Juan #CiscoMAGA the Traitor & David Schweikert the GOP’s Cassandra

Larry Bodine and I attended a live town hall style event in Green Valley, and for once had access to Juan Ciscomani in a format other than a highly-controlled teletown hall. Larry’s report on the event is pretty comprehensive, so I don’t have much to add to his presentation, other than my own few takeaways.

Juan Ciscomani’s consistency soft-pedals his own moral and practical responsibility for the persecution of the very sort of person that his father was – working-class immigrants. He is the Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the almighty Appropriations Committee. He is powerful, a leader, and a decider who is a prime mover in the hard-line political fight to fully resource President Trump’s and Stephen Miller’s constitution-violating ICE/HLS private militia in attacking our immigrant and minority communities.

CiscoMAGA is not an embodiment of the American Dream, as he constantly claims and reminds us; he is the embodiment of the traitor who gains power by destroying and consuming those who birthed and nurtured him. He is the Benedict Arnold of the American immigrant experience. He is not proof of that the American Dream lives on; he’s the tool of those who would see that Dream destroyed and re-crafted into a nightmare. He is an opportunist con-artist parlaying his origin story into personal power, which he is using to help racists and fascists destroy the very possibilities and opportunities he embodies: as such, he’s utterly contemptible.

The final thing that struck me was that no one in the audience had any real questions for Ciscomani. One fellow diatribed about minorities committing fraud in the form of a question, but the 180 or so audience members seemed almost afraid to ask any questions of Juan. Larry and I didn’t just so that we wouldn’t inadvertently out ourselves as donkeys in a sea of elephants! No one even had a question about how Trump just lost a war on Iran! Weird.

Let’s move on to David Schweikert. Even a lot of the Republicans who came to the town hall did not stay to see Rep. Schweikert – he had a blowout flat tire on the way down to Green Valley. Very scary – no doubt – as he was at highway speeds with his three-year-old adopted son in the car at the time: a very dangerous situation, indeed, which could have played out tragically. Thus, he was considerably delayed in his arrival, and most of the crowd left before he could even arrive. I believe so many left, in part, because they already view him as an also-ran in his quest to capture the Republican nomination for Arizona Governor against the TPUSA-backed and Trump-endorsed Andy Biggs. Larry and I persisted and were, I think, amply rewarded for doing so with David’s insights.

I profoundly disagree with most of David’s self-professed “profoundly conservative” politics, but he is much more of a traditional fiscal and social conservative than the many MAGA fascists, racists, and grifters now comprising the mainstream of the GOP. That makes him already more sympathetic and relatable to me. I can perceive admirable qualities in him that I too infrequently see in Republican politicians these days. I’ve never had a deep political problem with real conservatives, and have been proud to call some friends, and worthy and constructive adversaries.

However, as admirable as David is in some ways, he is also arrogant in his philosophy, to my mind. He seems to think he holds the intellectual high ground in public policy because he understands the math and fiscal constraints at the core of the gigantic enterprise that is the U.S. Federal Government and our broader free-market financial systems. He believes himself a kind of Cassandra or biblical prophet, persecuted because of the clarity of his vision granted by the gods of the fisc. I believe he sees himself as somewhat of a tragic and heroic figure, and I can understand why: realism does not constrain the modern GOP populist/fascist mind. Too many of his contemporaries are the furthest from being realists – they are radical revolutionaries, who are perfectly happy to destroy everything in order to build society anew in conformity with their nationalist, racial, and religious beliefs; David is not, I think – he strikes me as an actual conservative in the traditional sense of conserving and preserving and perfecting the status quo ante.

But what David fails to appreciate is that when matters of finance, money and math are considered at the commanding heights of financial institutions and governments, the numbers are more of a belief system and a thesis of societal values than they are representative of ‘real’ money. David tends to forget that money is a social construct that embodies and structures relationships of power, not just numbers in a ledger. David reasonably foresees intractable economic outcomes from current financial trends, and believes that American citizens must accommodate themselves to the numbers, instead of the numbers serving the goals of our nation’s people.

