To level set, I believe we’re pretty like-minded philosophically. However, I would suggest an alternative view of how to cast a vote this fall.
First, if doing a write-in or not voting at all “sends a message”, I would ask exactly who is the recipient of that message? I can’t figure out who that really is (if a tree falls in the woods . . . ).
Second, financial warfare can be just as destructive as kinetic warfare. The political party currently in power is a firm believer in Modern Monetary Theory (deficits don’t matter), and are intent on continuing to print money to stay in power. The US is currently holding debt at close to WWII level (100% of GDP), yet we are in a peacetime economy. Back then we were the only functioning industrial power left and we soon returned to a near-balanced budget as our post-war economy quickly grew.
Today, we are running a $2T deficit every year adding to our national debt, and as our population continues to age out entitlements will accelerate the growth of that debt. Getting funding to build more ships (or munitions, etc.) will only get more and more difficult. Current projections have our national debt at 236% of GDP by 2054. That will bankrupt the country.
It is unavoidable that one of the two major candidates will become the next president of the US. I will put on a hazmat suit and vote for the one I think will be the least destructive to the country because sitting it out doesn’t help.
“ The GOP has become LESS conservative by my understanding of that word, and generally more populist (and collectivist, and dare I say “socialist”). Why EVER would a movement conservative consider these things a threat to conservatism? They are what conservatism is structured to oppose. Conservatism has not changed, and to the extent that one or the other of our major parties is better aligned (better, but not aligned) with conservatism, it remains the GOP.”
That is my assessment as well. I am loyal to an ideology, a set of beliefs. Not to a party. Neither Harris, nor Trump, will implement kinds of policy platforms I prefer. I will not vote for either.
I think you make a category error of your own, by lumping The Bulwark, Tom Nichols and David French together. While The Bulwark and Tom Nichols have abandoned pretty much all their conservative positions, to the point that Nichols claims that Biden is one of our greatest Presidents, David has not.
He is clear that he opposes almost all of Harris's positions, and thinks she will be a bad President, but keeping Trump out of the White House is vital. We can survive bad domestic policy, with much of it blocked by a GOP Congress, but reelecting Trump will send a message that attempting to overthrow the government, using a violent mob as your tool, works. It increases the probability that we'll see more political violence. I also think giving someone with his increasing incoherence and emotional instability nuclear weapons release authority is a risk I'm unwilling to take.
I'm not as optimistic as David that a Trump loss will shock the GOP enough to nudge them back toward conservatism, or even basic decency, but another Trump term is what, in my previous life, I would label a RED risk. Mass will go 90% to Harris, so I'll write in Ben Sasse again, but if I lived in a swing state, I'd have to consider David's option. Unfortunately, the Democrats will interpret victory as an endorsement of Bernie Sanders style politics - another gift from Tump and the Trumpified GOP.
Sorry Bryan, not really an answer. But I think what Stephen means is conservatism may only exist in people's minds if Trumpism isn't squashed. There's cherishing something in your memory, then there's whether it has any actual impact on the world.
Bryan: I look at it by asking the question: Who is the immediate threat to our democracy and the free exchange of ideas and political/philosopical/social arguments? That is Trump. If you believe that Trump and Harris are equally a threat to our nation, then alas there is nothing to discuss and I despair. Sometimes we need to ally with someone with whom we do not fully or even wholly agree to defeat a greater evil.
Reading through the comments is interesting. I get the whole if you don't vote for X then by default Y wins. There is the basic problem, not enough choices. Or maybe not enough good choices. I don't like either candidate from the major parties. Deep in my gut my fear is Harris wins much fir the same reason Obama did. But she has an additional ace in the hold that we have never seen before. A viable woman candidate. So many will vote for her because they believe the rhetoric they are better off today than 4-years ago. It is a sad fact that they buy this. Anyone remember the old phrase "it's the economy stupid". Maybe it is because we have become so me centric.I prefer the larger picture and what I see is our Republic is in trouble and neither major party has a clue what to do about it. As I age, I seem becoming more a conservative leaning Libertarian, assuming that is not a contradiction in terms anymore.
That's what I was saying. In a more blunt manner, she wins because she is a woman, she's black and she is not Trump. Three stupid reason to elect a president. For too many election cycles the voters must choose "the lesser of the evils" rather than deciding who is the best candidate.
I quit putting my real name on comments before you retired from the Navy, and I learned the hard way why it was not wise to put my name to things on the net. If your experience is different, more power to you.
Wait until some armed fool comes to your door to take issue with something you've said, then we'll see what your reaction is.
That does absolve French of his repeated idiocies.
when the choice comes to the real possibility of dealing deadly force on some idiot that shows up on your stoop and using my former rating as a pen name, then I will stick with the pen name. French still has no excuse.
