Consider upgrading to a paid subscription.
Ideological conversion experiences are a pet fascination of mine. There’s a certain broadly defined trait that pertains to a lot of them, and that’s going to be the main focus of this essay, but let’s start with some hard cases, the ones that truly perplex.
Let’s start with a right-to-left conversion. Bill Kristol is the son of Irving Kristol (who is considered the godfather of neoconservatism; as a core member of the New York Intellectuals, was part of a shift from left to right among Jewish cultural observers in the 1970s) and historian Gertrude Himmelfarb. He was chief of staff to Education Secretary Bill Bennett (who has had an unfortunate conversion of a type we’ll get to shortly) and Vice President Dan Quayle. He helped found The Weekly Standard (along with John Podhoretz*, the son of another of the New York Intellectuals, Norman Podhoretz).
But since the advent of the Very Stable Genius as a political figure, something has happened to him.
I’m going to cede the floor to Andrew Sulllivan here to illustrate what that was:
Now hugely popular among MSNBC Democrats, alert to racism and sexism and homophobia, Kristol has, these last few years, performed a spectacular ideological self-reinvention that makes J.D. Vance look like a man of unflinching consistency. And he has never even attempted to explain why.
Take for a moment the issue du jour: abortion. Very few people have spent years and years, as Kristol has, campaigning with a singular determination to overturn Roe v Wade. Here he is in 1998:
Republicans talk a lot about being a majority party, about becoming a governing party, about shaping a conservative future. Roe and abortion are the test. For if Republicans are incapable of grappling with this moral and political challenge; if they cannot earn a mandate to overturn Roe and move toward a post-abortion America, then in truth, there will be no conservative future.
A year earlier, Kristol had been even more emphatic:
The truth is that abortion is today the bloody crossroads of American politics. It is where judicial liberation (from the Constitution), sexual liberation (from traditional mores) and women’s liberation (from natural distinctions) come together. It is the focal point for liberalism’s simultaneous assault on self-government, morals and nature. So, challenging the judicially imposed regime of abortion-on-demand is key to a conservative reformation in politics, in morals, and in beliefs.
This is more than a pro-life position. It is the articulation of a thoroughgoing pro-life conservatism designed to end judicial intervention in politics, reverse the sexual revolution, and restore distinctions between men and women rooted in biology and nature. It couldn’t be more GOP 2022! The man was a visionary. And so you might imagine that when Kristol’s vision came to final fruit in 2022, he’d be over the moon.
But no. After Trump became GOP leader and put three pro-life justices on the Supreme Court, Kristol barely mentioned abortion on his Twitter thread — except to take a swipe at “the Republican political class — at once cavalierly uncaring about the women they seek to represent and manifestly insincere about the pro-life beliefs they claim to hold.”
And what of the pro-life beliefs Kristol claimed to hold? How manifestly sincere have they been? Last year, he was retweeting the view that “one thing [pro-choicers] always said is that pro-lifers really just want to control women’s bodies. And part of me thinks that this is probably right.” In 2020, he actually urged Biden to put a defense of Roe at the center of his campaign against Trump, while retweeting some liberal evangelicals’ view that “on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump.”
And look: it’s a perfectly legitimate argument that being pro-life means more than being anti-abortion, and requires universal healthcare as well. That was what these evangelicals were saying. And perhaps Kristol now also supports that as well. But that would be the same Kristol who almost single-handedly killed Hillarycare and did all he could to kill Obamacare as well? Why sure. At this point, why not?
Kristol is also now down with the “LGBTQIA+s”. He recently retweeted a critique of the Parental Rights bills across the country: “the pernicious intent of bills such as these: to stigmatize and shame gay and transgender people under the guise of protecting children from inappropriate conversations about sex.” Another Kristol retweet objected to the “grooming” meme: “Grooming is not acknowledging the existence of gay & transgender people to children.” Another retweet lamented that a Republican lost in Virginia because he favored marriage equality: “His sin was treating gays as humans worthy of equal respect and dignity… He wasn’t willing to be cruel to the Americans that Republican voters hate.”
Admirable in many ways. But again, is this the same Bill Kristol whose magazine, The Weekly Standard, was among the most fervent opponents of gay equality in America? In 1996, he published a piece arguing for a “reaffirmation by states of a sodomy law” if gay marriage advocates didn’t cut it out. The magazine sent out a letter on behalf of an anti-gay advertiser that raised the specter of “Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress” with a plan to “indoctrinate a whole generation of American children with pro-homosexual propaganda.”
