logo
The Hypocrisy of Fetterman's Defenders

The Hypocrisy of Fetterman's Defenders

The Atlantic09-05-2025

Remember the days after President Joe Biden's barely-coherent debate performance, when Democratic dead-enders insisted that nothing was the matter? That was embarrassing. But apparently it wasn't so embarrassing that everybody took away the correct lesson, because something similar is now happening between Senator John Fetterman and a coterie of admirers on the right. Conservatives are now doing the exact same thing that the Biden defenders did: denying the obvious unfitness of a politician because he's politically useful.
Fetterman is the subject of a devastating new profile in New York magazine (my former employer). Ben Terris reports that Fetterman's staff and even his wife have repeatedly expressed concerns over his mental health, following a pattern of strange statements and actions from the senator, including a near-fatal car crash.
After Terris's story appeared, conservatives leaped to Fetterman's defense, depicting it as a hit piece motivated by anger at the senator's recent rightward tilt, which has manifested in an ultra-hawkish defense of Israel, warm words for President Donald Trump, and a vote to confirm Pam Bondi as attorney general. 'Fetterman was indispensable in 2022. He was reliably liberal and therefore could never be seen as going rogue. But now that it's actually happening, suddenly the party has deemed him quite expendable, hence the flimsy New York magazine piece that just came out of nowhere,' the conservative Washington Examiner charges. This line of attack has been repeated in columns in the The Daily Wire ('As Fetterman Defends Israel, Dems Suddenly Question His Mental Health'), National Review ('Progressives Warn That John Fetterman Suffers From Acute Pro-Israel-itis'), and several other outlets.
None of these articles acknowledges, let alone attempts to rebut, Terris's extensive account of Fetterman's erratic behavior, which is at least as clear as the evidence of Biden's infirmity. Many of the conservative attacks conflate the effects of Fetterman's stroke, which occurred before the 2022 election, with his hospitalization for depression the following year, questioning how Democrats could vouch for Fetterman in 2022 while doubting his fitness today.
A stroke is a discrete event from which full recovery is possible. It is also, of course, possible to recover from depression. But as Terris notes, Fetterman's staff had strong reason to believe he was failing to adhere to his recovery plan. 'No one I spoke to for this article could be sure about whether Fetterman stayed on his medication during this period, but five different people said they heard comments from the senator that suggested he was not,' Terris writes. Additionally, he reports, 'in group texts including senior staff from March 2024, staffers used terms like manic to describe his behavior. They pointed out that he was canceling medical appointments despite the blood tests being 'pillars of the recovery plan.'' Adam Jentleson, then the senator's chief of staff, wrote a letter to Fetterman's doctors last year laying out his concerns about his boss's well-being and disregard of doctor's orders.
To be sure, assessing whether certain behaviors that troubled Fetterman's staff (incoherent rants, compulsive social-media posting) indicate unstable mental health is at least somewhat subjective. In the Trump era especially, one person's raving lunatic is another person's bold populist truth-teller. But Fetterman's terrifying record of erratic driving, including a crash that occurred when he insisted on driving home after a red-eye flight, is a matter of objective fact.
