Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"
Getty images

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Chris Christie’s decision to run for the Republican presidential nomination is of particular interest to me. This is not because he is the only Republican candidate to date who is unapologetic in calling out the former president for unacceptable behavior, nor because I think Christie has a chance of winning. Rather because of the perspective after a one-on-one discussion the two of us had in the summer of 2019.

I attended the Aspen Institute's annual Ideas Festival in June 2019. The festival is a weeklong event where people from all over the world cross-pollinate their fields to discuss their unique accomplishments and dedication to improving their communities while making advances within their field of work.

One of the featured speakers was Chris Christie and I remember the evening well as he was interviewed by Jeff Goldberg, The Atlantic’s Editor in Chief before a packed crowd at the Hotel Jerome in downtown Aspen.

With the upcoming presidential election of 2020 on everyone's mind, plus the added fact that Christie was then a supporter of President Trump, the event was of great interest to everyone. Goldberg started the conversation bluntly inquiring what Christie saw in Trump that other people don’t see.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Christie responded: “I’ve known him for 17 years so my perspective is a bit broader than most. But, let me start off by saying this, elections are not about who you want to vote for. Elections are about who you’re left to vote for. To be clear, Donald Trump was not my first choice for president.” Jokingly, he added, “I was.”

Christie went on to make it clear that, “Trump was not my first choice to be president,” but justified his support by saying, “Here’s our choice- we sit on the sidelines and do nothing or we can try to make him better.”

Goldberg wasn’t satisfied with the answer and continued to probe Christie if his opinion has changed since 2016, given the opportunity to witness Trump's behavior the last three years. Christie responded by saying, “no, he’s no different now, he’s not changing” and then went on to justify his support by detailing the litany of what Christie considered to be good policy that Trump had gotten through Congress or unilaterally mandated through executive action, which warranted his support.

The questioning continued on many subjects related to Trump's questionable character or lack thereof, including his perceived racial slurs and other incendiary remarks since 2016. Christie deflected the questions with the defense of Trump that I have heard so often, outlining that he doesn't necessarily “like some of his antics” nor “condone his character flaws” but he endorses him because he agrees with his policies.

I find this Kabuki dance interesting especially given that Republicans focus on family and religious values. I took exception to much of Christie’s rationale that evening in Aspen for supporting President Trump but wasn’t called upon during the question and answer period.

Fortunately, the very next evening I attended a small dinner event that Christie and his wife attended. The interview of the previous night was still very much on my mind and so after dinner I had a chance to speak to Christie alone as the guests mingled and I brought up the Goldberg interview of the previous night.

I communicated to Christie my inference from the evening that he found many things about President Trump to be abhorrent but nothing at this juncture had risen to the level that he would throw his support to another candidate.

He seemed to agree with my assessment and so I continued:

“So based on what I heard you say last night, am I correct that if Trump's behavior became so bad, and he did something that reached a given threshold in your mind you would not only denounce the action but you would withdraw your support from him.”

Christie thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

That surprised me so I asked what that threshold would be and, being the adept politician that he is, he had the perfect, crafty politician non-answer:

“David, do you remember the Supreme Court ruling about pornography in 1964 and what Justice Potter Stewart said?”

I am not particularly well versed in the SCOTUS ruling minutia so I admitted that I had no idea what Christie was referring to and asked him to explain.

“Stewart in explaining what pornography is said this: ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ and so David I can’t say now what the line is with Trump, but I’ll know it when I see it.”

I was taken aback by the answer but I let it go. Since that evening, I’ve thought considerably about Christie’s answer in relationship to Trump's comments in Charlottesville about there being good people on both sides, or when he attacked a Gold Star family with unsubstantiated insults about this war hero being a member of the Muslim brotherhood, or the countless other childish insults he used and continues to use against anyone who disagrees with him on policy or anything else.

For the three years since that encounter, I’ve asked myself many times that if Christie and other Republicans haven’t seen it yet, will they ever see it and subsequently call out Trump's behavior? Finally after four years, Christie has finally seen it and knows what that disqualifying behavior is. Seemingly, it is the disregard for the rule of law that leads to insurrection and threatens our national security.

