Trump and the death of shame: How America's reality was annihilated today

Eric Schmitt humiliated himself on live TV today. It was during testimony by Jack Smith, the special prosecutor who charged Donald Trump. The Missouri senator's self-own was so spectacular that it overshadowed Smith's opening statement in which he said he found "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump engaged in serious crimes against our nation."

Maybe that was the goal. If so, it backfired. The Times: "Senator Eric Schmitt’s accusation that Smith attended an NBA game in Atlanta to secretly meet with prosecutors pursuing Trump there — which appeared to immediately fall apart — is overshadowing every other exchange at the hearing on social media. It has the potential to undermine Republican efforts to demolish Smith’s credibility by demonstrating a carelessness with basic facts."

But Schmitt was the careless one. He accused Smith of conspiring with Fanni Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, who indicted Donald Trump. Schmitt presented enlarged copies of text messages he said came from Smith's team. He said they placed Smith at an NBA game, the day after news broke of Willis' affair with a county prosecutor. We were supposed to understand the implication that Smith was scheming with Willis against Trump.

In his closing remarks, Schmitt said, addressing Smith, that "you may think you're the hero in this story, but let me tell you something. You're the villain." He added: "You have done so much damage. As a former prosecutor, I can say there's so much damage to the trust and faith people have in our system. You have weaponized the Department of Justice against political enemies to an extent that has never happened in the history of this country.

"You will go down as a total dirtbag."

That sounded noble. That sounded just.

Only one problem.

He confused the Hawks of Atlanta with the Hawkeyes of Iowa.

Political journalist Dave Weigel called the scene "cinematic": "The sly smirk when Schmitt thinks he's gotten Smith to perjure himself. The hasty vanishing of the sign. [Minnesota Senator Amy] Klobuchar getting [Louisiana Senator John] Kennedy to hold it up. Schmitt getting loud and angry when Klobuchar points out he mixed up the Hawks and Hawkeyes."

Nick Fish, the president of the American Atheists, an advocacy group, was less charitable: "The s----eating grin from Schmitt and the staffer chuds behind him — just before stepping on a rake — is the current state of the Republican Party in Congress. Brains pickled by conspiracy theories that immediately collapse under the slightest examination."

Even so, Schmitt won't lose credibility. Like all Republicans, he has a media infrastructure that not only advances his interests but prevents him from facing the consequences of failure. This morning, before testimony, Axios ran a friendly story promoting Schmitt as a possible running mate for JD Vance. ("We hear the VP views Schmitt, 51, as trustworthy, intelligent, articulate and a deft political operator," Jim VandeHei wrote.) Afterward, Schmitt went on The Charlie Kirk Show, the podcast still named after the late propagandist. "You caught [Smith] in this NBA game too in Atlanta," the host says. "Yeah," Schmitt replies. (This is in the context of a ferocious online effort at damage control. "This is like a full court press," Elias Isquith reported. "All the maga accounts on Twitter are promoting alternative facts.")

As I said at the top, Schmitt's humiliation today was spectacular. If you consume only rightwing media, however, you might not know it was humiliation at all. You might even think Schmitt took Smith down in the name of the people. If the future of democracy depends on shared truth, and if shame is the right response to bad faith, what is the future of democracy when men like Eric Schmitt not only shrug off humiliation but are even rewarded for it?

For an answer, I got in touch with Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. An expert on governance, he publishes a newsletter called Can We Still Govern? He watched the Schmitt episode and how Sean Hannity framed his humiliation as victory. "Once you go along with the claim that American elections were stolen, or that immigrants are eating pets, you've shown you will go along with anything," he said.

In this brief interview, I asked Professor Moynihan how can anyone govern in a climate in which shame no longer matters politically and what the Democrats can do about it?

Eric Schmitt humiliated himself. Then he went on a friendly podcast to pretend he didn't. Future democracy depends on a majority understanding the truth. But rightwing media is dedicated to warping it. Can anyone govern in this climate?

A virtue we do not value enough in governing is shame. If you went on the Senate floor and made plainly false accusations, you should be ashamed of yourself. If not, other people should shame you! Amy Klobuchar did a good job of calling Schmitt out when he would not acknowledge his gotcha had backfired, but if he had any decency, he should have owned up to it himself.

Seems to me Dems do not value shame enough. They try to move on to more "important things," even if it's just decorum. It would be good politics to drop everything else and focus on the shameful acts. Liberals generally underrate the power of humiliation. Thoughts?

I'd put it differently. I think Republicans are more successful in turning events into scandals. That is what Schmitt was trying to do today, and it seemed he had already queued up a bunch of right-wing media to cover what turned out to be a misfire. Lets take another example, which is secret F-35 airline parts being shipped to China. The issue has certainly been covered in the media, but I suspect if it happened under a Democratic President, it would be wall-to-wall coverage on Fox and Newsmax and the wider rightwing media. We would see talking heads and Republicans make the case that this was an example of incompetence, and demanding resignations.

Why can’t Dems do the same?

Despite the persistent rightwing complaints of a liberal media bias, the reality is that traditional mainstream media does not want to be viewed as partisan cheerleaders, to the point that they will bend over backwards to demonstrate fairness.

So it might not be possible for Dems to shame Republicans in a persistent way that deters shameful acts?

I think Dems operate in a more discerning media landscape than their counterparts. The fact that Hannity posted about Schmitt putting Smith "on the spot" as if it was a big victory moment rather than a screw-up is telling. Rachel Maddow would not embarrass herself in that way. But once you go along with the claim that American elections were stolen, or that immigrants are eating pets, you've shown you will go along with anything.

So back to the beginning: how does anyone govern in this climate?

The truth still matters. For the last couple of years, we have seen a style of governing that is a mixture of conspiracy and fantasy, but sooner or later, reality still matters. If the midterms go as predicted, and Republicans are shellacked, I wonder if they will have a real conversation about the degree to which they have focused more on feeding the base conspiracy theories versus actually fixing real problems. Because right now, it feels like stunts like Schmitt are less and less connected to reality.