THOMAS MASSIE AND THE QUIET DEATH OF THE AMERICAN OFFICE

Get 20% off for 1 month

Broadly speaking, republics do not die in a single afternoon. They die in two distinct movements, separated sometimes by decades and sometimes by a single primary night in Kentucky. The first death occurs the moment public office ceases to be a function of the polity and begins to operate as an extension of a particular will, generally the will of a man who has discovered, somewhere along the way, that personal loyalty is a far more pliable substance than constitutional fidelity. The second death is purely notarial, a quiet entry made by historians a generation later, and in this sense entirely uninteresting. What matters is the first.

The defeat of Thomas Massie in the Republican primary of Kentucky belongs to that first death.

For more than a decade Massie occupied an exceedingly rare position in the lower chamber of the American Congress, a position that called for an old and rather inconvenient virtue. An instinctive libertarian, allergic to foreign adventures, hostile to the endless metastasis of the federal apparatus, and stubborn enough to vote against his own party whenever conscience required, he was one of the few legislators in Washington capable of opposing a multibillion dollar war package without resembling a university activist in a borrowed keffiyeh. In a capital populated almost exclusively by careerists domesticated by lobbies, Massie preserved that increasingly rare quality which the ancients called *libertas*, and which we, for want of an honest word, are forced to translate as independence. Precisely because of this, he had to be destroyed.

The campaign of slow annihilation that Donald Trump waged against Massie was not, properly speaking, ideological, since the ideological distance between the two men was always smaller than the rhetorical theater suggested. It was emotional, even glandular, and rooted in a pathology that has come to define late trumpism with embarrassing clarity, namely the inability to tolerate any public figure who fails to operate as a psychological appendage of the leader. Original trumpism arose as a populist revolt against a bureaucratic, financial and military establishment grown deaf to the country it claimed to govern, and there was real virtue in that revolt. Late trumpism, however, behaves more and more like a Byzantine court in which the supreme political metric has ceased to be competence or courage or coherence, and has become instead the simple disposition to kneel in public.

Massie, my friend, never accepted the choreography.

His mortal sin consisted in behaving as an elected representative rather than as an affective functionary of a personalist movement, a distinction the Founders would have recognized at once and which most of the Republican caucus has long since forgotten. He criticized federal spending when criticism was required, resisted war agendas when resistance was required, questioned overseas operations when questioning was required, and maintained a generally Aristotelian skepticism toward the tribal automatism that has converted a substantial portion of the American right into a machine for conditional applause. In any minimally healthy republic this would be classified as institutional virtue, indeed as the very quality that distinguishes a legislator from a sycophant. In an environment contaminated by the emotional Caesarism of digital crowds, it became a crime of *lèse-majesté*.

The historical irony is, as Chesterton might have observed, of a particularly cruel kind, because the same movement that for years denounced the so called deep state ended by treating every internal dissent with exactly the methods of the old party machinery it once claimed to combat. The difference is purely cosmetic. Where once there were the smiling neoconservatives of the Bush era and the bureaucrats of the Heritage Foundation and the priestly caste of the Atlanticist consensus, there now reigns a digital plebiscitary cult moved by instantaneous resentment, in which divergence has been reclassified as heresy and constitutional prudence is routinely confused with treason. The decor changes; the logic of the inquisition remains. Yet there is something darker beneath this defeat, and it is here that the analysis must descend a floor or two.

Massie happened to be one of the few voices in the Capitol who pressed, with genuine and uncomfortable insistence, for the full release of the documents connected to Jeffrey Epstein, and this fact alone is sufficient to explain a great deal that the official narrative prefers to leave unexplained. The Epstein affair stopped being a sexual scandal involving a degenerate billionaire some time ago, and became instead a kind of obscene radiograph of the subterranean structures of power that govern the contemporary West, an X-ray in which the bones of the regime appear with embarrassing clarity. The recurring guests of those islands and mansions and parties always orbited the same circles of financiers, academics, members of the political aristocracy, intelligence operators, celebrities and figures connected to the international establishment, and the entire matter exhales, even to the most charitable observer, the unmistakable odor of a protected operation. The succession of convenient failures, of timely deaths, of vanishing evidence and of sustained institutional resistance to full disclosure has produced, over the years, a devastating effect upon the moral authority of American institutions.

Massie understood this, and that, broadly speaking, is what could not be tolerated. His demand for the unsealing of the archives, far from being the form of political voyeurism that the more sentimental commentators preferred to denounce, was the elementary attempt to restore to Congress some residue of the moral authority owed to a representative chamber, in a country whose citizens have come, with increasing reason, to suspect the existence of an untouchable caste operating somewhere above the law. When legislators cease to investigate the networks of power that compromise the financial and political elites of their own nation, the legislative body in question stops functioning as a national representation and begins to operate, with surprising efficiency, as an administrative department of oligarchic protection. The defeat of Massie communicates, with brutal didactic clarity, precisely this lesson to the rest of the Congress, namely that to confront sensitive structures is to incur a terminal political cost, that to investigate too deeply is to invite ostracism financed by enormous electoral machinery, and that institutional independence will be ground into powder whenever it touches superior interests invisible to the median voter.

There is, in all of this, something almost suicidal. The United States are passing through a profound crisis of legitimacy, the kind of crisis Tocqueville foresaw and which Madison feared with the trembling lucidity of a man who had already imagined the worst. Public confidence has collapsed across the press, the universities, the federal agencies, the courts and the electoral system itself, with an intensity that no living American can remember having witnessed at any other moment in the national experience. In such an environment, the systematic destruction of the few parliamentary figures who still preserve the appearance of independence accelerates precisely the catastrophe the establishment claims to wish to avoid, since republics, dear reader, do not die only by military coups but more frequently by the slow conversion of their institutions into private instruments of emotional, financial or ideological factions, a conversion always invisible to those who benefit most from it.

It is here that the petty vengeance of Trump assumes contours of historical danger, contours that extend far beyond the personal vanity of a single man. A leader who transforms every disagreement into a personal crusade inevitably corrodes the very institutional mechanisms that permitted his ascent in the first place, and the populism that began as a corrective instrument transmutes, almost imperceptibly, into a mechanism of collective domestication. The republican logic surrenders the field to what we may, for lack of a better term, call *feudalismus emotionalis*, in which loyalty to the lord replaces fidelity to the office, and in which the office itself becomes a kind of fief granted in exchange for visible submission.

In the end, perhaps the greatest legacy of the Massie defeat will be neither his absence from Congress nor the personal triumph of the man who orchestrated it, but rather the public confirmation that certain questions are no longer to be asked in Washington, and that those who insist upon asking them will be removed by procedures sufficiently democratic to preserve the aesthetic of democracy. Who protected Epstein, who frequented his properties, who appeared on the recordings, who has been quietly leveraged, who remains untouchable in this season and every season to come. These questions persist, of course, because reality, unlike politics, does not yield to primary results. The novelty is merely that no one in the chamber will be left to ask them aloud. And in this, finally, the movement that promised to drain the swamp has accomplished something quite remarkable, having succeeded not by draining it but by ensuring that no man remains who would still be tempted to wade in.

Leave a comment