This is the biggest blind-spot in his remarkable intellect, I feel. He is full of solutions and schemes to solve problems (many seem workable and even brilliant), but he wholly accepts that the social compacts and accommodations embodied in those financial and governmental arrangements are meant to serve human flourishing and happiness. Unfortunately, many of those systems are not constructed for the betterment of all, but for the benefit of a few, to the detriment of the rest. It seems a tragic flaw to me, because his deep (and I trust and believe sincere) Christian faith holds the very seeds that could make him a great reformer in support of human flourishing, rather than a mere servant enabling and perpetuating the flourishing of those currently advantaged by our social constructs that he collects numbers and statistics about so diligently.

Enough about David’s mind and soul. What of the news he imparted to the remaining crowd? First, he knows he is way behind and the underdog in the gubernatorial Republican primary race. His main argument in this fight is that Andy Biggs is unelectable by a statewide general electorate. He may be right in that – in fact, I’m counting on it for Democrats to retain the Governorship with Hobbs. I asked him during the public QA directly (once the elephant/donkey ratio had abated somewhat with so many early departures) about his thesis on Biggs’ electability, and he agreed with me that any reasonable oppo book on Biggs’ history of public positions on the issues, radical statements, and involvement with Jan 6th would kill any chance of his election. David seems to recognize he has successfully maintained his own position in his fairly moderate district while being “much more conservative than my district” by being disciplined about his messaging. There simply isn’t as much ammunition in an oppo book on David to use in a general election with a basically 30/30/30 electorate.

Secondly, I think David let slip a key fact from his campaign’s internal polling. David claimed that, if Biggs is the nominee, polling indicates that Democrats will not only keep the Governor’s Office, but we will also capture one or both chambers of the state legislature. And, presumably, if Schwiekert is the nominee, the GOP may retain the legislature, and are at least within the margin of error of retaking the Governorship. I have not seen, and cannot find, any public polling that supports this thesis. For all I know, David may be just making shit up, but I doubt it. I think David’s own internal campaign polling truly indicates this is a likely or possible outcome, and he is more than happy to share this discovered fact in certain settings.

David makes the electability case in his media appearances frequently, and Andy seems to validate the concern by trying to emphasize his ‘moderate’ record, though it may be thin. See, for instance, around three minutes in:

I have not seen or heard this claim regarding the GOP’s potential loss of the Arizona legislature if Biggs is the nominee elsewhere. In fact, that style of linkage analysis tends to show up in internal party memos or election‑modeling shops, not in public polls. So, I think this knock on might be a new bit of intel from David’s own internal polling.

Next, consider that neither Biggs nor Schweikert has substantial executive experience leading a large enterprise of any sort. I think Schweikert has more plausibly relevant organizational executive-level experience than Biggs, but that’s not saying much. Both are deficient in executive leadership, and both seem temperamentally and personally ill-suited to the role. David strikes me as a slightly on-the-spectrum intellectual numbers guy. Biggs is just an utterly charmless sociopath who says incredibly offensive and insensitive things all the time. Both personalities and interpersonal styles might have their place in legislative politics, but neither strikes me as an inspiring executive leader. So, neither has any advantage on Hobbs in that regard.

In conclusion, it seems that Biggs’s candidacy would benefit the Democratic Party’s prospects in November, both for the Governorship and the State Leg. And that looks likely to be the case, per the current polling, absent some amazing crudescence by David’s campaign. So, go #BiggsestTrumpLicker!

I was able to ask one question of David privately after the event, and that was if he had concerns about the Universal ESA Vouchers program due to the very high reported fraud rates of up to 30%. What David said is pretty much in line with what Biggs says about it: that it is trivially easy to correct. But I wonder if either Congressman has spoken recently with the GOP caucus in the state legislature? They seem utterly obdurate to ANY reforms, even those designed to curb fraud. Thus, I suspect that they are both out of touch with the legislative caucuses they seek to work with as Governor. Lucky for us all, I think neither has any large chance of being Governor, and maybe if the more likely outcome comes to pass with Biggs as the nominee, we might just improve our chances of taking the AZ Leg, as well.