Senator Murkowski: “We Are All Afraid”
A chilling admission from a leader in the President's OWN party
“We are all afraid,” Murkowski said, taking a long pause. “It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I’ll tell ya, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”
Sitting Republican US Senator Lisa Murkowski made this stunning and candid admission this past Monday while speaking to constituents in Alaska. Here are more details from the Anchorage Daily News:
The Republican senior senator appeared for a 45-minute discussion with Laurie Wolf, president and CEO of The Foraker Group, during its annual leadership summit — the state’s largest gathering of nonprofit and tribal leaders — at a conference center in downtown Anchorage.
The questions were wide-ranging. Most dealt with the extreme uncertainty felt by many working in the public sector, nonprofit services and social safety net programs since the start of the second Trump administration in January. [source]
For those who don’t have time to read the whole article, here is a selection of direct quotes from Murkowski:
“It is head spinning,” Murkowski said. “It seems that just when you’ve made a little bit of progress on one issue that had caused so much anxiety, there’s another one.”
Murkowski was exceptionally candid criticizing aspects of the Trump administration’s approach to implementing policy measures and service cuts, some of which she described as “unlawful.” She recounted a frenetic cycle of activity in her office among herself and staff chasing rumors about programming changes to find out if they are true, and if so, looking for ways to blunt the harm they might do to constituents in Alaska. […]
“I share this with you not to say that ‘we don’t know anything,’ but I’m saying that things are happening so fast through this Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE … none of us understand the half of it,” Murkowski said. “It’s literally piecing it together.” […]
“There is a growing number of Republicans, which needs to happen, who are saying ‘Medicaid is off the table,‘” Murkowski said. […] “I’m not saying you can’t touch Medicaid at all,” Murkowski said. “What I hope we’re moving away from is an $880 billion cut to Medicaid. Because if that happens, this is going to be a very, very different state.” […]
“The seafood side. Those on the industry side are more than a little bit anxious. We send a lot of product to China. We get a lot of it back from China. This is something that’s going to be very significant to us,” Murkowski said.
Likewise, Murkowski said that potential further cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — above personnel terminations that already took place — could jeopardize fisheries managers’ abilities to make informed decisions about sustainable harvest targets.
“We won’t have the well-managed fisheries that we demand,” Murkowski said, speaking to a group of reporters after her session on stage. “You’re gonna have your managers say, ‘Well, we don’t have what we need, we’re going to err on the side of caution.’ The quotas are going to be reduced. Your fishermen aren’t going to be able to harvest as much. There’s impact there. Or it could go the other way: ‘Well, we don’t really know, so we’ll engage in fishing practices that are not gonna be healthy and sustainable.‘”
I suspect some Trump supporters and apologists will chalk these comments up to long-standing rifts between him and Murkowski (which existed long before she voted to remove Trump from office in 2021). However, I urge those readers and everyone else to consider what Murkowski shares seriously. She’s been involved with government for long enough to understand the intended and unintended consequences of the reckless budget and personnel slashing that DOGE and the Trump Administration are engaged in.
This isn’t a sustainable way to run a government. We will live with the long-term results of this chaos for years and most likely decades to come.
What’s also remarkable to me is to see a Republican politician encouraging protest against her party’s own policies. From the article:
She expressed alarm at how the judiciary was increasingly being treated as a partisan entity, saying it was putting America in “a very dangerous place, because you stop believing in the rule of law.” And she called on Alaskans to “be affirmative” in protesting on behalf of programs they want to remain in place so that elected leaders are kept aware of where support and frustration exist among constituents.
“I think it’s important the concerns continue to be raised rather than letting the fatigue of the chaos grind you down,” Murkowski said.
I am in complete agreement with Murkowski. It’s easy to let fatigue get the best of us, but those among us who care about good governance and what happens to their fellow residents and citizens need to speak up.
I also appreciate that Murkowski also casts responsibility on Congress as well:
She said that the administration’s actions refusing to disburse congressionally authorized monies approved under legislation was “against the law,” and that Congress had allowed the executive branch to claim too much power that the U.S. Constitution assignsto the legislative branch.
“It’s called the checks and balances. And right, now we are not balancing as the Congress,” Murkowski said.
Again, credit where it is due, Murkowski does have a record of practicing what she preaches (though her vote record). And she had to overcome party retribution for doing so. I hope others in the Republican party and their voters will follow her example.
Aside: This story is precisely why local journalism is so important. The national political press would never cover this type of local speaking engagement. These moments of leaders being candid with local constituencies at public events are what we stand to lose as local and state press coverage is gutted.
