The Liars’ Club and a Senator Who Enables It

In the 1993 thriller The Liars’ Club, a circle of teens is forced to maintain even greater loyalty than before because of one member’s involvement in a sexual assault. When the victim is murdered, the web of complicity tightens. An attempt to call an end to the deceit only results in worse transgressions.

The Republican Party under Donald Trump has transformed into own version of The Liars’ Club. Only this time, it encompasses not a small group of entitled jocks (though Secretary of War Pete Hegseth seems like an alum of such a group), but an organization of politically engaged adults.

Their silence in the face of assaults on the Constitution and democracy—from Cabinet members (like the ones in this picture, joined by Veep J.D. Vance) down to local officials asked to violate time-honored election laws and regulations—is being enforced by a President with a code of omerta worthy of a sullen crime boss.

This week’s primary losses by Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy and Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, after their undistinguished challengers were flooded with funds and endorsements by the President and his spineless surrogates, will only confirm the sense of helplessness felt by any Republicans hoping for even an inch of space from a leader bent on remolding the Grand Old Party in his own scowling image.

There is a double danger affecting the nation’s Democrats: desperation that they can no longer rely on a single member of the opposite party to rein in the President, and that a defection by one of their own might further embolden him.

Which brings us to the curious case of John Fetterman.

Lack of Prudential Judgment

A relative of mine recently noted that, though he abominated Fetterman during his successful 2022 campaign for the U.S. Senate, his views about the former Pennsylvania lieutenant governor have moderated since then. “He makes more sense than many Republicans or Democrats,” he said, observing that Fetterman had won praise for his efforts on behalf of Western Pennsylvania.

In fact, late last July, Fetterman commended the Trump administration for delivering over $1 billion in infrastructure funding to the state. Surely it didn’t escape his notice how the President interfered with funding projects to build new Hudson River rail tunnels and Army Corps of Engineers plans in cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, and Baltimore—areas controlled, not coincidentally, by Democrats.

That’s the most charitable case for why, as Jonathan Martin’s column earlier this month for Politico laid out, Fetterman has become a tempting target for Presidential courting:

“He largely ignores Trump’s transgressions, finds ways to support the White House in high-profile moments and is increasingly ubiquitous when criticizing his own party on right-coded media in ways that affirm conservative views about liberal excess.”

I am not one to disown a Democrat or progressive for wandering off the reservation when compelled by conscience. In an age of polarization, independent thinking in a public official is as important now as it was back in 1774, when father of conservatism Edmund Burke extolled the ideal of a representative who “owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

But the independence that Burke advocated depends on a sense of prudential judgment that Fetterman, in backing the Iranian War—and in even more ludicrously supporting President Trump’s plans for a White House ballroom on national security reasons—sorely lacks.

Fetterman disregarded the bona fides of Trump and his lackeys in evaluating these two propaganda offensives. That’s important, because, if administration figures are prone to congenital misleading, then an elected official must work harder to verify claims and supporting evidence.

That fails utterly with the Iranian War and the White House Ballroom, as they have been started and supported by a Liars’ Club at the highest level of the nation: Trump and his advisers.

Ballroom BS

The $200 million for the ballroom, its financing through private donors currying favor with the President, and the complete East Wing demolition required to make way for it should have concerned Fetterman. Instead, in an interview last August with Fox News Digital, he predicted that the plans would be “done in a tasteful and historical kind of way.”

“Tasteful” and “historical” in the same sentence as the President who destroyed the Rose Garden? That would be enough to make many people gag. But Fetterman compounded his error this April by spreading Trump’s claim, with no evidence, that the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner further justified the ballroom plans on security grounds.

Periodically, Trump officials should be subjected to The Pinocchio Test: i.e., the louder they scream that they are telling the truth, blameless, and innocent, the faster we should whip out rulers to measure their noses for unexplained elongations.

Administering the Pinocchio Test should be normal business on Capitol Hill in maintaining the government’s system of checks and balances. Predictably, Republicans have abdicated this role except in the cases of Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi, who so embarrassed or disappointed the President that Congressmen and Senators could safely attack them.

But it is shocking to find a Democrat like Fetterman who commits the same sin. His support for Israel’s offensive against Gaza might be excused as backing for a nation subjected to a horrendous attack.

