Anatomy of a speech: how does a Republican leader say no to Trump? | US politics

How can a Republican leader say no to Donald Trump? How can they criticize the US president’s policies without facing a social media riot or losing their careers?

As the party struggles to redraw key congressional districts after the Supreme Court effectively gutted a major section of the Voting Rights Act that prevented racial discrimination, all eyes this week have been on South Carolina.

But in a 45-minute speech before the state Senate, Republican Majority Leader Shane Massey rejected Trump’s demands to redraw the congressional map.

Laying out his case, Massey made clear Tuesday that he was speaking to three audiences: his House colleagues, his state’s Republican voters and the president himself. Democrats – whom he described as “crazy” and “hateful” – were not the intended audience.

And in this rancorous political era, dominated by tribal divisions and binary rhetoric, he tried to craft a nuanced position as top Republican Party officials, including Henry McMaster, the governor of South Carolina, pushed for redistricting.

Trump frequently demonizes anyone, especially conservatives, who dares to oppose his agenda. Massey made that difficult by trying to show that he remained firmly aligned with most of the president’s policy goals. But not this one.

I had never had the privilege of speaking with the President of the United States until last week. And it really was – it was a privilege. I enjoyed the conversation. It was a very good conversation. He gave me more time on a phone call than I could have expected…

The president told me, he said, “Look, I hope you can help us. » He said: “But I understand that you have to do what you are comfortable with, you have to do what you think is right.”

He said, “But these people” – speaking of the Democrats in Washington – he said, “These people are crazy. » “Yes, sir, I agree with you.” He said to me: “These people hate me. »

And I think, Mr. President, that it is obvious. There is no doubt about it. There is a lot of hatred in Washington. There is a lot of hatred in the world. And he is certainly the recipient. There is no doubt about it.

Six of South Carolina’s seven U.S. congressional districts are held by Republicans. The new map under consideration would dismantle the only district currently held by a Democrat: longtime Rep. and party heavyweight James Clyburn.

Massey has made it clear that he wants Republicans to win the race for U.S. Congress in the November midterm elections. He touted his party’s power at the state level to advance conservative goals, insisting he shared Trump’s concerns and had no qualms about “antagonizing” Democrats. “It doesn’t bother me,” Massey said. “I do this every day, standing here.”

But Massey then turned to a plain-language analysis of what he sees as practical problems with South Carolina’s last-minute redistricting project: This is not an ideological problem, but a legal and technical problem.

“Most people… think we’re really crazy.”

Massey argued that South Carolina was as carved up as possible — by party, not by race — without creating vulnerability for Republicans. He carefully framed his argument not to preserve the district of a black, Democratic congressman, but to preserve the electability of his fellow Republicans in districts that should absorb Democratic voters.

He also tore apart the details of the proposal and how it divided “communities of interest”: a term that black voters have often used in legal arguments against redistricting. Here, Massey turns it around to apply it to ruby-red counties along the South Carolina coast and elsewhere. In doing so, he underscored a partisan interest in preserving local relationships in parts of South Carolina that Washington residents could not identify on an anonymous map, relationships that remain invisible even on a marked map.

Those who wrote the redistricting proposal failed to take into account the concerns of “South Carolinians and South Carolinians,” Massey suggested. “When they drew this map, they didn’t take these things into account,” he said.

“They,” in this case, is a faceless other—which allows Massey to avoid blaming the president or his party’s representatives, presenting the problem as “Washington,” both an idea and a target.

Although he was conciliatory toward Trump, welcoming the prospect of Republicans retaining the House, Massey expressed disdain for the political product Washington sends back to South Carolina. The general voting public is increasingly fed up with politics, regardless of party.

“What worries me is how this will be perceived by people in the community,” he said of the redistricting campaign. “Look, everyone – I think we get lost on this sometimes – not everyone in South Carolina is a rabid partisan like me. Not everyone in South Carolina is a rabid partisan like us. Most people in South Carolina think we’re really crazy.”

