Republicans "Know Nothing"

Thanks to cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump, Republican elected officials are increasingly emulating Sergeant Schultz, the aimable German prison camp guard in the Hogan's Heroes sitcom. Schultz was famous for ignoring the prisoners' illicit activities, claiming that "I see nothing" or "I know nothing." Faced with Trump's increasingly controversial or hard-to-defend actions, Republicans are often claiming that they know nothing about them. This is an easy way to avoid either criticizing Trump or standing behind his latest move. Elected officials of all stripes are generally very image-conscious and reluctant to reveal any faults. Yet Republican after Republican will happily portray themselves as ignorant of current events rather than being forced to choose between either of the less desirable alternatives. These Republicans, of course, are not being forthright and, if they were, it would be reasonable to ask how such uninformed individuals can adequately perform the jobs for which they were elected. But for today's Republicans, ignorance is truly bliss.

The phenomenon of Republicans being unaware of recent news is not exactly a new development. During Trump's first term, he tended to tweet late at night or early in the morning. Often the tweets were controversial and elected officials would be asked about them the next day. It became quite common for Republicans to claim that they hadn't seen the tweet. Reporters eventually started carrying print-outs of Trump's tweets that they could show to the officials, who suddenly became quite allergic to pieces of paper. Republicans not only didn't know about the tweets — if you believe them — but there was nothing anyone could do to make them know. Now that everyone is online all the time, claiming not to have seen a tweet is less believable. Yet, a similar method of avoiding comments on the news continues.

There was a rash of uninformed Republicans on the Sunday news programs yesterday. The entire purpose of appearing on such shows is to comment on current events. Therefore, the claims of ignorance are especially hard to believe. If true, such a lack of knowledge of recent news would indicate serious incompetence. For example, Republican Senator John Curtis appeared on CNN's State of the Union. When the host, Dana Bash, asked Curtis if he would again vote to confirm Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth if such a vote were held today, Curtis would not give a direct answer. Instead, he responded by saying, "That's a question I can't answer without as much thoughtful research as I did the first time." Bash pointed out that now there is evidence and no research is needed. For instance, a government watchdog just reported that Hegseth's posting secret information on an unsecured Signal chat endangered U.S. troops. She also pointed to Hegseth's role in the "double-tap" attack on alleged drug smugglers in which two survivors of the initial strike were killed in a follow-up attack. Curtis then claimed that it is difficult to know what is really going on if you read the newspapers. But does anyone believe that Curtis needs to rely solely on newspapers for information? As he pointed out in his response, he chairs the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Several Defense Department officials have been on the Hill giving first-person testimony about events. Curtis is privy to all kinds of confidential data. It would be a serious dereliction of duty for him to get news only from newspapers. It's clearly not that he can't give an answer to the question, but that he simply doesn't want to.

Another example occurred during ABC's This Week, hosted by George Stephanopoulos. The guest was Senator Eric Schmitt. Stephanopoulos asked Schmitt whether he supported Trump's pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was sentenced to 45 years in prison due to conspiring to distribute more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Schmitt's reply was that he was "not familiar with the facts or circumstances," and he then attempted to change the subject. An incredulous Stephanopoulos asked, "What do you mean you're not familiar? It's been front-page news." Schmitt then accused Stephanopoulos of spewing Democratic talking points. Clearly, Schmitt recognizes the contradiction between killing alleged drug smugglers with drone-fired missiles while pardoning a convicted drug smuggler, and he prefers to avoid the topic. It shows his fear of Trump and Trump's MAGA supporters that he is unwilling to simply say that he disagrees with the pardon.

A third example Sunday involved Senator Tom Cotton, who appeared on NBC's Meet the Press. Host Kristen Welker noted that Cotton had taken a hard line against drug smuggling and supported the attacks on boats. She asked how Trump's pardon of the former Honduran president made America safer. Cotton's reply was, "I haven't spoken to the President about that pardon." To his credit, Cotton was clear that he normally supports locking up criminals and throwing away the key. But when Welker asked him if he therefore opposes the pardon, Cotton again demurred, saying, "I have to know more about the circumstances." He suggested that "strategic" reasons could have justified the pardon, but like Schmitt above, Cotton preferred to claim ignorance rather than take a position.

But the best Sergeant Schultz imitator on Capitol Hill is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Johnson has turned feigning ignorance into an art form. When he was asked about the "double-tap" attack on alleged drug smugglers, Johnson admitted to knowing a bit about the topic, but refused to take a position on the attack because "I was pretty busy yesterday and didn't follow a lot of the news." Similarly, back in May when Johnson was asked by CNN's Jake Tapper about a dinner Trump hosted for investors in his cryptocurrency business, Johnson gave what has been a fairly standard reply. He said, "Look, I don't know anything about the dinner. I was a little busy this past week, so I'm not going to comment on something I haven't even heard about." More recently, when Johnson was asked about a January 6 insurrectionist who had been pardoned by Trump and was just arrested for making death threats against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Johnson claimed that it was the first that he had heard of it and didn't know anything about it. He then reiterated that he didn't "know any of the details of this at all." Last month, Johnson was asked whether, in light of his criticism of former President Joe Biden's use of an autopen to sign pardons, if he was concerned that Trump claimed not to know about a crypto billionaire that he had just pardoned. Johnson's reply was his common refrain that "I don't know anything about that. I didn't see the interview. I'm not sure."

Johnson has not only pleaded ignorance in response to reporters but to other politicians as well. In late September, Trump gave a speech to military leaders in which he said that the U.S. military would use American cities for "training grounds." Democratic Representative Madeleine Dean confronted Johnson saying that "The president is unhinged. He's unwell" and asking Johnson what he was going to do about it. Johnson's reply was "I didn't see it," referring to the speech that had been a top story in the news. As was the case with the Senators described above, Johnson is likely lying and knows full well what Dean was talking about; he just is afraid to criticize Trump. However, if Johnson is truly as uninformed as he would have us believe, he is simply not fit for his job. The House cannot be led by a man who knows nothing of current events.

One last thing about Johnson that shows that he is not always as ignorant of current events as he tends to portray himself. It may seem that he rarely knows about any of Trump's recent activities, but he knows about other events. For instance, when a group in Portland, Oregon staged a "naked bike ride" in order to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Johnson was not only aware of the ride, he was deeply concerned about it. In fact, Johnson called it "the most threatening thing I’ve seen yet." This is understandable, however. Johnson and his son have installed an app on their phones that alerts the other if they view porn. Watching video of the naked bike ride probably set off Johnson's app and required him to explain himself to his son.

Like Sergeant Schultz, when it comes to Trump, Republicans today frequently claim to "see nothing," "hear nothing," and "know nothing." This is emblematic of their desire to neither criticize Trump nor support his actions. Given two unpleasant options, Republicans prefer to plead ignorance. These Republicans are not only suggesting that they are uninformed, but they are also implying that their audience is fairly stupid as well. They expect us to believe that they are as unknowledgeable as they are presenting themselves to be. In reality, we know that they are lying and they know that we know that they are lying. The fact remains that they prefer to be seen as either ignorant or lying than to criticize Trump or support his untenable actions. Therefore, the ultimate message is not that they are uninformed, but that they are cowards.