FWIW, in my experience, there are still a lot of “f*ck the libs” MAGA types out in the world who love all of the disruption and pearl clutching we’ve had since January. I don’t think they will become afraid unless and until they are personally harmed. And even then, they may not realize it – or, as I have also seen, they will stoically accept the harm to them as a “noble” sacrifice to make this country “great again.” It’s nice to think – as Senator Murkowski does – that we’re all afraid and, thus, in this struggle together, and I assume most of the people in her audience feel likewise. But I see no awareness of this from the people I see who still display Trump bumper stickers, or wear T-shirts emphasizing the “Gulf of America,” or . . . 🙁
Murkowski should switch parties. If she’s serious about the harm she sees, why is she still a Republican? Ditto Susan Collins and others. I have no respect for these people complaining that, ‘Sometimes the Gestapo goes too far.’ Do the right thing and switch sides or STFU.
@Michael Reynolds:
I almost went this way in the post. In mentally drafting that, I talked myself out of that line of thinking for the following strategic reasons:
The current Senate split is:
Having Murkowski switch parties, or more likely go independent and then caucus with the Democrats, doesn’t make sense for her, given that it doesn’t shift power in the Senate. It would result in her losing some of her power to oppose the Trump agenda (especially regarding committee appointments, where she is taking up a Republican seat).
If we were in a 50/50 position, I am onboard with what you are saying. We’ll see where things are before the midterms next year. However, symbolic moves are just that–symbolic–and we’re currently in a place where tactical resistance is far more important.
@Matt Bernius:
There is, or at least there should be, the matter of integrity. If you are a member of a group or party that is doing evil, get out. Not because you think it will advantage you, or even offer very slight advantages to your constituents, but because you find it intolerable to be counted among the evildoers.
@Michael Reynolds:
I’m struggling a bit with reconciling “idealist MR” (who is advocating “taking a stand and in doing so losing system power”) I’m talking with on this post with “pragmatic MR” (who thinks that Democrats and liberals should be willing to not vigorously advocate for the rights of certain groups [i.e. LGBTQ or Palestinians] or topic areas [undocumented folks] even though he feels sympathy for them because it will cause the Democrats to lose power) who often shows up to comment on other posts.
Of course, you can also say the same thing of me as I’m often on the opposite side of those issues.
Admittedly, the further I get into resistance mode (and learn about organizing), the more I’m focused on what is tactical.
@Matt Bernius:
I have to confess I was wondering if I was hallucinating in my memories of Michael very strongly advocating against Democrats talking too loudly about trans rights as it would put off voters…
@Michael Reynolds: The argument that Murkowski should switch parties is compelling, but MB is right about the power implications – as long as she’s caucusing with the Republicans, she’s free to oppose anything they lay out while continuing to exercise more power than any Democrat. Once she leaves the party, she immediately loses power.
But she has spent a decade acting like this. Her time to quit the party was 9 years ago, when Trump became the mouthpiece. Or 6 years ago when it became clear he was acting counter to his duties. Or 4 years ago after his attempted coup and subsequent lack of removal. And her way of showing disapproval using her current power should have included voting against his terrifyingly unqualified selections for various cabinet posts, speaking out against DOGE, and being vocal when the abuses started. A small-town talk to a bunch of business leaders, 2 months after it’s apparent what’s going on, is “a day late and a dollar short.”
Essentially, I would buy the argument that she’s doing this to maximize her influence if she actually, like, you know, wielded her influence.
@Matt Bernius:
I agree there is a bit of a disconnect. And if I thought Murkowski could actually do anything useful from inside her party I’d be more sympathetic. But she can’t, and this cri de coeur of hers is just ass-covering. She wants to be the good Nazi, the one who’ll offer you a cigarette when they stand you up against the wall.
Also there is a difference between shifting emphasis – for example my preference for class conflict over identity politics – and being passively complicit in the destruction of the Constitution. I’m looking for a path forward that leads to the power to protect the minorities which I wish would step back. It’s a situation where the drowning man is flailing so much they can’t be rescued, but if they’d go limp we might just get them to the beach.
There are times when I listen to Republicans speak and I wonder why it is we are on opposite sides of the fence. This is one of those times.
Prior to the midterms, I think I want Republican senators working as Republicans, publicly, to counter Trump’s illegal (or just plain stupid and destructive) actions. I’m happy to see them switch parties for the midterms, but in the meantime R on R criticism carries much more weight than turning coat would. “This is not what my Republican constituents voted for” is a more compelling message than the alternatives.
