Burn, Baby, Burn

Thoughts on the NeverTrump divide.

By
354

Dear Reader (Including those of you who can’t wait for Rob Zombie’s new album, Alien DNA, Demon Sperm, Hydroxychloroquine),

So I guess we’re doing this. 

You may have noticed that I’ve largely tried to stay out of the whole “Burn it Down” versus—um, what is the other side called? “Mend it, don’t end it?” Naw. Well whatever, the anti-burn-it-down camp. 

I’d call it the Frenchist camp, after my colleague David French who rejects the burn-it-down position. But “Frenchist” is already taken by Trumpists and Trump-adjacent intellectuals to describe socially conservative classical liberalism and a politics of decency (though they think it describes the cowardly capitulation to cultural Marxists who want your children to be taught by illegal immigrant drag queens). 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
354
By
Comments (354)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Brian

    A lot, though not all, of the divide between the burn-it-all-down Never Trumpers and those more like Jonah is that the former tend to have more real campaign experience, and the latter tend to be pundits. I grant that it’s not a perfect divide, maybe more of a spectrum, but I think there’s at least some truth to it. And I think that divide is due to that fact that campaign veterans see a vote as a signal, similar to how us free marketers see price. The pundits believe that removing less Trumpian members from the caucus will make the caucus more Trumpian. Those more campaign oriented understand that political parties react to signals, and losing votes and members is a pretty strong signal. The only real option if you want to send a signal is going after the members in swing districts and states, and those members almost have to be less Trumpian as they are anticipating the price they will pay with their electorate if they were too Trumpian. The idea of punishing a party for its misbehavior brings us to Jonah’s oft lamented weakening of the parties. The question then is, are the Parties strong enough to set norms for its elected members in reaction to signals from voters? Someone cleverer than I suggested the American political parties are becoming more like Parliamentary parties, which vest more power in the party’s leader, something for which the US system of elected representatives was not designed. Rather than seeing voting against the Party down the line as “burn it all down”, I think you could equally make the case that the Party, as an organization was already burnt down, and that punishing them sends a signal that maybe they should do something about that, because in a functioning party, Trump would never have won the nomination.

    Collapse
  2. Chris Knopf

    I feel the human tendency to slavishly adhere to ideologies is at the root of our current discord. It's a simple thing to compare political loyalties to religious beliefs. I think most people, in normal times, are able to cherry pick those aspects of the dogma that suit them, and let the inconvenient tenants slide on by. I think of all the Catholic women I've known on birth control, and my Jewish friends asking for that terrific bacon and cheese sandwich I like to make. I'm a voracious consumer of media, delving into both sides of the divide, (often to my regret) and it feels as if the priests of the opposing Inquisitions are gainfully employed by the press. And they war on each other, in their own tumultuous bubble. All are proficient nutpickers, choosing the most egregious examples from the opposing forces and blowing up the worst offenders into portraits of the whole. Notable exceptions are Jonah Goldberg and David French, which explains my presence here. And other anti-Trump conservatives like George Will, Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson, Ross Douthout, David Brooks and Bret Stephens. As a fallen way Republican, and anti-Trump advocate, I think these folks are brilliant, since they seem to think like me. So, good job, boys and girls. But for many commentators, and a depressing number of politicians, any deviation from strict doctrine is proof of apostasy, resulting in immediate condemnation.
    No country for free thinkers. I'm a sturdy capitalist and believer in a strong defense and active participation in international affairs, but also a committed social liberal (as one pundit once wrote, no one represents people like us). I'd be burned at either stake. One painted red, the other blue.

    Collapse
  3. John S

    Jonah, does it change the conversation to advocate simply not voting for Republicans this cycle, as opposed to voting for Democrats instead?

    My priority is punishing all of them (minus Romney) for violating their oaths and complete abandonment of their Constitutional duties. To do that I'm willing to let Democrats get elected, but I will vote for third party candidates.

    So I'm advocating principles, not tactics. Abandonment of principles in favor of political games is what got us into this mess. It's not going to get us out.

    Collapse
  4. Hunson_Abadeer

    You had me there! I was actually excited about that new Rob Zombie album.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Tara Joyce

    I don’t even care if there’s a solution. I will not vote for people who lack the character and conviction of principle to forcefully condemn Trump’s actions when it was deserved, or who did not vote to remove him from office when they knew it was the right thing to do. Policy is of less importance than character, and if that means that I vote for no person from either party, then so be it. I don’t care about burning anything down. It can burn or it can continue to stand. The choice is simple for me — I have no strategy other than to support men and women of character and principle. If they also happen to align on policy then all the better.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    VladimusPrime

    In thinking about the "Burn it down" debate I have come to one inescapable conclusion. Trumpists can not be allowed to wield power. In any form within our government. The Republican party is the vehicle for the exertion of their power. This may come with some minor sops to other interested parties who hold some stake in the Republican party, but as we can see it comes at an all too high cost to the nation. It is not just the Trump is uniquely incompetent (though he is) the ideology to which he caters to the most is inherently destructive. To deny them power their vehicle for its exertion must be decommissioned. To do that these less Trumpy Republicans must be unseated.

    So we cant get rid of the Trumpiest of the Trumper Senators, but by taking out Susan Colins and John Cornin we can remove or greatly minimize their terrible ideology/lack there of can cause the nation.

