The “It Could Be Worse” Strategy: America’s Politics by Default

The recent confirmation hearings for Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Jay Clayton, Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, have highlighted a disturbing trend in American politics. Both parties are increasingly relying on the “it could be worse” argument to justify questionable appointments.

Blanche’s hearing was a masterclass in sidestepping accountability. His involvement in the phony settlement of a phony case, which siphoned $1.8 billion from the Treasury, went unmentioned. Clayton’s performance was marked by his inability to provide a direct answer to questions about who won the 2020 election – a stunning display of deference to Trump’s baseless claims.

The explanation for this lack of scrutiny lies in the fear of the alternative. As former AG William Barr noted, rejecting these nominees would not lead to a better choice but rather invite “more chaos and a less desirable appointment.” This is the crux of the problem: America’s politics have devolved into a game of risk management, where the mere possibility of something worse becoming reality is enough to justify settling for anything short of ideal.

This phenomenon is not unique to these two nominations. It speaks to a broader rot in American democracy, where compromise and pragmatism are increasingly valued over principle and substance. The result is a politics that prioritizes stability above all else, even if it means sacrificing the integrity of institutions and the principles they represent.

Lindsey Graham’s legacy serves as a poignant reminder of this trend. His final legislative push – a sanctions bill against Russia – may pass with ease not because it’s a good piece of legislation but because it’s the lesser of two evils. The fact that his allies will use his death to push for a vote is a testament to the cynicism that now defines American politics.

Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel has highlighted the growing divisions within the Democratic Party on this issue. While the amendment ultimately failed, it marked a watershed moment in the party’s shifting views on Israel. The roll call vote revealed splits between members of leadership and past lawmakers, underscoring the challenges ahead.

The “it could be worse” strategy may serve as a temporary fix for America’s politics, but it’s a Faustian bargain at best. By prioritizing stability over substance, we risk sacrificing the very principles that underpin our democracy. As we navigate the complexities of American politics, it’s essential to remember that sometimes the “lesser evil” is still an evil in its own right.