The Never Trump Schism

Plus: Harris gives an interview (finally), and tragedy unfolds in Gaza.

A debate has been boiling the last couple weeks, begun on Twitter by Sarah Longwell and aimed at Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg, over whether writing in (or refusing to vote) constitutes some sort of failure. Longwell contends that Goldberg and Hayes are unprincipled for refusing to endorse Harris, because Trump represents (in her view) an existential threat, whereas Harris is merely a run-of-the-mill progressive Democrat. According to her, anyone who opposes Trump who fails to vote for Harris is abdicating his or her responsibility. 

For those of you who haven’t paid attention, our Barney Quick has given a good rundown here. If you’re a Dispatch subscriber, you probably already know the details, but this article by Nick Catoggio does a great job of summarizing the positions fairly. 

The spat was precipitated by a tweet from Steve Hayes bemoaning the thinning of the ranks of principled conservatives, with some becoming shills for Donald Trump and others becoming shills for progressive Democrats. This enraged Longwell, who was also upset by Goldberg’s arguments in the amicable dispute between him and his friend David French over French’s recent column, “To Save Conservatism from Itself, I Am Voting for Harris.” Unlike other Never Trumpers, French is clear-eyed that Harris isn’t exactly a great conservative choice. But he argues that conservatives should vote for her anyway in order to stop Trump. Goldberg disagrees, and he will probably write in Mitch Daniels for the third election in a row. 

But the specific details of this debate don’t really matter, because a version of it has played out every several months since Donald Trump was nominated in 2016. Because the lines have hardened since then between Never Trumpers and Trump voters, the former have given up trying to persuade the latter, and now train their fire not on those who actually vote for Trump, but on those who recognize his unfitness for office but refuse to vote Democrat. Some Never Trumpers seem personally offended by those of us who will abstain from voting for either Trump or Harris. This isn’t surprising. Human beings are generally more offended by those who are closer to their position but disagree materially than they are by people with whom they disagree so strongly as to have no common ground.  

Given the unique place The Dispatch occupies in the media landscape, it bears the brunt of the fire from both sides on this question. The audience of Longwell’s The Bulwark is already voting for Harris, and the audience of National Review is either writing in, not voting, or (in some cases) reluctantly voting for Trump. But the audience of The Dispatch contains people who will vote for Harris, people who will vote for Trump, and people who will not vote for either of them. Therefore, while The Bulwark will please its fans, any decision The Dispatch makes will necessarily disappoint some of its fans. Steve Hayes and Jonah Goldberg have made very clear from the beginning that The Dispatch will not endorse candidates. That they have stuck with this position has infuriated many Never Trumpers, although it shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

Why does this matter? Although it elucidates interesting distinctions between various media organizations, the reason I have spent five hundred words on a somewhat-niche online debate between anti-Trump public intellectuals is that it stakes out the ground that Barney Quick likes to call the “narrow sliver of terrain.” This terrain is the space between the reluctant Harris voters (David French, Nick Catoggio) and the reluctant Trump voters – the space where those of us who refuse to vote for either exist. The Dispatch sits in the very middle of that terrain. 

This election may be won or lost in part by Haley Republicans – Reaganites who end up moving off of the fence to one side or the other. Some Haley voters will reluctantly pull the lever for Trump. Others will reluctantly pull the lever for Harris. In a close election, these voters matter more than they normally would. From a pundit’s perspective, then, this debate is more than academic. 

Most of us here at The Freemen News-Letter are writing in, although some may either refuse to vote or vote third party. For my part, I have friends who are voting for Harris and friends who are voting for Trump. Given where I sit, I see grave flaws in both candidates, and so I don’t begrudge anyone who comes to a reluctant decision to back one or the other. 

I don’t think Donald Trump will be a dictator. That we even have to consider the possibility that he might, though, should be disqualifying. 

American institutions are strong enough to withstand whatever assault he throws at them. They withstood January 6^th and the “stolen election” narrative. But either of those by itself should be disqualifying. Republicans should be ashamed of what happened on January 6^th. It was un-American. And, yes, it was an attempt at a coup. Given that it was perpetrated by morons, it was a D-squad version of a coup, destined to fail miserably. That doesn’t make it any less shameful. 

And we should be clear-eyed. Trump will once again test our institutions, and his second term will be worse than his first. Trump clearly sees the Constitution as an obstacle to his own self-interest. And he is surrounded by cult-followers and hangers-on, many of whom whisper sinister sentiments in his ear.