What's more, the thesis that 'woke' staffers are sandbagging the boss with bogus concerns has trouble explaining why the strongest piece of evidence comes via the letter to doctors from Jentleson, who scolded Democratic staffers who'd criticized their bosses on Israel ('The thing about being a staffer is that no one elected you to represent them,' he posted in October 2023) and has publicly urged his party to defy progressive pressure groups. The right-wing critique also fails to explain why Fetterman's staffers refuse to ride in any car he's driving. If their disagreement was ideological in nature, remaining in his employ while engaging in a targeted boycott of Fetterman-driven vehicles would be a very odd form of protest.
Franklin Foer: How Biden destroyed his legacy
The conservative complaints more or less begin from the premise that Fetterman's ideological apostasy is the only possible explanation for a story on his infirmity. The possibility that a journalist would report on a public figure's health for nonideological reasons seems to escape them completely. Some of the right's suspicious minds appear not to understand the basics of journalism. Consider this passage from the Examiner:
So, who are these current staffers? We'll never know, because just like every political hit piece, these allegations are based on anonymous sources. But here's where things get both nefarious and obvious: A letter written by former Fetterman chief of staff Adam Jentleson to Walter Reed Medical Center regarding his concern for the senator's health was miraculously leaked to New York magazine.
The writer proceeds immediately from claiming that 'we'll never know' the source of the allegations to insisting that the fact that we know the primary source is nefarious. The 'miraculous' leaking of Jentleson's letter is not evidence of a conspiracy but a straightforward description of how reporting works.
Many conservative publications are built on a hyperbolic critique of the mainstream media, which assumes that all 'objective' journalism is mere cover for left-wing activism and advancement of the Democratic Party's agenda. With that false premise, they then set out to create the very same thing for the right. But this inability to believe that a reporter might report a story for reasons not of ideology but of public interest reveals a broader form of sophistry—one that not only is endemic on the right but also has grown more common on the left—in which a partisan mind builds its worldview entirely in response to the perceived bad faith of the other side.
Suppose you observe, accurately, that many liberals downplayed evidence of Biden's mental decline. Now you can use that as a license to dismiss evidence of mental decline in any politician you favor. As long as the hypocrisy of the opposing side is your only point of contact with the facts of the case, you have no standard of internal consistency that you need to follow. Your position on Biden's fitness can be that the libs are liars for denying it, and your position on Fetterman's fitness can be that the libs are hypocritical because they used to defend Biden. Of course, when they were defending Biden, many libs did the same thing, turning every question about his ability to handle the job into a game of Why aren't we questioning Trump's fitness?
The misguided assumption beneath this hyper-partisan fallacy is that refusing to hold one's own side to account is an advantage. The conservative movement operates largely on a poisonous distrust of any mainstream institution dedicated to upholding standards (journalism, science, academia). Growing swaths of the left, having seen Trump ride to power on a wave of cult-like obedience, have now decided that maintaining any standards for their leaders is a sucker's game.
But looking the other way as Biden's mind was slipping was not a shortcut to defeating Trump. It was an act of self-sabotage. Although conservatives may take longer to pay a price for failing to restrain their mad king, their policy of dismissing all doubts about the mental fitness of their leaders and allies of convenience—a habit now causing them to rally behind Fetterman—is a shaky foundation upon which to build a movement.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?
Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump aides want Texas to redraw its congressional maps to boost the GOP. What would that mean?

