Barr offers a comprehensive apology to rectify his stance on putting people to death with his religious faith. Pope Francis’ revision of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which condemns the death penalty as “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” throws Barr into an attack of hair splitting: “The term inadmissible has no fixed meaning in moral theology, and is certainly too vague and circumstantial to be read as an attempt to eradicate this vast body of established doctrine, even if it could.”
This is a pattern in Barr’s book: he nitpicks his way to desired conclusions by carefully following a legal path around finely drawn distinctions, all the while dropping bombs at anyone he defines as an enemy. “For all his urban affection, Obama was still the left-wing agitator who patiently steered the Democratic Party toward an illiberal, identity-obsessed progressivism,” Barr writes; no doubt real “left-wing agitators” who have regularly denounced Obama for centrism would like to have a word.
Barr’s version of Trump, meanwhile, packs a punch: The former president may have “an inaccurate and discursive speaking style,” even a propensity for “insane rhetoric,” but Barr also believes Trump has “a deep intuitive appreciation for the importance of religion to health.” of our country.” Barr muses that “the country would have benefited from, and probably would have seen more of, the constructive, problem-solving style of administration President Trump foreshadowed on election night,” if he “on the other hand had only been received a little in good faith.” ”
By “good faith,” Barr may be imagining something like his own generous interpretations of Trump’s behavior, which he goes to great lengths and often arduous attempts to rationalize in his book. When Barr learned about the ensuing phone conversation between Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, who was then the president-elect of Ukraine, Barr said he advocated the prompt release of the transcript — largely because it showed Trump, in the end, according to Barr, had nothing wrong. done at the bell.
Yes, admits Barr. Telling Zelensky that US military aid was dependent on a Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens was “foolish”, but “a return is inherent in almost all diplomacy.” Besides, even if such an investigation into the president’s adversary would have yielded “political benefits” to Trump, it would also “arguably advance America’s anti-corruption agenda,” Barr says. Making room for such intricate rhetorical twists is partly why this book is nearly 600 pages long.
There are also plenty of places where Barr offers what at first looks like a blizzard of detail, yet makes some odd omissions. He devotes page after page to the issue of voter fraud, which he repeatedly describes as a real threat, not saying a word about voter suppression. He characterizes the Inspector General’s report on the Mueller investigation as “scathing,” while failing to discuss that the same Inspector General’s report stated that the FBI had sufficient reason to cut ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. to investigate. Barr also remains silent on the fact that a bipartisan report from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the same.
By the end of “One Damn Thing After Another,” it’s clear that Barr has something else in common with Trump: a cunning ability to recognize when certain people are no longer useful for his purposes, and a willingness to part with them accordingly. them. Barr gives a description of Robert Mueller’s “trembling” hands and “trembling” voice, wondering whether Mueller “may have an illness” — a striking (and appropriate) gossip for Barr to hover over an old friend. In the final chapter, Barr throws Trump under the bus, albeit carefully and with the utmost decency. Barr laments Trump’s persistent “tone” issues, accusing him of alienating “a large group of white-collar suburban people” “needlessly”, and declares it is time to move beyond the 2020 election loser by ” something like the old Reagan coalition.”
But Barr faces a dilemma, which is to explain how Republicans can dump Trump while preserving his fiery base. The result is if the Deus ex Machina moment in an ancient Greek play, when a hopeless situation is resolved by the sudden appearance of a god on a crane. “Republicans have an impressive lineup of younger candidates who are fully capable of moving forward with MAGA’s positive agenda and cultivating greater national unity,” a wistful Barr points out. “MAGA’s positive agenda” combined with “national unity”? Until I got to that point in his book, I wouldn’t have seen Barr as someone so thirsty for a fairytale ending.