Justin Amash

The biggest real conflicts in Congress revolve around the above issues because preferences with respect to them aren’t neatly partisan, and because the median member of Congress errs on the side of “safety” relative to the amount of “liberty” their constituents want. What makes these situations so significant is not just that they lead to close vote outcomes but also that they produce a unique mix of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the divide. In other words, the marginal vote will make a difference regardless of which party holds the majority. In this world—the real world, not the imaginary one that partisan pundits on the right and left live in—Rogers poses a far greater threat to individual liberty and the Constitution than Sanders. Moreover, it’s not just that Rogers is awful here; it’s that Sanders is actually much better on these issues than the median member of Congress. If someone had asked me during my time in Congress who was more likely to stand with me in defense of the Bill of Rights on a pivotal vote, Rogers or Sanders, I’d certainly have a good laugh before answering. Of course it’s Sanders! The scariest Democrats in Congress aren’t the progressives, who at least hold principled positions on some key issues. The scariest ones are the so-called centrists, who seem to routinely back all the worst ideas of both the Democrats and the Republicans. Establishment Republicans like Rogers love to do the same—always reaching for the status quo of bigger, more intrusive, more unchecked government—and Rogers is the most extreme version of this type of Republican.