This coverage is made possible through Votebeat, a nonpartisan news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for Votebeat Texas' free newsletters here. Republicans representing Texas in Congress are considering this week whether to push their state Legislature to take the unusual step of redrawing district lines to shore up the GOP's advantage in the U.S. House. But the contours of the plan, including whether Gov. Greg Abbott would call a special session of the Legislature to redraw the maps, remain largely uncertain. The idea is being driven by President Donald Trump's political advisers, who want to draw up new maps that would give Republicans a better chance to flip seats currently held by Democrats, according to two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. That proposal, which would involve shifting GOP voters from safely red districts into neighboring blue ones, is aimed at safeguarding Republicans' thin majority in Congress, where they control the lower chamber, 220-212. The redistricting proposal, and the Trump team's role in pushing it, was first reported by The New York Times Monday. Without a Republican majority in Congress, Trump's legislative agenda would likely stall, and the president could face investigations from newly empowered Democratic committee chairs intent on scrutinizing the White House. Here's what we know about the plan so far: On Capitol Hill, members of the Texas GOP delegation huddled Monday night to discuss the prospect of reshaping their districts. Most of the 25-member group expressed reluctance about the idea, citing concerns about jeopardizing their districts in next year's midterms if the new maps overextended the GOP's advantage, according to the two GOP aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations. Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Lubbock, was skeptical of the idea. 'We just recently worked on the new maps,' Arrington told The Texas Tribune. To reopen the process, he said, 'there'd have to be a significant benefit to our state.' The delegation has yet to be presented with mockups of new maps, two aides said. Each state's political maps must be redrawn once a decade, after each round of the U.S. census, to account for population growth and ensure every congressional and legislative district has roughly the same number of people. Texas lawmakers last overhauled their district lines in 2021. There's no federal law that prohibits states from redrawing district maps midcycle, said Justin Levitt, an election law professor at Loyola Marymount University and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's civil rights division. Laws around the timing to redraw congressional and state district maps vary by state. In Texas, the state constitution doesn't specify timing, so the redrawing of maps is left to the discretion of the governor and the Legislature. Lawmakers gaveled out of their 140-day regular session last week, meaning they would need to be called back for a special session to change the state's political maps. Abbott has the sole authority to order overtime sessions and decide what lawmakers are allowed to consider. A trial is underway in El Paso in a long-running challenge to the state legislative and congressional district maps Texas drew after the 2020 U.S. Census. If Texas redraws its congressional maps, state officials would then ask the court to toss the claims challenging those districts 'that no longer exist,' Levitt said. The portion of the case over the state legislative district maps would continue. If the judge agrees, then both parties would have to file new legal claims for the updated maps. It isn't clear how much maps could change, but voters could find themselves in new districts, and Levitt said redrawing the lines in the middle of the redistricting cycle is a bad idea. 'If the people of Texas think that their representatives have done a bad job, then when the [district] lines change, they're not voting on those representatives anymore,' Levitt said. 'New people are voting on those representatives.' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, Democrats' national arm for contesting state GOP mapmaking, said the proposal to expand Republicans' stronghold in Texas was 'yet another example of Trump trying to suppress votes in order to hold onto power.' 'Texas's congressional map is already being sued for violating the Voting Rights Act because it diminishes the voting power of the state's fast-growing Latino population,' John Bisognano, president of the NDRC said. 'To draw an even more extreme gerrymander would only assure that the barrage of legal challenges against Texas will continue.' When Republicans in charge of the Legislature redrew the district lines after the 2020 census, they focused on reinforcing their political support in districts already controlled by the GOP. This redistricting proposal would likely take a different approach. As things stand, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats hold 12 seats and are expected to regain control of Texas' one vacant seat in a special election this fall. Most of Texas' GOP-controlled districts lean heavily Republican: In last year's election, 24 of those 25 seats were carried by a Republican victor who received at least 60% of the vote or ran unopposed. The exception was U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz, R-Edinburg, who captured 57% of the vote and won by a comfortable 14-point margin. With little competition to speak of, The Times reported, Trump's political advisers believe at least some of those districts could bear the loss of GOP voters who would be reshuffled into neighboring, Democratic-held districts — giving Republican hopefuls a better chance to flip those seats from blue to red. The party in control of the White House frequently loses seats during midterm cycles, and Trump's team is likely looking to offset potential GOP losses in other states and improve the odds of holding on to a narrow House majority. Incumbent Republicans, though, don't love the idea of sacrificing a comfortable race in a safe district for the possibility of picking up a few seats, according to GOP aides. In 2003, after Texas Republicans initially left it up to the courts to draw new lines following the 2000 census, then-U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Sugar Land Republican, embarked instead on a bold course of action to consolidate GOP power in the state. He, along with his Republican allies, redrew the lines as the opening salvo to a multistate redistricting plan aimed at accumulating power for his party in states across the country. Enraged by the power play, Democrats fled the state, depriving the Texas House of the quorum it needed to function. The rebels eventually relented under threat of arrest, a rare power in the Texas Constitution used to compel absent members back to return to Austin when the Legislature is in session. The lines were then redrawn, cementing the GOP majority the delegation has enjoyed in Washington for the past two decades. However, what's at play this time is different than in the early 2000s, when Republicans had a newfound majority in the Legislature and had a number of vulnerable Democratic incumbents they could pick off. Now, Republicans have been entrenched in the majority for decades and will have to answer the question of whether there's really more to gain, said Kareem Crayton, the vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office. 'That's the tradeoff. You can do that too much so that you actually make them so competitive that the other side wins,' Crayton said. 'That's always a danger.' Texas Republicans are planning to reconvene Thursday to continue discussing the plan, according to Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Irving, and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Houston, who said they will attend the meeting. Members of Trump's political team are also expected to attend, according to Hunt and two GOP congressional aides familiar with the matter. Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She's based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@ Disclosure: New York Times has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis
Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