@ptfe:
Two points here:
1. Its hard to evaluate the value of influence, especially given how much of it is exerted invisibly. That can include influencing the text of what comes to the floor and what committees debate and advance (much of that is akin to the discussions of the Shadow Docket in the USSC).
2. There have been a bunch of high-profile cases where Murkowski did side with Democrats (including providing a key vote to keep the Affordable Care Act going).
This isn’t a kumbaya or celebration of her as she’s also voted for almost all of Trumps awful nominees (Mitch McConnell has ironically sided with the Dems more often on those). And the reality is her longer-term record shows that she’s much more of a traditional (i.e. Rockefeller) Republican than a Democrat.
All that said, at this point, I’d rather have her on the Republican side than the Democrat one (at least in terms of caucusing).
@Assad K:
The game is power. The game is not being right, the game is power. But power for what? I do not understand how people can fail to understand what is obvious: you have to win, or you have nothing. But if you win, just to win, your victory is hollow.
Look, when the talk was about civil unions for gays I supported it. Why? Because I didn’t think gays should have full rights? No. There was literally never a point, not from the first time I heard mention of gay marriage, that I was not in total support. I supported civil unions because I believed (and I was right) they would lead to full recognition of marriage and the associated rights.
We have way too many facile scolds in this party, people who will cast you out unless you’re 100% in support of 100% of everything 100% of the time. This is politics by Twitter. Politics as a display of virtue. But we played the game by the rules laid down by the loudest voices on Twitter, and what do we have now? Fuck all. Less than when we started out.
@Jay L Gischer:
One of the things I hate–especially in our two-party system–is “opposite side of the fence” thinking. It’s just not productive, especially since it’s naive to think that we can always be on the same side of the fence on every issue (or the answer is for them to come to our side based on a single issue).
Perhaps this is the organizer in me, but I’m becoming increasingly interested in finding those places where we can productively work OVER the fence while accepting that we can’t always do that.
@Michael Reynolds:
To be clear, I know this is your position Michael. I am just pointing out that “Why doesn’t Murkowski become a Democrat because it’s the right thing to do” completely violates this model on both an ideological and a power perspective for all the reasons I shared above.
Michael, this is based on your perception and your feelings–not the structural facts of the Senate. Or what Murkowski is doing behind the scenes (as the sausage gets made).
As I already pointed out she has much more power to act against Trump as a Republican senator than a Democratic senator under the current Senate mix. Depsite your love of being “tactical” you have yet to really articulate what Murkowski could do as a Conservative Democrat that she can’t already do as a Republican–especially in terms of wielding soft or hard power. And frankly, does the Democratic party need another Joe Manchin at this moment?
@Matt Bernius:
And she doesn’t use it because she agrees with basically all of it. She just doesn’t like how noisy and in her face it is. Fuck her, she’s a coward.
@Matt Bernius:
There is some truth in that. I have a pathological aversion to ever surrendering my autonomy, to being dragged somewhere I don’t want to go, or to being ‘a part of”. In my experience there is only one way to avoid being bullied: don’t let yourself be bullied, full stop. You push back the instant you feel yourself being pushed, whatever the cost. You can’t compromise with predators because they won’t compromise with you. It’s a version of jail rules, not the Hollywood version where you attack the biggest strongest guy, because that’s just stupid, rather you make it unprofitable for anyone to fuck with you.
I have a fixed female pug who weighs 20 pounds, has a half-inch snout and what amount to baby teeth, but she’s so belligerent and so unafraid she makes it clear to 100 pound dogs that she won’t go down easily. It’s the Rorschach (Watchmen, not the psych test) rule: I’m not locked in here with you, you’re locked in here with me.
In Murkowski’s case, she could be an inspiring example. She could show that she isn’t going to be bullied. And by surviving she could weaken the bully. She could make resistance profitable. Instead she whines and covers her ass and reassures herself that she’s working from the inside. Virtue signaling, Republican style.
@Matt Bernius: You may be talking to a new MR who simply shouts at people about keeping off his lawn. But yeah, I was surprised, too.
@Michael Reynolds:
Indeed. And it’s long past time for Susan Collins to stop being ‘very concerned’ then voting with Trump on virtually everything of consequence. It’s a tired act.
If Murkowski and Collins don’t want the Democratic Party appellation, they can, like Angus King (ME) and Bernie Sanders, label themselves as Independents, then go about the business of getting out of their MAGA Bunkers.
@Michael Reynolds:
Nobody outside of nerds remembers Quisling. But everyone remembers his name. She’s not virtue signaling, she’s a collaborator.
It doesnt matter what her intentions are or that she’s afraid. She has actual power and could use it to fight, but instead she chooses to collaborate.