The Iranian Insanity

But the campaign against Iran was a war of choice, the logical consequence of breaking the 2015 Iran-US nuclear treaty negotiated by the Obama administration that allowed unprecedented monitoring of uranium stockpiles.

Once Trump, at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s urging, pulled out of the pact, assessing any potential nuclear buildup became a matter of guesswork—which, as seen after the fall of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, can prove wildly mistaken.

In assessing Netanyahu’s arguments for a widened conflict that no President from either party in the prior three decades had accepted, Trump—and, consequently, Fetterman—might have thought of an exchange between Pat Riley—at that time, before becoming a Hall of Fame coach, a secondary offensive weapon for the Los Angeles Lakers—and Wilt Chamberlain.

The superstar center, according to a speech I heard Riley give at a nonprofit trade association when he was with the New York Knicks, was incredulous that his teammate had taken and missed a shot that would have won the game. What was he thinking?

“I was wide open,” Riley answered.

“Did you ever stop to think there might be a reason for that?” Chamberlain shot back.

Indeed, in reviewing past reluctance to authorize American military operations against Iran, Trump should have thought “there might be a reason for that.” Instead, with the Israeli leader feeding his fantasy of one-upping prior Presidents, he decided to join Israel in the attack.

He did so even though, according to a New York Times account of a crucial planning meeting, CIA director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed Netanyahu’s expectation of a mass Iranian uprising as fantasy, and Trump’s military advisers warned that the Strait of Hormuz could be seized.

Following the invasion, Trump, Pete Hegseth, and other officials tried out a series of shifting rationales—defeating Iranian proxies in attacks on Israel, neutralizing ballistic missiles, and regime change—before settling on what seems to be the current motivation: annihilating Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The nuclear question seems to be the best way for punching one’s ticket for admittance to the Liars’ Club. Following last June’s “Twelve-Day War,” a US-Israel joint air attack launched for this very purpose, Trump announced that Iran’s nuclear program had been “totally obliterated.”

If that was the case, why the need for another operation, particularly since no evidence has emerged of Iran restarting nuclear enrichment?

Fetterman would be far better consuming shredded lettuce than the shredded war justifications of Trump and Pete Hegseth. And someone should ask why he muted his rhetorical trumpet when Trump issued this genocidal ultimatum to Iran: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again" unless a deal was reached.

At this point, it’s worth asking: Is there any use of military force by the administration that Fetterman regards as unwise, let alone immoral?

It’s hard to tell what’s more infuriating: the Fetterman negative vote against invoking the 1973 War Powers Act that ensured its Senate defeat, or his justification for it: “I would never want to restrict any future president to do this kind of military exercise that was very successful.”

Come again? “Successful” how?

Leave aside that Fetterman doesn’t seem disturbed by an administration and its congressional lackeys who, as this “military exercise” has evolved, have claimed: a) that the war is over; b) acknowledged that the war could continue for quite some time; and c) that a deal was within reach (this, often after the Trump Organization bought stock in companies that benefited from the war).

But what can you say about an “excursion” in which the Islamic regime remains in place, having discovered an effective tool of retaliation in closing the Strait of Hormuz that it had never attempted before—and reduced the President of the United States to a tweeting, cursing madman on Easter?

Like many of his fellow Trump supporters, a longtime friend of mine has consistently derided “globalists.” But what is the President now if not a globalist, except that his inclination is based on self-aggrandizement rather than the rules-based international law that long sustained Pax Americana?

In dealing with Russia and China, Trump’s attitude has been, “We’ll grab what we can, and let you do the same.” While busy taking over Venezuela, enforcing an embargo that has reduced Cuba to a shambles, and even threatening the NATO alliance by screaming for the annexation of Greenland, the President has signaled to Vladimir Putin that he doesn’t mind if Russia takes over Ukraine.

Where has Fetterman been in all of this? On Fox News last year, he said that if the President secured a lasting peace in the Ukraine conflict, he’d gladly nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize. This then begs the question: how would Putin accept any deal that did not provide him with a net territorial gain at the expense of Ukraine?

Trump Derangement Syndrome—or Fetterman Derangement Syndrome?

