Beer Track and Meth Track

Right-wing media is preemptively whitewashing a second Trump presidency.

By
307
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center on March 3, 2023, in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

There are two Republican primaries happening, not one, wrote Tim Miller of The Bulwark this past summer. There’s the fantasy primary in which right-wing donors and conservative legacy media obsess over whether Ron DeSantis is outpolling Nikki Haley, or vice versa, and how the latest Potemkin debate might affect that.

And then there’s reality, in which Trump leads by 48.3 points.

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
307
By
Comments (307)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. GMANwPlan

    I just read a GREAT example of the Beer Track commentary that was recently posted by Michael Brendan Dougherty for National Review. See that article here:

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/12/lame-ducks-and-dictators/

    Just one of many examples from this piece:

    "I have an idea of how to stop the Trump dictatorship: Elect him president. Then he will once again reveal his relative powerlessness. The problem with Trump is the exact opposite of dictatorship: chaos and disorder."

    Like Nick, I can easily picture the typical "Normie" reading such statements and returning happily to their rationalizations about the worst Republican being far better than the best Democrat.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Citizen60

    The worst headline in one of my political feeds this week: "Republicans accommodating themselves to Trump in the White House."

    Because they've almost all pledged to mindlessly, lock-step vote for "the Republican presidential candidate"

    Collapse
  3. Krbrady1919

    I never thought that we'd be in a position as a country where a former president who tried for two months to engineer a self-coup and overturn an election is the absolute front-runner for a good 35-40% of American adults. I just don't understand it, and I'm a center-righter, I'm hardly a "lib." Forget Jan. 6, what happened outside of that day was much worse - the false electors, the summoning of MI state lawmakers to the Oval, the barrage of ludicrous lawsuits and conspiracy theories, the relentlessness of it all.

    And despite having at least three other decent choices (Haley, DeSantis, Christie), a plurality of voters are sticking with him. We're the problem. How do I explain this to my kids??

    Collapse
    1. Blue as Distance

      I am confounded, too. When he first ran for president, it seemed ludicrous that he would be elected...and now a second time!? It's like a terrible, poorly written novel from which we can't "wake up."

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Brian Ruff

    Looking at the Project 2025 website is an exercise in spiking my blood pressure. Just the abuse of the word "conservative" is enough to give me fits.

    It needs to be said from the tallest tower: TRUMPISTS ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Simon J. Dodd

    I don't understand what it will take for these "normies" (if they exist) to realize that the party's over and it's long past time to leave.

    Collapse
    1. Nick V

      Because there's no where else to go.

      Collapse
  6. Drussell2337

    I'm not a Trump supporter. I'd say current criticisms and warnings about Trump might have more gravitas if similar statements hadn't begun well before his Presidency. His detractors, aided and abetted by government agencies and most of the MSM, sought to discredit a duly elected President in the most transparent and blatant fashion. In short - they cried "wolf!" for years, and now have no credibility. It's a shame, because right now we could use credible, trusted thought leaders giving an objective assessment of the man.
    I don't know who will win in 2024, but I do know that Trump's resiliency with his base was greatly reinforced by his opponents' behavior. In addition to reinforcing the notion that Trump was treated unfairly, they discredited the elections process nationally, and as the original election deniers (led by HRC, Schiff and Nadler) set the stage for widespread accusations of election denial, which Trump and company gleefully embraced.

    Collapse
  7. Wes.Bridges

    “He won’t be a literal dictator. This is also true, strictly speaking.”

    You underestimate Mr. Trump and his handlers. Who's to stop him? And you underestimate the willingness of the meth track to follow him off the rails, violently, while the beer track dithers. We’re in for a very rough patch.

    Meanwhile, the Dominionists have seized control of the House. And we stood there and watched them do it.

    Collapse
  8. R. James

    "There’s the fantasy primary in which right-wing donors and conservative legacy media obsess over whether Ron DeSantis is outpolling Nikki Haley, or vice versa, and how the latest Potemkin debate might affect that."

