On Politics With Lisa Lerer: A Chat With Dan Crenshaw

Representative Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL with no prior experience in elected office, has emerged as one of the stars of the new Republican class. [Trouble seeing this email? View in browser]( [The New York Times]( [The New York Times]( February 22, 2019 | Evening Edition [Lisa Lerer] Hi. Welcome to On Politics, your guide to the day in national politics. I’m Lisa Lerer, your host. [Dan Crenshaw, a freshman representative from the Houston area.] Dan Crenshaw, a freshman representative from the Houston area. Carlos Barria/Reuters A lot has been made of the new Democratic majority in the House. They’re young. Female. Diverse. Outspoken. All the focus on Democrats made us curious about what being in the new Congress looks like from the other side of the aisle. Representative Dan Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL with no prior experience in elected office, has emerged as one of the stars of the new Republican class. He survived a crowded primary race and a runoff for the Republican nomination last year, en route to winning his Houston-area district. But real fame came shortly after the election, when Mr. Crenshaw, who wears an eye patch because of an injury he suffered in Afghanistan, appeared on “Saturday Night Live” to rebut the comedian Pete Davidson, who had mocked Mr. Crenshaw as looking like a “hit man from a porno movie.” The two offered a sincere plea for civility, and a political star was born. Since then, Mr. Crenshaw’s staunch support for President Trump’s border wall and his fiery presence on social media have some Republicans [calling him the conservative answer to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez](. We recently talked with Mr. Crenshaw about the wall, social media and civility in politics. The interview was conducted before Mr. Trump agreed on a border deal, but we decided to leave in those parts of the conversation, because the debate over the wall isn’t going away anytime soon. As usual, our interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Lisa: You came into Congress in the middle of the shutdown. Was that frustrating? I mean, you’re here to make a difference, presumably, and you enter in a stalemate. Dan Crenshaw: The frustrating part for me is why we were shut down. You can’t just be mad at a shutdown. You do have to take a side. And in the end, this shutdown boils down to $5 billion over basically extending the authorizations we’ve had in the past. That’s what’s frustrating, that we’re actually arguing over that. Well, it’s about the wall, right? ADVERTISEMENT Sure. To me, it’s frustrating that we can’t come to a deal. I mean, the idea of a government shutdown, it’s a consequence of our system. The president is under no obligation to sign the spending bills that Congress gives to him. And once that happens, once he says no, then you’re supposed to negotiate. So the frustrating part was to see how the Democrats refused to negotiate. That didn’t really make it out into the media very much because — I mean, we can say it all we want, but the media, generally speaking, the CNN pundits and The New York Times, will generally call it the “Trump shutdown,” because he owned it initially. I get that. But once he owned it, he asked to negotiate, and I think that’s a pretty fair ask. He did not have anyone to negotiate with. So that was frustrating, to watch that play out from the inside. Now, it looks like maybe the deal will be less money for the wall, or some kind of fencing. The semantics over wall versus fencing, first of all, are highly misleading. Trump’s plan has been what normal people would describe as fencing for a long time now. I get that he still calls it a wall. But that’s because in our English language a normal person would go up to what we have on the border right now and say it’s a wall, or a fence, and they’d both be right. What we’re actually talking about is steel bollard fencing. Again, it’s a mass misinformation campaign by the other side on this. And that’s been amplified by a lot of the media, is that we’re just talking about 2,000 miles of, like, concrete wall. It’s so unbelievably false. I want like a giant reset button to be like, “O.K., let’s start the debate over,” because I wasn’t here when we started the debate. Now I am. I’d like us to be very honest about what we’re talking about. Sounds like you’re describing a messaging problem for Republicans. I don’t have all the answers, but I think the way I’d describe the right way to message is to help people understand the “why” behind the “what.” It’s like, why do I believe we need extra fencing down the southern border? And in a deeper “why” than just, “Hey, it’s