Unity or division? Let's momentarily set aside all the complex dynamics of the upcoming election, and think about this overarching theme. 1/n

The strength of Biden's candidacy, from the day he announced, was that it offered the promise - possibly an illusion - of restoring some degree of unity to the country. This does not sit well with a lot of people, for some very good and understandable reasons. 2/n

We're mad as hell about Trump & his supplicants & the incredible harm they've wreaked in 4 years. We're mad as hell about the way they treated Obama & set out from Day 1 of his Presidency to block his agenda, which was quite successful in their terms. 3/n

If your memory is long enough, you're still mad as hell about the lives & treasure lost in Iraq, a war started under 100% false premises, and that was allegedly a response 9/11 - but that was an attack that need not have happened had the President taken his PDBs seriously. 4/n

9/11, of course, might never have happened had the cheating mfers not stolen Florida in 2000. I'm still mad as hell about that. And W's 2000 campaign was filthy, premised in part on attacks on WJC rooted in impeachment. It was all a bunch of horsesh*t. 5/n

So we're mad as hell about WJC's impeachment, too, and going back a bit further, to Gingrich and his Contract with America. And that, tbh, is as far back as I want to go now. Let's move forward from there, because in my reading of history, Gingrich is a pivotal figure. 6/n

Prior to Gingrich, R's used all sorts of vicious attacks on D's, but what was different starting in '94 was that the attack shifted to the fundamental legitimacy of the opposition. They were mad as hell about losing the WH in '92. They burned with hatred for the Clintons. 7/n

The Clintons were usurpers, ex-hippie boomers who obviously hated America (). Gingrich's list of words to use against Democrats - still a thing 26 years later - included calling them traitors. This has become standard language on both sides now, but it was shocking then. 8/n

The "illegitimate" theme has been pounded by Republicans ever since. It's one of the great drivers of polarization. After all, if your opponents actually hate America & are traitors, why give them a seat at the table? Why discuss anything with them? 9/n

Declaring your opponents illegitimate has proven to be a winning political strategy, particularly since Republicans don't really care much about governance, just power & "winning" the culture wars (which is how they hold onto power). 10/n

The cost of all this is obvious - the wreckage surrounds us. Obama hoped to be a healing, unifying figure that would overcome the divisions, but racism & hatred were weapons in the Republican arsenal that were far too potent for them not to use in their quest for power. 11/n

Trump, at least for now, represents the apex of the Gingrich approach. Democrats do not get a seat at the table. Their attempts at oversight are resisted and scandals that would easily have brought down earlier Presidents are labeled as hoaxes and conspiracies. 12/n

Trump's success in convincing his people that coronavirus is a hoax is maybe the most head-spinning example of the approach. CDC is somehow illegitimate. WHO is illegitimate. Governors trying to mitigate the disaster are illegitimate. 13/n

Against this backdrop, consider Biden. He's got a highly problematic record & he's prone to verbal gaffes, but he's also got a history of friendships & working relationships across the aisle. This at least offers a vision, maybe illusory, of restoring civility. 14/n

If he's elected, he will certainly try to give R's a seat at the table. This will piss many of us off. We know how horrible they've been & still are. Why would we do them the courtesy that they deny us? And this is where it gets hard to justify, bc hope is a slippery thing. 15/n

The idea is to at least give them a chance to do the decent thing for a change - to cooperate for the good of the country. Would it risk letting them water down some of our policy initiatives? Almost certainly. Would that be infuriating? For sure. 16/n

Despite the obvious downsides, despite knowing that this approach will produce gut-wrenching moments where we accept crappy solutions when we know we can do better, it is the right approach at this moment. 17/n

For one, if R's reject the offer of a seat at the table & continue scorched-Earth tactics, fine. Screw 'em. Let the polarization keep raging. We'll probably win enough - eventually - to push an undiluted agenda through. But not soon. This IMO is the most likely scenario. 18/n

If, OTOH, R's do the almost-unthinkable & accept the seat at the table, and at least make some gestures towards conciliation, maybe we can take the first baby steps away from all the toxicity of the last quarter century plus. Again, this is unlikely, but... 19/n

It is and has been the promise of Biden's candidacy from the start. It's why he made noises about a Republican running mate (not that that would ever happen) & talks about unity & winning over some R's to get his agenda passed. 20/n

He knows it's unlikely to actually happen. But by making those noises, he's signalling a willingness to move forward in a far less toxic environment, in which both sides are recognized by the other as fundamentally legitimate. 21/n

R's throwing off the legacy of Gingrich is still unlikely. But look where it's gotten them - this utter disaster of a Presidency with one of the worst, most malignant humans on the planet leading what's left of their party. If they get trounced badly enough this year...22/n

There's at least a chance that a few of them will sniff the wind and decide to change course. It will be a small number at first, and we're not even talking about people switching parties or anything like that - just being something better than obstructionist assholes. 23/n

So, again, it's all unlikely. Biden has to trounce Trump, we have to hold the House & take the Senate. IOW, gain a strong upper hand, and then offer them an olive branch. Not bc we like or respect them, but bc it's time once again for us to show how to be the grownups. 24/n

It won't be easy. It won't give us the policy outcomes we want. But if it moves us out of the Gingrich era, it will have been a major accomplishment. 25/25