Once again, your analysis is spot on. These narratives are more about who controls the GOP than whether or not conservatism is in jeopardy. Candidates prior to Trump contributed healthily to relegating small government, free market conservatives to the corner of the party, clearing the path for big government conservatives. I say this as a Republican who has not voted for a major party candidate since 2004. The problem with the paid political class is they have to self-perpetuate, and contort themselves according to their revenue streams. For eight years, I operated in a world where political positions were staked out over one man, not whether they were good or bad. It's bad public policy at best and dangerous to citizens at worst. Each person has the right to use (or not use) their vote as they see fit. Who cares how other people see it?
Interesting analysis shipmate. I think you are on the numbers regarding your conservative stance and analysis. The reality is Trump is a Traitor to the United States. He violated his oath to support and defend the constitution when he crossed the Rubicon after the last election which he clearly lost. Like you I will not vote for him ever. However, the Trump cult has infected what used to be the Republican Party with a cancer that pervades members of the Congress and Judiciary. Getting rid of him will not retard the infection. Every member of Congress that call themselves Republican and promise fealty to Traitor Trump are so badly infected that they no longer represent the conservative policies for fiscal responsibility and smaller responsible Government. They are mired in social extremism pushed by evangelical dogma. This is supposed to be a non-secular government. The Government has no business in our bedrooms and health choices to include partner selections. The bottom line is if it doesn't affect you personally, it is not yours or the governments business. However, I side with your daughters, we must start the process of excising the cancer by cutting off its head. To vote for a third party, or not vote is an enabler. I will not vote for a Republican for National Office until they take concrete steps to reject Traitor Trump and his Congressional enablers and return to responsible government policies. I respect your choice and position. Best.
We did not get here because Trump was a good choice. We got here through 15 years of the GOP promising one thing while delivering another. The Bulwark types do not acknowledge their failures; instead, they try to scold the voters back to the way things were. That works as well as you might expect.
Well, there is Tim Miller's book, "Why We Did It". I don't think that those who write for The Bulwark served as political appointees or in civil service positions during the Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Trump administrations, so I'm not certain about their failures. They undoubtedly have experienced political and personal failures, of course.
I fall not the left center side, so I suppose I’m an outsider here. However I disagree with this analysis. Both parties are populists. They move whichever way the political wind is blowing as does current ideology. The parties are, in that organizational sense, very similar. The current incarnation of the Republican Party grew out of the response from President Obama’s victory in ‘08. The Tea Party which was a grassroots movement that has morphed into what we have now. The Democrats have moved much the same way with the progressives.
I personally think the Democrats are handling this change better than the Republicans, but that’s certainly can be attributed to my bias. Point is, liberalisms and conservatism are fluid. Reagan Conservatism and Camelot exist in the history books. You may just be out of step with political reality.
I’m not a Harris fan. I wasn’t a Biden fan either but I must admit he did a decent job. I don’t like the choices. However, if history is any type of a guide, the Democrats win with heavy turnouts and Republicans win on tactical turnouts (the Democrats don’t understand the game at play, the Electoral College). If you don’t vote, you’re voting for Trump, it’s really that simple. If you want President Trump, then that’s fine, but if you’re not a Trump supporter, then your daughters are correct.
This election cycle we are left with two perfectly horrible - some would say dangerous - choices. Living in Maryland, it matters little for conservatives whether one votes for anyone other than Harris because the outcome isn't in doubt. So feel free to vote for Joe Shit the Rag man. It doesn't matter.
I fault the foaming-at-the-mouth, intellectually starved populist conservatives who installed Trump at the Republican candidate. If it were almost any other principled Republican (DeSantis, Haley, Bergum, e.g.) , the Presidential race would be a runaway, with Harris (or the survivor of an open primary) feeling very much like a sacrificial lamb. But no. Republicans are stuck with an unprincipled, critically flawed, character-deficient, narcissistic jerk who, frankly, isn't trustworthy enough to lead America in this very threatening time any more than an incompetent, radical Kamala.
So, the middle, (those who can't stomach either candidate) are left with Jack Aubrey's dilemma....which is "Lesser of of two weevils...?"
Bryan, I get it. I did the same in 2016. Wrote in Paul Ryan. But I lived in the democratic state of CA. If I had lived in Michigan I would have not had that luxury. I would have voted for country over Trump. Your subscribers in the battleground ground states I am convinced are astute.
My primary vote was for either DeSantis or Rubio. Call me shallow but I’m thrilled with Trump drilling lefties.
My problem with my Republican team is what a congressional staffer once said to me - that compromise by Republicans means us moving their way.
I can’t think of a thing where the left compromised with us.
Take abortion - DeSantis signed a bill allowing abortion for a defined period. He’s pro life. He moderated his position.
In Minnesota all restrictions are lifted up to the point of birth, including requirements to notify parents. Despite 50% of the folks who support abortion also support restrictions. The left doesn’t compromise.
We Republicans do a poor job of pointing that out. And now a pox on both parties for adding $32 trillion in debt from the year 2000.
Trump got Solemoni. HC would never have done that.
Trump allowed/ordered the Air Force and Naval Aviation to decimate ISIS in 2017, saving hundreds of thousands of Muslims and religious minorities in the Middle East.