security and murders and crime.” Some of that’s true, but it leads us into a debate about how much crime and how much drugs. The “why” is: We enforce our laws, and because we believe in our own sovereignty, and I believe that illegal immigrants shouldn’t be able to cut in front of legal immigrants. That’s a better “why.” Traditionally in Washington, there was an idea that as a new member you come in and keep a low profile. You — and other freshmen — are clearly taking a different approach. Why? There was no, like, decision point. They listen to me because I just have a large following, and yeah, I got famous on national TV. There’s a sequence of events that drew us here. It’s like, you know, why is A.O.C. [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] famous? It’s just that story of beating Joe Crowley. Once that hooks people, and you’ve got that following, that’s sort of self-perpetuating. There isn’t really a rule, necessarily, that the leadership tries to keep freshmen from talking. You’ve used some of that platform to call for a return to civility. What does that look like for you? It just looks like, don’t question the other people’s character. You can be pretty sharp, particularly on [T](. Yeah, I can be sharp. But what I never say is, you know — let me give an example of what they do to us all the time. “You can’t say that because you’re a white Christian man.” That’s not civil. That’s avoiding the debate of ideas and attacking a person because of who they are. That’s not O.K. I will attack ideas very hard. I am not shy about that one bit. So I don’t want people to think that because I had a call for civility that that means I shy away from debate and that I’m agreeable. That’s not the case. What is the case is that I will not question who you are as a person. You can say that your ideas are bad for America, and frankly un-American, but don’t say the person is a traitor. That’s the line that we should aspire to, at least in the short term. Do you think the president crosses that line? Well, let’s see. I’m trying to think of some examples. Lyin’ Ted, Liddle Marco, Horseface. I can keep going. Yeah. Those are examples. Sure. So name-calling, in general, is bad, and then what I see from the other side is like, if you’re calling someone a racist, bigot, homophobe — and they have their list, right? And that’s terrible. You know what, with [everything happening in Virginia right now]( are we all on social media calling him a racist? No, actually, we’re saying you did something racist. See, that’s the difference. To say someone is a racist, versus saying you did something or said something that could be perceived as racist. You think there’s a way to unwind this new tone? Just be part of the solution and not part of the problem. That’s the only way. [Read the [latest edition of Crossing the Border]( a limited-run newsletter from The Times about life where the United States and Mexico meet.] ____________________ Drop us a line! We want to hear from our readers. Have a question? We’ll try to answer it. Have a comment? We’re all ears. Email us at [onpolitics@nytimes.com](mailto:onpolitics@nytimes.com?te=1&nl=politics&emc=edit_cn_2019022220190222). ____________________ Whatever happened to … One of our biggest pet peeves at On Politics is the way stories often seem to fade away, without any follow-up. With that in mind, we wanted to update you on some topics we’ve recently written about. • Virginia’s troubled governor, Ralph Northam, has clung to his seat despite pressure to resign over a racist photo found on his yearbook page. Now, a set of new polls shows that he may survive the scandal. In two new surveys of Virginians ([here]( and [here]( a plurality say Mr. Northam should stay in office, and even more oppose impeaching the governor. The voters were more divided over whether Lt. Gov. Justin E. Fairfax, accused of sexually assaulting two women, should resign. • Breaking news today from North Carolina: After days of testimony about an alleged scheme to tamper with absentee votes in a congressional race, state officials have [ordered a new election](. The decision came after Mark Harris, the Republican candidate whose apparent victory was under investigation, called for a do-over. • Two weeks ago, Lisa Friedman, a climate reporter at The Times, gave us a rundown of the Green New Deal. Today, Lisa published a deep look into the details of the plan, exploring its plausibility. What did she find? The far-reaching plan is “within the realm of technological possibility,” experts say. But it will take “extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand.” [Read t]( article here.]