    It is deeply ironic that both the Trump media and the deeply anti-Trump media (The Dispatch, The Bulwark) are pushing the same narrative: that the debates don't matter and the only people supporting Non-Trump candidates are donors and media pundits. I understand why Trump supporters are making this argument, but it makes no sense to undermine and invalidate the non-Trump options if you're anti-Trump and a sincere conservative publication. The Dispatch would do better to endorse one of the non-Trump candidates then to whine and argue about why the whole process is futile. That just serves Trump.

    Collapse
    1. Christopher Lake

      R. James, according to Steve Hayes, "The Dispatch" has a policy of not endorsing candidates, and I fully agree with and support that policy. I'm as anti-Trump as any committed NeverTrumper, but I *don't* want my favorite political site, by a large margin, telling me who to vote for, when I can make that decision very well for myself.

      With that said, TD recently did an interview with Chris Christie, and when it was published it on the site, the comments were filled with soundings of a quite negative note, saying that he should drop out, he has no chance, etc. Well, I don't let polls tell me who or who not to vote for, partially because historically speaking (even in recent years), more than a few polls about Presidential candidates have turned out to be *dead wrong* in terms of the actual voting results. I'm happily voting for Christie in the Republican primary in my state, and if he pulls it off to be the Republican nominee, I will very enthusiastically support him for President. I'm an individual and a conservative, which for me, means in part, that I don't want, or need, an endorsement of any particular candidate, from anyone, for me to make an informed decision about whether or not to vote for that person for President, either in the primary, or the general election.

      Collapse
      1. Carl Smith

        I also support the clarity of thought behind CC's candidacy. If liberal democracy is to weather the storm of Trump's ego, it may be time to establish a political party that will not be ephemeral and where a Chris Christie could thrive.

        Collapse
        1. Christopher Lake

          Carl, I'm right there with you. I'm a conservative who cannot recognize the Republican Party anymore, for the most part, as the Party for which I mostly voted for almost three decades. It's just not that Party anymore. I'm voting for Christie, because with his openly anti-Trump, and thoughtful, serious-policy-discussing, campaign, he is embodying the best of what the Republican Party *used* to be. However, if he doesn't win in enough of the primaries to get the Republican nomination, then that will mean, for me, that the Party is truly dead *as* a thoughtful conservative Party, and that the infection of Trumpian populism is so great that it will likely never *return* to being a thoughtful conservative Party.

          I haven't completely given up hope yet-- I have *some* hope with Chris Christie's candidacy, and, as I've mentioned before at "The Dispatch," I was very happy to vote for Republican Larry Hogan, a thoughtful conservative and a Trump critic, for two terms as governor here in Maryland. Larry achieved a lot of *conservative good, and bipartisan good,* for this very blue state, and he was widely respected and loved here (although some Trump/MAGA devotees and some partisan far-leftists didn't like him very much). Larry Hogan's two solid terms as governor here gave me some hope in fairly dark and discouraging times, regarding the larger Republican Party.

          With that said, overall, the Republican Party has become so much of a populist, non-conservative, Trumpian Party, that if Chris Christie can't win the nomination in '24 (and I am hoping that he can, and I will definitely be voting for him in the primary!), then I will be more than up for a new, truly conservative, political Party. Really, I already am up for it, having been largely alienated from the Republican Party since 2016, but Christie, Hogan, and a few others have *earned* my votes with their thoughtful, principled, pragmatic conservatism that is (in an echo of an earlier, better time!) willing to reach across the aisle and work with thoughtful, principled, pragmatic liberals, when such is possible, for the sake of actually enacting good policies.

          Collapse
  9. Dougrhon

    You know I still can't believe this is actually happening. I mean I know it is but there is a big part of me that still can't believe it.

    Collapse
    1. Wes.Bridges

      This.

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      For all our disagreements, I am right there with you.

      Collapse
  10. Cjonespam

    It's not the first time Nick's pointed this out, but... "The core conviction of right-wing media is that the worst Republican is preferable to the best Democrat."

    Quoting that because I look at most of the content that gets posted on TD as a whole these days, and I'm starting to wonder what the difference is between TD and the rest of the right-wing media. Other than Nick and a few politics-focused articles, I see relatively little coverage of what Trump's planning; meanwhile continued the spotlighted focus is all about antisemitism on the left. Which is a legitimate problem, but is it the only problem we face as a country these days? Or is the relentless focus on it a way of reinforcing the idea at the top of this comment?

