And this: “Our country needs a responsibly conservative party. But our party has been corrupted by this hateful man, and it is now in peril.”

Corrupted this by this hateful man? Wow, Jack, those are pretty strong words. What ought we to do about it?

“In honor of our past and in belief in our future, for the sake of our party and our nation, we Republicans must disassociate ourselves from Trump by expressing our opposition to his divisive tactics and by clearly and strongly insisting that he does not represent what it means to be a Republican.”

That’s it? Disassociate? Express our opposition? Insist?

As a spectator, I’m a bit confused. If someone is hateful and has corrupted and imperiled the political party that you love, don’t you have to come down a little harder than insistence and expressed opposition? Those are the kinds of emotions you express as a Republican when they ban ascots at a polo match.

We’re talking about Trump’s being the most divisive president in American history (the senator’s hyperbole, not mine). Expressing opposition is all you’ve got?

Yep. In subsequent interviews, Danforth was asked what Republican officeholders should do about a president who, to quote further, “stands in opposition to the founding principle of our party—that of a united country.” Why, nothing, apparently, if they’re worried about losing votes.

“It’s easier for me to say it…being out of politics, than for somebody who’s in it,” Danforth told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I understand that. But the bigger picture is, what is the Republican Party? Are we like Trump, or not like Trump? We have to make it clear we’re not like Trump. It’s a matter of principle.”

I don’t “understand it.” Since when are matters of principle not the province of elected officials? If someone is “the most divisive president in our history,” isn’t it incumbent upon all incumbents to speak out? Instead, here’s the new credo of Republican officeholders: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, so we’ll keep them to ourselves, if it’s all the same to you.”

In fairness to Danforth, he’s trying to do the right thing, and compared with today’s Republican senators’ exploits, his three-term record as a leading moderate voice in the Senate looks like extraordinary statesmanship. But in 2017, he’s also part of a cycle that’s getting a little old: A Republican leader makes him- or herself look courageous and independent by chastising Trump and his administration with harsh rhetoric, only to return to “support the president’s agenda,” out of the spotlight, a week later. In this case, if Danforth is serious about Trump’s being such a “hateful man,” how can he support politicians who support Trump?

That brings us to Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, for whom Danforth has been a champion second to none. Danforth and other Republicans tabbed Hawley for superstardom after he proved his mettle by serving roughly four days as attorney general. He was ostensibly “drafted” to challenge Claire McCaskill for her U.S. Senate seat in 2018, shoving aside—among others—Congresswoman Ann Wagner, a newfound Trump BFF.

Here’s where it gets entertaining again. It turns out that Danforth’s attack on Trump isn’t playing that well in these parts. Despite Trump’s narcissistic personality disorder, moral unfitness, and totalitarian impulses (my words, not Danforth’s), the president remains quite popular in this increasingly red state.

So, for Danforth protégé Hawley, having your patron saint go off the rails with regard to Trump is not such a great thing. Suddenly the ex-senator is looking about as useful to Hawley as a friendraiser tea hosted by Nancy Pelosi.

After Danforth’s piece came out, reporters made a beeline to Hawley, who has apparently joined the witness protection program and will be permanently unable to comment on the Trump aversion of this fellow hereafter known as “Jack who?”

What great fun for the rest of us. At a time when Republicans should be relishing their ironclad control of government at all levels, heads appear to be exploding over someone’s audacity in challenging this unfit president.

Consider the example of local conservative radio and TV host Jamie Allman—one of the most prominent voices on the right—who, according to The Kansas City Star, didn’t take kindly to Danforth’s screed. “Danforth is the main supporter of Josh Hawley, which makes it almost close to impossible that I could ever get behind a Hawley candidacy for Senate with John Danforth around,” Allman said on the air.

As if that weren’t pleasing enough to the many of us who are glad to have McCaskill representing Missouri, there was also this from the Star: Ed Martin, former chair of the Missouri Republican Party (and a St. Louisan), tweeted that if Hawley can’t denounce Danforth’s criticism of Trump, he shouldn’t run against McCaskill.

Even better, just six days after Danforth’s piece was published, Trump showed up for a speech in Springfield, Missouri, ranked seventh among “America’s Most Bible-Minded Cities 2017” by the American Bible Society. How rich do you like your irony? Roll the Access Hollywood tape; the Groper-in-Chief just popped a Tic Tac and is coming to a pew near you.

Amusingly enough, Trump’s visit spelled even more trouble for Hawley among party faithful, because as it turns out, Hawley had planned a family vacation that he chose not to interrupt to greet Trump. Allman’s response: “If you’re a Republican and you avoid being there, we’re taking your name.”

One Republican whose name didn’t need to be taken was Wagner. She didn’t miss the chance for a little payback, telling Allman that she had postponed scheduled events to greet Trump: “I’m going to be there from the moment he gets off that plane.”

Why wouldn’t she? With Bible-minded Springfield as a backdrop, she’d have the perfect opportunity to invoke sex trafficking victims again and remind Trump of the “predatory and reprehensible” remarks that prompted her to demand his resignation from the GOP just 10 short months ago.

See also: Why Ann Wagner could be pivotal if things get scarier

Of course, that was then, and this is now. If you don’t believe me, ask Danforth, who finds himself even more ostracized from his own party in Missouri than he was in early 2016. Then, the object of his scorn was state party chairman John Hancock, whom he falsely—and viciously—blamed for the suicide of Missouri Auditor Tom Schweich, then a gubernatorial hopeful.

St. Jack proclaimed, “I think [Hancock] should be repudiated by all Republicans.” He was wrong, and for once, state Republicans did the right thing and didn’t force Hancock out.

Hancock presided over the most successful Missouri election in Republican Party history (unfortunately, I would add) and left with his reputation in good stead. Danforth didn’t do any favors for his own generally rich legacy among Republicans, but everyone moved on.

See also: Tragically Flawed: Why no one should try to make public sense of a suicide

This time, though, Danforth is squarely on the right side of history. He said all the right things to his fellow Republicans. Yet his warranted attack on Trump will produce the same result in Missouri as his unwarranted one on Hancock: nothing.

Today’s state Republican Party is, in the words of one Twitter addict, “Sad.”

But it’s fun to watch.

SLM publisher Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.