( • In our newsletter this week about Bernie Sanders’s entrance into the 2020 race, we mentioned that he was starting off with a [huge advantage]( in the size of his donor base. Well, it seems that has already paid off — to the tune of [$6 million in donations in his first day](. For comparison, the second-biggest debut this year was Kamala Harris, with $1.5 million on her first day. ____________________ The Soapbox This is The Soapbox, a forum for you to share your thoughts with us and your fellow On Politics readers. In today’s edition, readers sound off on Bernie Sanders’s decision to run for president again. Teresa Monley wrote in to explain why she still supports Mr. Sanders: If we had Medicare for All, affordable college costs, were on our way to rebuilding the Middle Class, then I would say: Good job, sir. No need for you to run. We are not even close yet. He pulled the party to a place where they recognize the plight of most of the population. He started a movement. His ideas are resonating with the great majority of Americans. We are not radical, but quite pragmatic. So is Bernie. He’s a teacher and a leader. That’s why I’m supporting him. Bonnie H., in Washington, said Mr. Sanders’s energy would be better spent elsewhere: So many wonderful candidates running in 2020. Sorry Bernie, you are a spoiler, too old and will further divide the party as you did in 2016. Let’s all move on. Work your magic in the new Democratic Senate in 2020! Victor Lidz, from Pennsylvania, said he was concerned by Mr. Sanders’s age: Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden may be reluctant to acknowledge their ages and the inevitable limitations on their capacities to serve as president. However, the country would be ill-advised to entrust the powers of the presidency to individuals who will enter their 80s during a first term. I write as an academic approaching 80 myself, still in good health and retaining my capacities well enough to teach, write, and participate in conferences. Yet, I know of my impending limitations and Sanders and Biden should recognize theirs as well. The Democratic Party has younger, vigorous, and creative candidates. It is time for their elders to relinquish leadership And Monica D’Amore, from New Jersey, said Mr. Sanders’s flaw was in his approach: Not everyone gets a rush from statistics. The Dems (and Bernie) must learn how to modify their rhetoric to appeal to the common man. The campaign trail is a place to persuade, and that’s difficult to do when you’re making people feel stupid. In my opinion, people want to be spoken to in language that they can relate to. Many feel that Hillary talks down to us — in other words, she’s talking to Lisa, but most of the voters are Bart. I’ve been listening to sound bites of Bernie’s announcement to run and I cringe at hearing the same old song: Statistic Reprisal. If you want to share your thoughts, send us an email: [onpolitics@nytimes.com](mailto:onpolitics@nytimes.com?te=1&nl=politics&emc=edit_cn_2019022220190222). ____________________ What to read tonight • China collected millions of its citizens’ DNA in a campaign of surveillance and oppression. [The government was helped by a Massachusetts company and a prominent Yale researcher.]( • What would the Oscars be without a little drama? [Here’s a handy guide to the controversies that followed the best picture nominees]( from the problematic (“Bohemian Rhapsody”) to the placid (“Black Panther”). • The [Washington Post profiles]( the self-help author and Oprah spiritual adviser Marianne Williamson, who wants to win the White House with love, healing and a dose of political group therapy. ____________________ … Seriously Bernie may be getting up there in age, but the man can still shoot some hoops. [Check out this highlight reel one of his supporters cut.]( _____________________ Were you forwarded this newsletter? [Subscribe here to get it delivered to your inbox.]( Thanks for reading. Politics is more than what goes on inside the White House. On Politics brings you the people, issues and ideas reshaping our world. Is there anything you think we’re missing? Anything you want to see more of? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at [onpolitics@nytimes.com](mailto:onpolitics@nytimes.com?te=1&nl=politics&emc=edit_cn_2019022220190222). ADVERTISEMENT FOLLOW NYTimes [Facebook] [FACEBOOK]( [Twitter] [@nytimes]( Get more [NYTimes.com newsletters »]( | Get unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps. [Subscribe »]( ABOUT THIS EMAIL You received this message because you signed up for NYTimes.com's Politics newsletter. [Unsubscribe]( | [Manage Subscriptions]( | [Change Your Email]( | [Privacy Policy]( | [Contact]( | [Advertise]( Copyright 2019 The New York Times Company | 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018