Think about what you’re willing to do personally. You’re in a group, whether it is a tennis group, a golf club, a sewing circle, a reading group, wherever it is, and you got nine people in the group. And five of them have a view on where, in fact, we’re on, on a position. And four on the other side. And one of the five thinks that, well, maybe the four are correct. But unless they’re pretty damn sure that if they go with that other group, they’re gonna win, it’s not worth dying on a small cross. So what do you do? You stay away.



I predicted once we found that we took back the House, you would find members of the House of Representatives who thought that some of the policies ... being proposed by the administration were wrong would start to step up. No sense in stepping up when you’re going to lose anyway, because then you’re in real trouble with your own outfit. But it becomes worth it if you step up and it actually changes policy. That’s what you [are] beginning to see in the House. And that’s [what] you begin to see in the Senate.



I’m not suggesting all of a sudden everyone’s going to project a new sense of courage and political courage. What I’m suggesting [is] that the dynamic changes when the right vote, as opposed to the vote you don’t agree with, becomes a possibility if you vote for it. But when it’s not a possibility if you vote for it, there’s no sense in doing it because all you’re doing is going to be ostracized by your outfit. And nothing’s going to change. That’s just the way human nature works. Think about it [in] your own lives. That’s how politics works. And so that’s why I think you’re going to see even Mitch McConnell changing some ideas or being more ― how can I say ― mildly cooperative.