On Fox News Christie depicted Trump as “as a juvenile who should be sent to his room, not White House.”

Well I guess he now knows it because he’s seen it.

In other speeches Christie has stated that January 6th and Trump's total disregard for the rule of law put him over the edge and stated last week that Trump is "A lonely, self-consumed, self-serving mirror hog and is not a leader." At one point last week he delivered a mocking impression of Trump claiming he would build a southern border wall at Mexico's expense and said Trump, more than Biden, was to blame for the country's failed immigration policy.

Trump still has a commanding lead in what has become a crowded pack of more than a half dozen Republican presidential candidates; the question remains whether Republican primary voters, like Christie, will finally know it when they see it.

I have my doubts.

Read More

Blurred image of an orchestra
Melpomenem/Getty Images

The ideal democracy: An orchestra in harmony

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. Starting this summer, he will serve as a Tarbell fellow.

In the symphony of our democracy, we can find a compelling analogy with an orchestra. The interplay of musicians trained in different instruments, each contributing to the grand musical tapestry, offers lessons for our democratic system. As we navigate the complexities of governance, let us draw inspiration from the orchestra's structure, dynamics and philosophy.

Keep ReadingShow less
David French

New York Times columnist David French was removed from the agenda of a faith-basd gathering because we was too "divisive."

Macmillan Publishers

Is canceling David French good for civic life?

Harwood is president and founder of The Harwood Institute. This is the latest entry in his series based on the "Enough. Time to Build.” campaign, which calls on community leaders and active citizens to step forward and build together.

On June 10-14, the Presbyterian Church in America held its annual denominational assembly in Richmond, Va. The PCA created considerable national buzz in the lead-up when it abruptly canceled a panel discussion featuring David French, the highly regarded author and New York Times columnist.

The panel carried the innocuous-sounding title, “How to Be Supportive of Your Pastor and Church Leaders in a Polarized Political Year.” The reason for canceling it? French, himself a long-time PCA member, was deemed too “divisive.” This despite being a well-known, self-identified “conservative” and PCA adherent. Ironically, the loudest and most divisive voices won the day.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fannie Lou Hamer

Fannie Lou Hamer testifies at the Democratic National Convention in 1964.

Bettmann/Getty Images

60 years later, it's time to restart the Freedom Summer

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" and program director for the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Sixty years have passed since Freedom Summer, that pivotal season of 1964 when hundreds of young activists descended upon an unforgiving landscape, driven by a fierce determination to shatter the chains of racial oppression. As our nation teeters on the precipice of another transformative moment, the echoes of that fateful summer reverberate across the years, reminding us that freedom remains an unfinished work.

At the heart of this struggle stood Fannie Lou Hamer, a sharecropper's daughter whose voice thundered like a prophet's in the wilderness, signaling injustice. Her story is one of unyielding defiance, of a spirit that the brutal lash of bigotry could not break. When Hamer testified before the Democratic National Convention in 1964, her words, laced with the pain of beatings and the fire of righteous indignation, laid bare the festering wound of racial terror that had long plagued our nation. Her resilience in the face of such adversity is a testament to the power of the human spirit.

Keep ReadingShow less
Kamala Harris waiving as she exits an airplane

If President Joe Biden steps aside and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris, her position could be strengthened by a ranked-choice vote among convention delegates.

Anadolu/Getty Images

How best to prepare for a brokered convention

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

As the political world hangs on whether Joe Biden continues his presidential campaign, an obvious question is how the Democratic Party might pick a new nominee. Its options are limited, given the primary season is long past and the Aug. 19 convention is only weeks away. But they are worth getting right for this year and future presidential cycles.

Suppose Biden endorses Vice President Kamala Harris and asks his delegates to follow his lead. She’s vetted, has close relationships across the party, and could inherit the Biden-Harris campaign and its cash reserves without a hitch. As Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested, however, Harris would benefit from a mini-primary among delegates before the convention – either concluding at the virtual roll call that is already planned or at the in-person convention.

Keep ReadingShow less