Precipice is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Thanks for upgrading to a paid subscription. Writing is my job. Your support of that means everything to me.
Early on, The Bulwark and The Dispatch, the publications that arose from the demise of The Weekly Standard and some changes at National Review, started to take the we-lean-right-but-we’re-not-Trumpists stance in markedly different directions. At this point, The Bulwark doesn’t even claim to be conservative anymore. Which is why it makes a perfect home for we’ll-worry-about-policy-after-we’ve-sent-the-Trumpists-packing crowd.
As we enter the home stretch of this year’s election cycle, the differences between the publications’ missions has been presented to the public in stark relief. Centrist Damon Linker has some pretty, as you would expect, down the middle observations about it.
I’d like to look at some tweets (posts on X, if you must) about the matter, for what they reveal about the rationale behind the we-have-to-vote-Harris/Dem stance.
A major back-and-forth between The Bulwark’s publisher Sarah Longwell and Dispatch co-founders Jonah Goldberg and Stephen Hayes prompted longtime independent observer Patterico to chime in with this:
I can’t speak for Sarah but while I agree that you and Jonah have spoken again and again against Trump, I have never heard either of you clearly say “Trump is obviously worse than Harris.” It feels like you both are reluctant to address the question of which is worse. Am I wrong?
I’m not sure that stressing which is worse, which requires establishing some kind of criteria for how to line the two candidates up side by side to determine that, is a productive use of our time as summer turns to fall in 2024. The Very Stable Genius is a solipsistic man-child driven solely by self-glorification, but Kamala Harris has no redeeming qualities, as a politician, statesperson, or an example of character.
I’m sorry but I think you’re stuck in tribal muck. Harris’s speech last night was, both in substance and style, very good. She made a better case for America than any politician in almost a decade. There was a lot in it for people like us. It’s not “fluffing”. All your analysis simply ignores how dangerous Trump is. Beating him requires making an affirmative case for the alternative. There’s no betrayal in that. We are clear where we disagree on policy.
Nah, my position is anti-tribal, actually. Trump is a dangerous demagogue, uniquely unfit to serve another term as president. Harris is a far-left senator now trying to run away from her rhetoric and record. Opposing Trump doesn't require pretending Harris is something she's not.
Now, let’s ponder for a moment what The Bulwark’s Andrew Egger is saying here:
For me, the difference between where Steve's coming from and where us Bulwark types are coming from is that we look at Harris "now trying to run away from her rhetoric and record" as a good thing! She's responsive to political stimuli pulling her to the center! The system works!
No, Andrew, that makes her a phony. Yes, the worlds of politics and punditry are full of conversion stories, but the only ones worth a damn are those in which the conversion was sincere. Ronald Reagan. James Burnham. Whittaker Chambers. Jeane Kirkpatrick. Since Kamala Harris was quite publicly for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and Black Lives Matter until a few weeks ago, some doubt about this business of getting “pulled to the center” is surely understandable. Plus, her most enthusiastic supporters, aside from the Bulwark type of Never Trumper, are those who would insist on a progressive policy orientation from her administration. I don’t think I’ll hold my breath waiting for a 2,000-word essay from her about her deeply contemplated shift to the center in a Wall Street Journal column.
Steve's position seems to be that conservatives, if they feel they [heavy sigh] must vote for Harris, should go to the polls as if they're on a death march.
is right: This is basic right and wrong and conservatives need not wear sackcloth to do the right thing.
What’s that again? Tom, have you given no thought to the havoc that can be wreaked on the American experiment over the next five years with a Harris administration and a generally supportive Congressional makeup?
I think, if you’ve been reading Precipice for any length of time, you know I think the sorry-but-Harris-is-no-better-than-the-VSG bunch has the far superior argument to that of The Bulwark, Adam Kinzinger, and the Bush, McCain and Romney staffers who have endorsed Harris.
You know that I have searched my heart of hearts and done no small amount of agonizing about post-America’s grim choice, and my position remains the same. I am going to stay home in November, and I’ll do anything I can to persuade as many of my fellow citizens to do likewise.
What conservatives stand for is nowhere to be seen on either ticket. Free market economics, an understanding of the unique blessing Western civilization has been to humankind, the cultivation of virtue , an understanding of the actuality of a hierarchical order, and the primacy of clear thinking are shunted off to remote corners of our national conversation in late summer 2024.
But what about voting for what’s ostensibly your side down-ballot? Well, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in my state has some pretty sound proposals, but his primary campaign ads bragged about the VSG endorsing him. Deal breaker. I can’t trust the judgement of such a politician on anything if he’d boast about that.
No, the binary choice argument holds no more water this time than it did in 2016 or 2020. We don’t avoid national ruin by acquiescing to it.
Sure, the stakes include the integrity of national institutions, national security, and any national sense of a transcendent order. I fully understand that.
And it’s exactly why I’ve come to the conclusion that I have.
As usual, I’m pleased that the Dispatch is still able to withstand the firestorm they get from both sides. They probably bear the brunt of the criticism, because they’re close enough to the Never Trump crowd that that crowd feels like they can persuade them (whereas the Bulwark types aren’t going to bothered going after National Review these days). The only thing I find surprising is that anyone is actually surprised at Jonah and Steve’s position. It was obvious all along that this was where they were going to stay. Suddenly people act like they’re shocked that Jonah and Steve aren’t endorsing the Democrats.
As usual, I’m pleased that the Dispatch is still able to withstand the firestorm they get from both sides. They probably bear the brunt of the criticism, because they’re close enough to the Never Trump crowd that that crowd feels like they can persuade them (whereas the Bulwark types aren’t going to bothered going after National Review these days). The only thing I find surprising is that anyone is actually surprised at Jonah and Steve’s position. It was obvious all along that this was where they were going to stay. Suddenly people act like they’re shocked that Jonah and Steve aren’t endorsing the Democrats.