But on the other side, the Democrats also see the Constitution as an obstacle in their way. They’re just more sophisticated about it than Donald Trump (which, if we’re being perfectly frank, isn’t hard). This has been a through-line in progressivism and the Democratic Party going back to Woodrow Wilson. 

Whichever candidate wins the election in 2024 will challenge our institutions in his or her own way. And the loser of the election will also challenge them. Each party has its own way of delegitimizing elections when it loses. Trump claims the election was stolen, and he will do so again should he lose in 2024. His supporters blame the system for being rigged against them. 

The point is not original to me, but when Democrats lose, they blame America. America “isn’t ready” for whatever progress they have in store for us. America is “behind” Europe in some regard. When Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, we were told that America isn’t ready for a female president, because of our supposedly misogynistic society. (Although, were Sarah Palin to be nominated by the Republican Party and lose, we wouldn’t hear much about how her loss was the fault of the supposed sexism of our society. Instead, we would likely be treated to another round of claims that Palin isn’t a “real woman.”) 

If Kamala Harris loses in November, we will be told once again that it’s our fault. Americans aren’t ready, the story will go, for a female president of color. According to this narrative, voters only care about the immutable identity characteristics of our candidates, and any positions taken are secondary. It’s a convenient narrative, because it completely absolves the party – just as Trump’s lie about the 2020 election absolved the Republican Party – of any responsibility to reckon with what went wrong. 

In both cases, this whining about stolen elections or sexist electorates is nothing more than an excuse. It’s a way to cast blame on something else, and to say that the party had no chance of winning all along.

I remain unpersuaded by the arguments that I should get off the fence and vote for one of the two candidates. Many readers likely feel similarly. 

Punditry Roundup

Harris and Walz finally sat down with CNN’s Dana Bash for an interview. It went fine. It was neither very bad, nor very good, and it will not matter in a week or two. The Harris team went into the interview hoping to keep the ball and run out the clock and they succeeded.

If you live in a swing state, you likely already feel sick and tired of the campaign ads. With two months to Election Day, those won’t go away any time soon. Both candidates appear to be tacking to the center, Harris by telling surrogates to disavow her 2019 positions, Trump by putting his foot in his mouth on abortion. 

Harris’s heart likely never lay with the Defund the Police crowd. However it is unlikely her heart lies with the centrist tack she’s currently taking. Trump has no principles, and has never cared one whit for the pro-life cause, so we should be prepared to see him continue to put his foot in his mouth on abortion and other issues. There is nothing in his campaign to please Reaganite conservatives, and therefore no reason to vote for him. 

And Finally

Tragically, Israeli soldiers found the bodies of six hostages over the weekend, including Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an American. They were retrieved from the tunnels under Rafah. Their names were Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Ori Danino, Eden Yarushalmi, Almog Sarusi, Alexander Lobanov, and Carmel Gat. Our prayers are with their families and loved ones. 

This has been a brutal year for Israel and Gaza, and the clouds of war in the north are growing darker. There will be renewed calls for an end to the war and an election to replace Netanyahu. But Hamas has continued to walk away from any lasting ceasefire agreement the Israelis have offered. It now refuses even to sit down with Israel. The only peace Gaza will know will come when Hamas is destroyed. 

The Allied occupation of Germany worked. If the occupation of Gaza is simultaneously aimed at deradicalizing their population and rebuilding their cities and towns, it may be successful, too. For now, we can only pray that someday there is lasting peace in the region. But that kind of peace is only achieved at a cost, and it isn’t achieved by putting off hard things. 

The Democrats may have successfully neutralized their vulnerability on this issue for the 2024 election. But it remains to be seen whether the start of the school year will bring back the Hamas Youth on campuses across America. If the anniversary of 10/7 is greeted with keffiyehs and widespread chants of “Death to Zionists” (which, it should be noted, seems only ever directed towards Jewish supporters of Israel, and never towards supporters of Israel who aren’t Jewish), that could have an impact in November. 

Whoever is president in 2025 will have to recognize what the last year has made clear. Americans may be losing interest in the Middle East. But the Middle East isn’t losing interest in us. ISIS and al Qaeda are resurgent. Iran is uncowed. As George W. Bush learned, America can’t turn aside from the region, which will continue to have an outsized influence on our politics for years to come.

Ben Connelly is a writer, long-distance runner, former engineer, and author of “Grit: A Practical Guide to Developing Physical and Mental Toughness.” He publishes short stories and essays at Hardihood Books. @benconnelly6712