@Michael Reynolds:
Nobody outside of nerds remembers Quisling. But everyone remembers his name. She’s not virtue signaling, she’s a collaborator.
It doesnt matter what her intentions are or that she’s afraid. She has actual power and could use it to fight, but instead she chooses to collaborate.
We can’t control what Murkowski does or says, but the Democrats can figure out how best to use her, when possible, for their own ends.
@Beth:
Bingo. If there were a chance bootlicking sellouts like Murkowski would switch parties — and there is no such chance — it’s specious to argue against it based on Republican electeds’ need to retain power.
What power? They’ve obediently ceded it to the rapist and fascist in the White House. So…¯\_(ツ)_/¯?
What does an admitted do-nothing coward need power for?
@Michael Reynolds:
“We have way too many facile scolds in this party, people who will cast you out unless you’re 100% in support of 100% of everything 100% of the time.”
I definitely don’t disagree with that.. Certain demands of purity definitely have cost us (see Franken, Al). But I guess everyone has their points of where they feel compromise can only go so far. It does lead to a level of cognitive dissonance that can make one very uncomfortable. I, for instance, consider Fetterman to have done a bit of a heel turn. But he might still vote for my priorities 90% of the time. So would I wish him ill or success in future elections? Argh, my brain…
I suppose some measure of respect is due for having a modicum of spine in a collection of invertebrates.
Okay, that’s enough.
Now back to recognizing her abject cowardice.
From the OP:
What’s remarkable is that a politician challenging their own party’s execution of policies is seen as somehow courageous. Intra-party disagreement on the best approaches to governance is how politics is supposed to work. We should characterize as heroic or courageous the simple act of Murkowski stepping out of line long enough to say that all the goose-stepping makes her legs hurt.
I’m with MR and Beth on this. Murkowski’s “exceptionally candid” comments are less than important. She is seeking absolution for the sins being committed by her party but she’s not repentant.
Now, if she could rally just 3 more GOP Senators to switch parties with her – I keep being told there are other Republican pols who aren’t onboard with authoritarian rule – then I’ll give Murkowski her due.
Regarding switching parties, it makes the most sense if it either tips the balance of power OR if there’s a bigger strategy. Assuming Murkowski isn’t the only one who feels this way, the angle would be a drip, drip, drip if a group of Republicans (House, Senate, state leadership) ALL start switching.
There is strength in numbers and in headlines. The first domino to fall would have to be a big one (US Senator or a Republican Governor). Then a couple of House members. Then another Senator. Etc. If you aren’t able to switch to gain voting power, at least dominate the narrative.
@Michael Reynolds:
“Do the right thing and switch sides or STFU.”
Or sabotage. Please, nobody lecture us on the morality of that; we are in the land where that can be the moral thing to do.
@Michael Reynolds:
But weren’t we praising David Hogg for this sort of thing yesterday, defending it as an attempt to impose party discipline — in keeping with the general consensus around here that our parties are too “weak”?
Lots and lots of Murkowski bashing here, sort of a beat up on Murkowski bandwagon, which I see as unduly harsh. I have some thoughts.
This lady represents Alaska, her constituents have local issues that are important to them, she is not just about national level politics. With the fisheries, the fishing, tourism, oil, gas the state has a lot of issues that involve the feds. There are a lot of Native Americans in Alaska.
This lady won one of her general elections as an Independent, running as a write-in, after losing the primary to a hard right Republican. She could do this because she is very popular with the Native American vote in Alaska.
If she switched parties, John Thune would still be Majority leader. The only effect would be less power and influence for her, less ability to serve the parochial interests of her constituents.
I do not see bad-mouthing Murkowski as very useful or productive.
So what are you going to do about it, Lisa? You are supposed to be a leader, not some schlub with no agency.
Grow some courage or resign and make room for someone who will actually do their job.
@Daryl: I like that sentiment, but at the same time yelling insults at the Republicans who criticize Trump just drives them back into the fold, mostly.
Bullies with serious power have to be fought strategically. Pick your battles and remember the old Afghan saying “Happiness is sitting by the river and watching the bodies of your enemies float by.” If Trump loses the Republican party he’ll be in that river.
MR: I recommend the old Richard Pryor children’s show on bullies. I believe it was the first one made. Richard grew up in the toughest of neighborhoods.
@charontwo:
What is she doing that’s very useful or productive?
*crickets*
The feigned helplessness of Republican senators is anti-productive. There’s no use for US Senator who is too “scared” (her words) to do anything vis a vis her oath.