    Collapse
    1. R. James

      "I'm starting to wonder what the difference is between TD and the rest of the right-wing media"

      This probably says more about your own politics than it does about the Dispatch. As a anti-Trump conservative, I see a lot of difference between TD's coverage and NR's coverage on a lot of issues, not just Trump. And NR is not even a very Trumpy publication.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Simon J. Dodd

        That's true, but only up to a point. I don't understand this publication's inexplicable unwillingness to grasp two nettles.

        One, Trump will be the GOP nominee unless he's dead, period. Stop blathering about these pathetic also-rans and their pathetic grifts! You're interviewing Chris Christie like he's a candidate for the Republican nomination, and I get it, you'd like him to be, and so would I, but the harsh fact is that the guy's high water mark was 03.40%, and he's *down* from that now. Williamson is consistently polling three times what Christie's polling and no one treats her like she's a serious contender. The Dispatch is not going to interview her on a podcast for her opinions on foreign policy because she's polling at eight and a half percent. She's not going to be the Democratic nominee. But she's a lot more likely to be the Democratic nominee than anyone other than Trump is to be the Republican nominee.

        Two, what are you going to do about that? Stop acting like it's some distant possibility to think about in the future. It's not. This is happening. To borrow from Jonah's recent conversation with Sarah—"What time is it?" Well, it's time to start figuring out what you're going to do to stop him returning to power once he's got the nomination. Because from where I'm sitting, the only thing between Trump and the White House is a pale horseman.

        Collapse
    2. Christopher Lake

      Cjonespam, we must be reading and processing (and, listening to and watching, for the podcasts, as I do listen to and watch at least some of them, as I can) most of the recent content of "The Dispatch" *very* differently, because to my eyes and ears, this site, *including* in recent days and weeks, is still seriously different from most of what now *purports* to be "conservative media."

      This site actually *is* conservative. The sites that are either asleep at the wheel about Trump's plans, or, are actually ignoring or downplaying them, have apparently chosen Trump over conservatism, but "The Dispatch" decidedly has not.

      If I had the time, here, now, I could give you a long list of recent articles and podcast episodes to justify that claim, but I have a long afternoon and evening ahead of me, of time-sensitive things that need to be done here, so I'll just give you one link (actually, two links, for the audio and the video, respectively)-- to the interview that Steve Hayes recently did, at "The Dispatch Podcast," with Liz Cheney, titled "Sleepwalking into Autocracy." If you have already heard (or watched, as I did yesterday on Youtube) this interview that Steve did with Liz, and you *still* think that "The Dispatch" hasn't been very distinguishable, recently, from other so-called "right wing media," then I don't know what to tell you. I'll share the link to the audio for the interview, first, here at the Dispatch site, and then, the Youtube video link, if you want to watch the interview (which I would strongly recommend):

      https://thedispatch.com/podcast/dispatch-podcast/sleepwalking-into-a-dictatorship/

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkKBWwYKDDg

      Collapse
      1. Cjonespam

        Hi Christopher, big picture: Yes, it's probably a matter of perspective, given what I tend to view or not view on TD. I don't disagree about the content of the Cheney interview; I downloaded it on my podcast feed. And there are a lot of people whose primary interaction with TD is probably via the podcasts, and probably see things as fairly balanced from that perspective. And I ABSOLUTELY agree TD is better than National Review, let alone other places even more Trumpy.

        From my own perspective, when I've gone to TD's front page for the past week, I've seen the top story has invariably been on antisemitism, either in general, or w/r/t to the university president hearing, or both. That goes for today's Morning Dispatch, despite the hearing being nearly been a week old at this point. And there's been (again, from my perspective) an inordinate amount of coverage of the issue on my personal flagship podcast, Advisory Opinions, and relatively little coverage of various Trump legal issues (including attacks on court personnel, which you'd think would get more of a rise from a legal-focused podcast!)

        (And yes, at this point I obviously need to say that SOME coverage and finger pointing at Dems re: antisemitism is entirely appropriate and necessary! My point is the relative balance of issues, NOT to say that Dems are innocent on this issue - they clearly aren't.)