Kristol himself once said that “some [anti-gay] discrimination is perfectly reasonable,” and spoke of “the tragedy, really, of the gay rights movement in America — the tragedy of AIDS, the tragedy of the really irresponsible behavior, unfortunately, of so many people in that community.” He went out of his way to corral a conference for the ex-gay movement at Georgetown, which was designed, as its own literature explained, to expose homosexuality as “the disease that it is.’’ Kristol actually gave the concluding address. He later said on ABC News, “There are people who say ‘I was gay once. I didn’t like it. I sought counseling and I now am happily heterosexual.’”
As I’ve said, it’s no sin, and even a virtue, to change your mind. But to have been so passionately on the extreme edge of one side of an issue he regarded as one of core morality, and then flip to the other side entirely — with absolutely no account of why— is not a mark of any halfway serious writer. To go from believing that gays need to be cured to Kristol’s current posture as defender of homos from Republican “hate” is amoral, unserious bullshit — both then and now.
Maybe Trump’s capture of the GOP caused Kristol to re-evaluate everything he ever believed about anything. But if Trump’s victory was about the victory of populism over elitism, then Kristol himself was an architect of it. It was Kristol who gave know-nothing populists their first major coup in national politics with Sarah Palin. And it was deliberate: “It was a way of co-opting, and obviously I was wrong to some degree — a kind of populism that I could see coming, so I’ll take a little credit for that.” So Kristol wants to denounce populism in the GOP, but still “take a little credit” for it. His case for Palin at the time? Pure populism: “A Wasilla Wal-Mart Mom a heartbeat away? I suspect most voters will say, No problem. And some perhaps a decisive number will say, It’s about time.”
The near-instant revelation that Palin was completely bonkers, delusional and pathologically dishonest didn’t affect Kristol’s support for her during the 2008 election — and beyond. He aired the idea of her running for Senate … in 2013, saying she had “a great political touch.” Even now, he thinks she was basically honest: “She wasn’t well-educated, but I don’t think there was the kind of systematic attempt to deny truth and truthfulness and make up things and just lie the way Trump does.” Let me belatedly introduce Kristol to the Daily Dish series, “The Odd Lies of Sarah Palin,” containing 32 whoppers.
Immigration? He postures now as a moderate. But when immigration reform might actually have happened under Obama, Kristol co-authored an impassioned editorial titled “Kill the Bill.” Money quote: “House Republicans can do the country a service by putting a stake through its heart.”
Bipartisanship? Kristol’s pathological hostility to the most centrist Democratic president, Bill Clinton, led him to support scorched-earth opposition to anything Clinton tried to get passed. His visceral loathing of Obama — another moderate Democrat — led to the same implacably obstructionist stance.
Sexual morality? In the 1990s, he linked the decadence of the Clinton White House to the depraved counter-culture of the 1960s. He egged on Kenneth Starr incessantly. By 2017, with Trump in office? “The sex scandals are bringing out my inner feminist.”
Identity politics? “Woke Bill Kristol,” as many online lefties have nicknamed him, is real. “I’ve been looking at some polling crosstabs and I’ve got to say to my fellow white men over 55: You’re a great disappointment to me,” vented Kristol. Always alert to racism, he tweeted: “Maybe I’m just too woke these days, but I find myself pretty much totally pro-Simone Biles, and pretty appalled by the mean-spirited clowns taking shots at her.” Any actual criticism of the neo-Marxist concepts being fed to schoolchildren? Nah. No enemies to the left is now Kristol’s mantra:
Some Democrats have embraced Critical Race Theory (CRT). The entire Republican Party has embraced Legitimate Political Discourse (LPD). And LPD is a lot more dangerous than CRT.
Israel? Kristol’s views came to extraordinary fruition under Trump: the effective end of any two-state solution, and of the Iran deal, the annexation of the Golan Heights, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and the further marginalization of the Palestinians. Like the reversal of Roe, this was the fulfillment of Kristol’s wildest dreams on a subject he never used to stop talking about. And yet from 2016 to 2020, Kristol is astonishingly quiet.
Race? Here too Kristol’s record — a conventional conservative opposition to affirmative action, and a defense of classical liberalism as opposed to critical race theory — has been flipped entirely. Now, the GOP is racist until proven otherwise. When critics criticized Ketanji Brown Jackson’s mild support for critical race theory, for example, Kristol pounced:
No more dog whistles. Just unabashed bigotry. Perhaps some Republican elected official — perhaps one of the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee — would like to denounce this from the official account of the Republican Party?
If it is “unabashed bigotry” to criticize Democrats for being too fond of neo-Marxist theories on race, then Bill Kristol has been an unabashed bigot for decades — until he finally lost favor among Republicans.
In 2020, Kristol sealed the deal by voting for the Democratic ticket.