The question is still begged: what are these big, bad, powerful, puffed up, influential Republican senators doing with all that supposed power and alleged influence?
*crickets*
Preserve power and influence that they won’t use — why tho? for what?
When Republican senators signed up for another term, they put their hands on holy writ and vowed to “support and defend’ the Constitution. They are in gross dereliction of duty and for that deserve harsh criticism.
@dazedandconfused:
When has she left the fold? She fundamentally agrees with all of this. Hell, it’s been noted that she supported more confirmations that even that rat bastard McConnell. They’ve never left the fold, they aren’t close to leaving the fold. All she is doing is whining that scary people are being scary and even though she’s a FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR. She has actual meaningful power, she actively chooses to use it for evil.
While, @charontwo: is right, Thune would still be minority leader, but now his margin is smaller AND he now has to make a critical choice, leave Murkowski in her Committee assignments or replace her with one of the other screaming idiots. The idiots won’t let him keep Murkowski in her assignments. The Dems could offer her a spot or two, maybe. They’d certainly work with her in places their interests align. But she’d still have a ton of power cause she’s a FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR.
The other part is the collective action/first mover problem. A FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR defecting means something. Doing it first means something. Someone has to go first and when the do the drip drip drip of defections can start. And she’s already proved that it won’t necessarily hurt her with AK voters.
On the other hand, we need to stop giving people like Murkowski, Collins (and yes, Dicky Durbin) passes. These are all very powerful people, if we keep giving them stupid passes and refuse to hold them accountable for stupid reasons they will continue to be weak little quislings. They shouldn’t just be afraid of the MAGA loony tune cowards; they should be afraid of us. ALL OF US.
@dazedandconfused:
When has she left the fold? She fundamentally agrees with all of this. Hell, it’s been noted that she supported more confirmations that even that rat bastard McConnell. They’ve never left the fold, they aren’t close to leaving the fold. All she is doing is whining that scary people are being scary and even though she’s a FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR. She has actual meaningful power, she actively chooses to use it for evil.
While, @charontwo: is right, Thune would still be minority leader, but now his margin is smaller AND he now has to make a critical choice, leave Murkowski in her Committee assignments or replace her with one of the other screaming idiots. The idiots won’t let him keep Murkowski in her assignments. The Dems could offer her a spot or two, maybe. They’d certainly work with her in places their interests align. But she’d still have a ton of power cause she’s a FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR.
The other part is the collective action/first mover problem. A FUCKING UNITED STATES SENATOR defecting means something. Doing it first means something. Someone has to go first and when the do the drip drip drip of defections can start. And she’s already proved that it won’t necessarily hurt her with AK voters.
On the other hand, we need to stop giving people like Murkowski, Collins (and yes, Dicky Durbin) passes. These are all very powerful people, if we keep giving them stupid passes and refuse to hold them accountable for stupid reasons they will continue to be weak little quislings. They shouldn’t just be afraid of the MAGA loony tune cowards; they should be afraid of us. ALL OF US.
@dazedandconfused:
Interesting how we circle the wagons for the Republicans in power, yet hardly anyone around here (besides me) begs this grace be given to Democrats out of power.
Dems are screamed at and cussed out with cries of “Do something fkg cowards!” But for Republican pols with actual standing to do something, suddenly it’s ‘the poor wittle things are scared, let’s not be too harsh.’
Lol wut?
Amerikkkan society truly does grade Republican voters and electeds on a curve. Partially why we are where we are.
Behavioral psychology teaches us that positive behaviors should be reinforced. So, yes, Murkowski should be praised for her bare minimum pushback on Trump.
But we also know that coddling and enabling does not change maladaptive behaviors. So where Republicans are cowardly and derelict in their duty to support and defend the US Constitution, as they swore and promised to do, they should be harshly critiqued.
You know, just like folk left, right, and center bash Dems all day, everyday.
“Come over to the Democrats- Our voters won’t threaten to murder you!’
May not be the best elevator pitch, but has the virtue of being true.
@Beth:
Tactics are best played cold, and sometimes the worst thing one can do to an enemy is nothing.
Anger must be controlled or it can be used against you. Without a doubt the best dissertation I have even read on this was in Musashi’s Five Rings. The peerless Japanese duelist who, oddly enough, gave us the best anger management system ever. The cartoon version is here.
Demanding the rebels within the party switch sides completely is precisely what Miller and Co hope for, the ability to label them Dems. His worst nightmare is that they remain Republicans and, by example, demonstrate that is possible to criticize Trump without being chucked out like Cheney was.
Trump is the virus, GOP the host:
“Link“