        So yes, there is a difference between TD and the rest of the right wing media, point taken. But especially when I listen to something like Jonah's discussion with Tom Nichols a few weeks ago, and Jonah's reluctance to sign on to Tom's support of Biden, I still wonder if TD as a whole doesn't still have a core conviction: "that the worst Republican is preferable to the best Democrat." (Or at least, the two are still basically comparable.)

        Hope this clears things up, cheers!

        Collapse
        1. Christopher Lake

          Thank you for the reply, Cjonespam! I'm stopping in tonight at the site, just for a bit, but I do have to get back to my aforementioned time-sensitive tasks, so I apologize if I'm not able to hit all of your points in my reply, but I will make an attempt! :-)

          I'm trying to understand your overall perspective in your reply- I genuinely am. I really try here, as much as I humanly can, to understand differing perspectives (differing from my own, that is) and to engage in good faith. As far as I know, "The Dispatch" is probably *the* most outspokenly, consistently, anti-Trump conservative website. "The Bulwark" *began* as a conservative site, but it has wandered from that grounding, over the last couple of years, to become more of a simply anti-Trump website that has some conservative writers and some liberal writers. I don't want "The Dispatch" to become "The Bulwark." I do read liberal (and some leftist) sources on various subjects (including Trump and his legal issues), but I'm happy that "The Dispatch" is the anti-Trump conservative website that it is, and from my reading and listening to the content here (including the recent articles and podcast episodes), I don't see it giving *any sort of permission structure* for conservatives to vote for an obvious enemy of the Constitution such as Donald Trump.

          Did you see this recent G-file piece from Jonah? To my mind, it can't really get any more clear than this piece, in terms of Jonah's obvious view that no thoughtful, serious person, conservative, liberal, independent, or otherwise, should be voting for Trump: https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/stopping-dictatorships-on-day-1-and-every-day/

          Given the historic nature and extent of the October 7th Hamas terrorist attacks, and given the striking and frightening outpouring of anti-Semitism in the following weeks in the U.S., the recent articles at TD on matters involving anti-Semitism have been, and are, *very timely and very needed.* I'm not Jewish, but I live in an area of Maryland which has a large Orthodox Jewish population, and there have been anti-Semitic attacks, and people are frightened, and angry, and resolute about standing against this menacing wave of hatred. For myself, I don't want "The Dispatch" to step back, or slow down, on its coverage of anti-Semitism. That coverage is crucial and needed. Personally, I don't think that this coverage has been taking anything away, at all, from the site's vocal anti-Trump conservatism. Thanks again for your reply! Cheers!

          Collapse
          1. Cjonespam

            Hi Christopher, thanks for your reply but I think we're reaching a point of diminishing returns. I don't disagree with much of what you're saying - indeed, I've tried pretty hard to point out that this is a matter of balance, not a question of binary "this coverage should always/never happen!"

            The last thing I will say before giving you the final word is this - I have no doubt that TD crew is firmly Never Trump. That's NOT the same thing as being willing to hold their nose and support Biden - in fact, that's the point of the Jonah/Tom conversation I mentioned above. A publication that sees Biden as a (clearly flawed!) candidate who we're nonetheless stuck with as the only viable alternative to Trump would probably balance its coverage differently - NOT ignoring antisemitism, but balancing it out with more than glancing coverage of "Dictator on Day One" stuff.

            Instead, we get Steve wishcasting about a Biden alternative on High Steaks, and the same kind of relentless negative coverage on Biden that I remember NR doing on Obama back in the day. That's the balance issue I'm concerned with, NOT saying that TD is secretly Trumpist.

            Cheers!

            ETA - I'm seriously considering whether this will be my last post on TD - my yearly subscription is up and I have to update my card info to make it go through. But tbh, reading TD stresses me out more than anything, and while I'd like to support responsible conservative journalism (despite being a liberal myself!) I'm not sure that's what I'm getting these days. Or, to put it another way, I want to support allies against Trump... but if the net effect of TD is "a pox on both houses", I'm not sure it's worth it. We'll see...

            Collapse
      2. R. James

        Well its conservative in a fiscal and foreign policy sense. At least where the party has been post Reagan. On social issues, however, it is not.

        Collapse
Load More