San Francisco Chronicle​

time25 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Missouri approves stadium aid for Kansas City Chiefs and Royals and disaster relief for St. Louis

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers on Wednesday approved hundreds of millions of dollars of financial aid to try to persuade the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals to remain in the state and help the St. Louis area recover from a devastating tornado. House passage sends the legislative package to Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who called lawmakers into special session with a plea for urgent action. Kehoe is expected to sign the measures into law. Missouri's session paired two otherwise unrelated national trends — a movement for new taxpayer-funded sports stadiums and a reevaluation of states' roles in natural disasters as President Donald Trump's administration reassess federal aid programs. The stadium subsidies already were a top concern in Missouri when a deadly tornado struck St. Louis on May 16, causing an estimated $1.6 billion of damage a day after lawmakers had wrapped up work in their annual regular session. The disaster relief had widespread support. Lawmakers listened attentively on Wednesday as Democratic state Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins described with a cracking voice how she witnessed the tornado rip the roof off her house and damage her St. Louis neighborhood. Collins said she has no home insurance, slept in her car for days and has accepted food from others. 'Homes are crumbled and leveled,' said Collins, adding: 'It hurts me to my core to see the families that have worked so hard, the businesses that have worked so hard, to see them ripped apart.' Lawmakers approved $100 million of open-ended aid for St. Louis and $25 million for emergency housing assistance in any areas covered under requests for presidential disaster declarations. They also authorized a $5,000 income tax credit to offset insurance policy deductibles for homeowners and renters hit by this year's storms — a provision that state budget director Dan Haug said could eventually cost up to $600 million. The Chiefs and Royals currently play football and baseball in side-by-side stadiums in Jackson County, Missouri, under leases that expire in January 2031. Jackson County voters last year defeated a sales tax extension that would have helped finance an $800 million renovation of the Chiefs' Arrowhead Stadium and a $2 billion ballpark district for the Royals in downtown Kansas City. That prompted lawmakers in neighboring Kansas last year to authorize bonds for up to 70% of the cost of new stadiums in Kansas to lure the teams to their state. The Royals have bought a mortgage for property in Kansas, though the team also has continued to pursue other possible sites in Missouri. The Kansas offer is scheduled to expire June 30, creating urgency for Missouri to approve a counter-offer. Missouri's legislation authorizes bonds covering up to 50% of the cost of new or renovated stadiums, plus up to $50 million of tax credits for each stadium and unspecified aid from local governments. If they choose to stay in Missouri, the Chiefs plan a $1.15 billion renovation of Arrowhead Stadium. Though they have no specific plans in the works, the St. Louis Cardinals also would be eligible for stadium aid if they undertake a project of at least $500 million. Many economists contend public funding for stadiums isn't worth it, because sports tend to divert discretionary spending away from other forms of entertainment rather than generate new income. But supporters said Missouri stands to lose millions of dollars of tax revenue if Kansas City's most prominent professional sports teams move to Kansas. They said Missouri's reputation also would take a hit, particularly if it loses the Chiefs, which have won three of the past six Super Bowls. 'We have the chance to maybe save what is the symbol of this state,' Rep. Jim Murphy, a Republican from St. Louis County, said while illustrating cross-state support for the measure. The legislation faced some bipartisan pushback from those who described it as a subsidy for wealthy sports team owners. Others raised concerns that a property tax break for homeowners, which was added in the Senate to gain votes, violates the state constitution by providing different levels of tax relief in various counties while excluding others entirely.

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

The Hill

time25 minutes ago

  • The Hill

House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill

House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store