He has sometimes been less than positive about his own party’s recent record in the US Congress, where he currently holds a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I hope the home team can maintain the majority. And I also hope that if the home team keeps the majority, they will turn it into something productive. Over the last year and a half, I guess if we look at what they’ve done with the majority, I don’t know if anyone here could name more than one piece of legislation that they’ve passed.

And no matter how big and beautiful it was, there’s so much more they left on the table. And that, to me, is disappointing – to have a majority that does nothing about it.

The map under consideration runs counter to Republican interests, Massey suggested, even if the party’s leaders in Washington don’t know that themselves — calling into question whether it would ultimately leave the party with more or fewer representatives in South Carolina’s Congress.

“It’s up to us to decide”

A backlash is likely to energize black voters, which could cost Republicans some seats, he said.

Trying to get to 7-0 is, I think, extremely risky from a political standpoint. I think at best you’ll get 6-1 and you might even get 5-2. I’ve said this to the press many times, I think if you’re cute with it, you could end up in a 5-2 scenario. I don’t want to go 5-2.

I don’t want [Democratic House minority leader] Hakeem Jeffries as Speaker of the House. I think South Carolina’s best chance of preventing this from happening lies in our current maps.

“If Democrats are able to take control of the United States House of Representatives, it won’t be because of South Carolina,” he said. The unspoken implication: if the Democrats win, it will be because of actions taken in Washington DC.

The speech contained references to South Carolina’s independence from Washington, while Massey expressed deep fears about its abandonment.

I cannot, in good conscience, renounce that authority which has been preserved for the benefit of, for and by the States, and be content to take orders from those not in South Carolina…

I completely understand what the president’s concern is here. I understand what the president’s problem is here. I don’t disagree with that. But there are other concerns we need to consider. These concerns have not been taken into account at all in the proposal we have. These concerns affect South Carolina and South Carolinians. And it’s up to us to consider these things.

If we don’t address South Carolina’s concerns, there will be no one left. We are the last line. I have too much southern blood in me to surrender.

John C Calhoun was a staunchly pro-slavery South Carolina senator in antebellum America who passionately argued that states had the right to ignore federal laws they deemed unconstitutional.

Massey approached Calhoun’s portrait as he outlined his opposition to a proposal to rid South Carolina of its only black member of Congress, in a bold move that would have been immediately recognized by his peers.

That’s not a reference a black senator or Democrat is likely to make. This is a reference offered to an audience of white Southern conservatives. Massey presented his opposition as defending the Southern tradition of states’ rights: in exactly the same way that white Southern conservatives framed their opposition to the civil rights movement.

“I do not want to participate in a further erosion of federalism, in an even greater reduction in the essential role of the States,” he maintained. “States are not mere political subdivisions of the federal government. States are not there to take orders and directives – states are sovereign, independent creatures.”

“Everyone knows it”

Massey spoke of the pressure he faced to comply with Trump’s demands, which would have been a priority for a Republican lawmaker who saw what happened last week to Republicans who rejected redistricting in Indiana, five of whom lost primary elections to Trump-backed candidates.

“There will probably be consequences for me, personally, in taking the position that I am now,” he admitted. “I’m comfortable with it. I might not like it, but I’m comfortable with it.”

“Too many people in power want to do whatever it takes to stay in power,” Massey said. “I believe the legitimate use of power in this matter is to keep people safe.”

Other portraits the Republican majority leader in the South Carolina Senate cited were Congressman and U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Byrnes and Floyd Spence, a 14-term congressman who chaired the Armed Services Committee.

At the heart of his argument was a simple argument: Washington, D.C. should listen to South Carolina, not the other way around.

We’ve been able to punch above our weight, no matter the administration, no matter the president, no matter who occupies the White House. South Carolina has been able to deliver not only for South Carolina, but for the country and the world.

We had this influence. Doing this will absolutely diminish that influence. It simply will. And everyone knows it. Everyone here, everyone who knows the process, we understand what’s going to happen here…

Whoever the president is, whoever is in charge, there has to be someone in South Carolina who can make a phone call and someone in the White House will answer it. If we don’t have that, it’s South Carolinians who will suffer.

The consequences of this challenge remain to be seen.