Regarding the type of conversion alluded to by referencing Bill Bennett above- namely, the conversion of a universally respected public intellectual who had always demonstrated a grounding in the foundational principles of a broadly defined right-of-center worldview - I’d like to present Roger Kimball as an example.
Kimball, in the essays he wrote for years for such publications as National Review, Commentary, the New York Times Book Review, and The New Criterion (which he now publishes), as well as such books as The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia and Tenured Radicals, his thrust has been the West’s squandering of its birthright, its wholesale jettisoning of the aforementioned principles that made it a unique blessing to humankind. The man knows his art, philosophy and history.
But early on, he went all in for the VSG, who is pretty much the antithesis of Kimballesque erudition. He even went so far as to defend Trump’s character when, early on, his utter lack of it was pointed out. He got on the election-denialism train in the wake of November 2020 and has defended the yay-hoo insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Now, given the topic of Kimball’s focus throughout his career, the degree of his alarm about the woke erosion of the Western vision is understandable. Hell, I’m alarmed.
But, much like the aforementioned Bennett and classical historian Victor Davis Hanson (who wrote a book called The Case For Trump), his sense of urgency rendered him susceptible to investing all his hopes for a reversal in one figure. Conservative public intellectuals of all people should know better. They not only understand that we’re all fallen creatures, they are well-versed in the examples of how such idolization works out badly.
Kristol’s response to the Trump phenomenon - a shift toward political support for Democrats - seems a little different. While he justifies his leftward shift by praising Biden policies that it’s a stretch, at best, to praise, he doesn’t really gush over the man himself. Biden obviously lacks Trump’s magnetism.
As I say, there’s a stratum of folks who, while not as blessed with brain power as the above-discussed figures, started out defending a coherent and recognizable conservative vision but drank the MAGA Kool-Aid at various points beginning in 2015. Think Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D’Souza, Tucker Carlson.
If one parses the career progress of any of these figures, though, signs that they were at least partly motivated by a desire to make an attention-getting splash were there. Ingraham’s books have always had titles crafted to appeal to the hell-yeah element: Shut Up and Sing, Of Thee I Zing, The Hillary Trap. Each of the theatrical-release movies D’Souza made about the corrosive effects of Democratic governance got increasingly cartoonish. Tucker, as we know, has slid the greasy pole from The Weekly Standard to Patriot Purge.
But talk radio, which signed on to the MAGA enterprise with yee-haw gusto early on, is unabashed in its burning hot desire to sniff the throne. Sean Hannity, Mark Levin et al had always skated through their daily programs on talking points and a quiver of at-the-ready, endlessly repeated shorthand terms and labels for things they both championed and opposed, and prided themselves on the insulting way they’d dismiss callers who took any kind of issue with any aspect of their agendas.
Even Rush Limbaugh, the prototype of the fully fledged talk-radio movement, can be seen in retrospect to have been in this mold. Granted, when he first started structuring his show with updates for progressive sacred cows such as environmentalism, feminism, the gay community, and peace, it was a novel line of attack. It was the first time conservative concern about assaults on Western principles was given that kind of widespread airing.
But in hindsight, one can see that he pioneered the self-important carnival-barker vibe for talk radio, characterizing himself as “the big voice on the right,” speaking into an actual golden microphone in his home studio in Palm Beach, name-dropping about those who hosted him in NFL hospitality suites, or with whom he played golf in Hawaii.
And, of course, he drank the Kool-Aid in 2015.
Now there’s an entire universe of MAGA punditry, to be found on myriad podcasts, in magazines such as American Greatness and websites such as Townhall and The Federalist. What characterizes the tone of all of it is the fierceness of the attempt to define and defend some kind of coherence in a movement that has none, save for one key thing: loyalty to a solipsist who wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about them if he ever suspected that that loyalty was wavering.
This is why I try to be exceedingly careful not to let Precipice become some kind of forum for grinding some kind of axe. At this point, my hill to die on is the special status of the West. And the history of the West is the distillation of a number of ideas resulting from honest and vigorous debate, from the differences of opinion among Glaucon, Adeimantus and Socrates in Plato’s Republic to the Protestant Reformation to the question of how to rid the American experiment of the stain of slavery. It’s a synthesis borne of honest, earnest disagreement.
I am not interested in guarding the turf of any contemporary label. Progressives, for what I hope are obvious reasons. “Never Trumpers,” because they tend to go the way of Bill Kristol and Heath Mayo.
And, of course, the MAGA leg-humpers, who have outdone the identity—politics yay-hoos at putting postmodern public discourse in free fall.
I remain what I consider to be a conservative.
And I would imagine that’s what brings you here to Precipice.
*who has kept his head on straight. I highly recommend the daily Commentary podcast.