Like the President, Fetterman has unleashed a round of vitriol against anyone who holds good-faith reservations about initiating a war against a nation nearly four times the area and twice the population of Iraq—a land in which, it might be remembered, the US became involved in a quagmire.

This month, with rhetoric earlier retailed by the masterminds who brought us the Vietnam War, he accused the Democratic base of becoming “increasingly anti-American.”

It didn’t stop there. In a March interview, he saw this cohort as being “governed by the TDS”—Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It’s not enough that the senator is using a shopworn version of columnist Charles Krauthammer’s “Bush Derangement Syndrome” coinage from 2003.

But he might have more profitably reflected that “TDS” refers not to administration critics but to a President who stays up all night tweeting the most absurd, bigoted, obscene memes and rants—as well as one who has started his very own Mideast forever war to go along with his domestic endless retribution campaign.

“I’m going to disagree with [Trump], but I’m always going to disagree with respect,” Fetterman vowed. That disagreement has been decidedly low-key. 

Aside from that, though, why would the senator accord respect to a head of government who doesn’t respect the dignity of the Presidency, let alone his predecessors, popes, officeholders, journalists, entertainers, economists, business leaders, and ordinary citizen?

In the face of a daily cascade of personal insults and envelope-pushing violations of the law, outrage is the more appropriate response.

“I’m never going to call people Nazis or fascists or authoritarianism and all those extreme terms,” Fetterman said on Fox News in late April. But if Trump does not crave authoritarian rule, how else to describe someone who:

*puts his image on currency and photos;

*says that the only thing restricting his conduct in office would be his own “ethics”;

*gives a tech billionaire outside government to remove congressionally authorized agencies and their staffers at will;

*threatens businesses with tariffs or lawsuits, or demands a share of profits as leverage, to pressure companies into political alignment with the administration;

*pursues prosecutions against the likes of James Comey, Mark Kelly, Governor Tim Walz, Jerome Powell, Adam Schiff, John Brennan, and Letitia James on thin to non-existent evidence;

*authorizes government agencies to harass universities, law firms, even networks with late-night talk-show hosts who joke about them.

If the pattern of Fetterman’s statements sounds familiar, it should: Robert Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard started out as progressive Democrats until their criticisms of others in their movements became louder and more frequent while their complaints about Trump turned mute before being totally abandoned.

Never mind saving his political career: If Fetterman wants to preserve his self-respect, he can look at what happened to Kennedy and Gabbard once they fell into Trump’s embraces, which ended up involving:

*shamelessly praising the President beyond what they would ever have for any Democratic leader;

*keeping silent about major policy differences with the President;

*for RFK Jr., saying nothing while one of the primary tributes to his clan, the Kennedy Center, faced physical dismantling and creative emasculation;

*for Gabbard (before her just-announced resignation), investigating preposterous 2020 electoral claims of Presidential election that were outside her authority as director of national intelligence.

As with RFK Jr., it has to be asked how much Fetterman’s move towards the right resulted from genuine policy disagreements as opposed to an erratic personality. His attempt to carry on his senatorial duties following his stroke and the depression that followed is commendable.

But the behavior catalogued in a New York Magazine article last year (e.g., driving at recklessly high speeds, as well as what a former chief of staff listed as “Conspiratorial thinking; megalomania…high highs and low lows; long, rambling, repetitive and self-centered monologues; lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious”) calls into question whether he should continue in office.

In his interview with Martin for Politico, Fetterman wondered how Trump and the GOP could tolerate a social liberal like himself when they had forced out Tom Tillis and Bill Cassidy for far less.

As a public official, if you accept and spread the arguments of The Liars’ Club, you’re only one small step from joining it. Unlike a private citizen, you have access to information that might make you change your mind. Only willful ignorance, not naivete, could cloud a failure to perceive that the paramount issue of our time is preventing the most powerful man on earth from doing whatever he likes.

That should be as good a reason for any as why Fetterman should not accommodate an ignorant, loutish billionaire with a thirst for political dominance and a gift for demagogy.

Well, maybe one more: Caligula, according to the ancient historian Suetonius, had thought so highly of his horse Incitatus that the Roman ruler thought of naming him a consul until his assassination. 

Take your pick for why: either as an example of the emperor’s madness or of his contempt for the Senate—two traits typical of America’s current aspiring authoritarian.