    Let the Republican Party be a forever Trump party in which the Trumpists are isolated and contained. AMD the rest of us can then figure it out from there.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Tom Westberg

    If you could get Bill Kristol on the Remnant to discuss your differences it could be a great podcast.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Matt Y.

    I think Ramesh highlighted the two key parts of the disagreement. One part Jonah mentioned, the other part he didn't.

    First: "To some extent, these writers and political operatives are engaged in an ideological dispute disguised as a tactical argument. Those anti-Trumpers who back Republican congressional candidates tend to oppose gun control, higher taxes and abortion. Those who cheer for a Democratic landslide tend to side with the Democrats on these issues or place a low priority on them. So naturally they are less worried about a Democratic sweep, and more eager to see a political catastrophe for Republicans that prompts them to undertake radical change."

    I think that's correct. These are probably foreign policy neoconservatives who don't care about social issues or are even socially liberal, perhaps even reevaluated their FP views after breaking with the GOP, and dont have a big problem with Biden. If you think the Democratic Party agenda with no Republican Senate or filibuster to stop their agenda would be as bad or worse than Trump himself winning second term, you probably won't vote straight Democrat. You might not for for any Democrat at all, and just vote 3rd party for President.

    Second, and this is the part Jonah didn't mention: "This reality may point to another division among the never Trumpers. There are those who didn’t vote for Trump and favored his removal by Congress who are willing to concede that intelligent and well-meaning conservatives could disagree with them. And then there are those whose objections to Trump run so hot that they cannot countenance being part of a coalition with people who backed him (with exceptions for those who apologize for their past support)."

    I'll rephrase a little: Do you think it's possible for well-meaning and intelligent people to disagree strongly about a wide range of things, including whether Trump should be reelected? If no, then sure, you'll think all Republicans but Romney are scoundrels and traitors and vote against them all. If yes, you might still vote straight D this year, but be open to voting for Rubio in 2024 for example; or you might vote 3rd party for President but straight R otherwise. And you'll have more grace for those who make different choices.

    Or another way to put it, is Trump an actual fascist, basically Mussolini but more incompetent (or even the next closest thing to Hitler)? In that case, you probably won't forgive anyone supporting him. On the other hand, is he "merely" a manifestly incompetent and weak President with low character and authoritarian tendencies? In that case, maybe you won't forgive the worst toadies like Gaetz, but you'll forgive those like Cory Gardner who decided the best thing to do was to try to keep their heads down and muddle through.

    Here's a recent podcast with evangelical conservative Karen Swallow Prior (who also spoke with David French recently) who has been vocal about her refusal to vote for Trump or Biden. It's titled "The most complicated election of our generation." I don't think the burn-it-all-down folks will agree it's complicated. They think it's simple and the answer is simple: vote out all Republicans.

    https://www.pastortheologians.com/podcasthomepage/2020/07/09/the-most-complicated-election-of-our-generation

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    JohnF

    If we don't burn it all down, perhaps we compromise? It would require the cooperation of the voters in South Carolina, Georgia, and Oklahoma, but a Senate without Lindsey Graham, Kelly Loeffler (or Doug Collins), and James Inhofe would be an improvement. Assuming that Doug Jones loses, that still maintains the Republican Majority while sending an appropriate message.
    Since all of this is a fantasy anyway, a House that was freed up of the presence of Jordan, Nunes, Gohmert, and Gaetz could only be a better place. Since there's no apparent chance that the GOP will be taking back the House with or without these guys, this wouldn't be much of a loss and it would significantly raise the average intelligence level of the remaining GOP caucus.

    Collapse
    1. deathtomcmansions

      McConnell the shadow president has to go.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Charles

    > I don’t really see why anyone would want to see it be run by the most Trumpy Republicans

    This is a sound strategy because while a party truncated from its center might be more Trumpist in the short term, it will very quickly have to reckon with having little to no relevance unless it is willing to form a broader, more durable coalition. The sooner that reality dawns, the better for the long term prospects of a healthy right of center party emerging.

    And that's precisely the problem with the Frenchist position: What makes a coalition strong is not that it merely has a center, but that the center is strong in relation to the strength of its wings. The center is the foundation, so can we really expect a different outcome if try to rebuild on sand?

    We've had enough time to see now with shocking consistency a steady flow of evidence that the center of the GOP is simply not load bearing.

    One by one, supposed paragons of virtue have either cowered in silence or openly embraced Trumpism. Did anybody else find it ironic that less than 48 hours after David French held him up as an example of a "better" Republican, we find John Cornyn downplaying Trump's threat to delay our election with the most flimsy and tired of excuses? It's shameful behavior, and as a Texan and former Cornyn voter I cannot just furrow my brow, declare "I think he's learned his lesson" and hope for a better day. If he is so feeble that he cannot even push back against the crossing of that line on my behalf, then how can I take seriously any argument that would posit politicians like him as the bedrock of a rejuvenated Republican party?

    No, best for him to get out of the way and give someone else a crack at the plate in 2026.

    I still want what I think most here would like to see: a Republican party with a strong center, more in touch with America, and with the capacity to govern and moderate at the national level, but here's where I differ with folks like Jonah and David. While I like the idea of preserving the center of the GOP, what the evidence tells me is clear. The center is gone. It doesn't exists anymore. The Trumpists already burned it down.

    Collapse
Load More