Trump got Dear Leader to stop shooting missiles over Japan.
And I recently heard a detailed explanation of the Trump tax cuts specific to the increases to California and New York property taxes that went up. They used federal dollars to fund/subsidize those properties and now those communities are on their own.
Trump isn’t the Reagan conservative I want him to be. But you can’t deny his knack for preventing all out war because our adversaries believe he will respond in kind.
"THEY think that because the Republican Party no longer represents the ideology they once held dear, they need to support the other Party and its candidates in order to bring about some kind of Stalinist “purge” in the GOP."
This certainly isn't why I will vote for Harris and I think, in the case of Nichols who I read more frequently, isn't their position either. The issue isn't that MAGA needs to be purged from the GOP before they permanently reconfigure the Republican Party. It's that they must be purged before they permanently damage and/or destroy the Constitution. I believe that threat is real and therefore a) it must be stopped and b) the only way to stop it is to vote for Harris.
A second factor is I live in Michigan so my vote matters more from an electoral perspective.
The GOP's stated "policies"--to the extent that there are any--are irrelevant to me. Even if they perfectly aligned with mine, I would still vote for Harris. There are only two candidates who have a chance of becoming our 47th president. One of them instigated a coup attempt when he lost in the last election, and implies that he will do so again. The other one didn't. For me, the choice is simple. I will vote for the one who has not fomented a coup attempt and shows no indication that she would do so in the future. And here's another thing. Most of the "conservative" GOP officials have excused and enabled the career criminal who desperately wants to win so that he can stay out of jail. How can we vote to retain them in office, once Trump is out of the picture? How can we trust them, now that we have seen them repeatedly kiss the ring of Trump?
To level set, I believe we’re pretty like-minded philosophically. However, I would suggest an alternative view of how to cast a vote this fall.
First, if doing a write-in or not voting at all “sends a message”, I would ask exactly who is the recipient of that message? I can’t figure out who that really is (if a tree falls in the woods . . . ).
Second, financial warfare can be just as destructive as kinetic warfare. The political party currently in power is a firm believer in Modern Monetary Theory (deficits don’t matter), and are intent on continuing to print money to stay in power. The US is currently holding debt at close to WWII level (100% of GDP), yet we are in a peacetime economy. Back then we were the only functioning industrial power left and we soon returned to a near-balanced budget as our post-war economy quickly grew.
Today, we are running a $2T deficit every year adding to our national debt, and as our population continues to age out entitlements will accelerate the growth of that debt. Getting funding to build more ships (or munitions, etc.) will only get more and more difficult. Current projections have our national debt at 236% of GDP by 2054. That will bankrupt the country.
It is unavoidable that one of the two major candidates will become the next president of the US. I will put on a hazmat suit and vote for the one I think will be the least destructive to the country because sitting it out doesn’t help.
Bravo, good sir. I, too, will be writing in.
“ The GOP has become LESS conservative by my understanding of that word, and generally more populist (and collectivist, and dare I say “socialist”). Why EVER would a movement conservative consider these things a threat to conservatism? They are what conservatism is structured to oppose. Conservatism has not changed, and to the extent that one or the other of our major parties is better aligned (better, but not aligned) with conservatism, it remains the GOP.”
That is my assessment as well. I am loyal to an ideology, a set of beliefs. Not to a party. Neither Harris, nor Trump, will implement kinds of policy platforms I prefer. I will not vote for either.
I think you make a category error of your own, by lumping The Bulwark, Tom Nichols and David French together. While The Bulwark and Tom Nichols have abandoned pretty much all their conservative positions, to the point that Nichols claims that Biden is one of our greatest Presidents, David has not.
He is clear that he opposes almost all of Harris's positions, and thinks she will be a bad President, but keeping Trump out of the White House is vital. We can survive bad domestic policy, with much of it blocked by a GOP Congress, but reelecting Trump will send a message that attempting to overthrow the government, using a violent mob as your tool, works. It increases the probability that we'll see more political violence. I also think giving someone with his increasing incoherence and emotional instability nuclear weapons release authority is a risk I'm unwilling to take.
I'm not as optimistic as David that a Trump loss will shock the GOP enough to nudge them back toward conservatism, or even basic decency, but another Trump term is what, in my previous life, I would label a RED risk. Mass will go 90% to Harris, so I'll write in Ben Sasse again, but if I lived in a swing state, I'd have to consider David's option. Unfortunately, the Democrats will interpret victory as an endorsement of Bernie Sanders style politics - another gift from Tump and the Trumpified GOP.
You are right about the category error. French is different from the others.
Meanwhile , in other news:
https://apnews.com/article/navy-frigate-shipyard-workforce-retention-318c99f2161c4284e5ddcf0c1fa2b353?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share
Bryan: if you want conservatism to thrive or even survive, you must ensure that Trump never sees the Oval Office again.
Stephen: you are incorrect.
Sorry Bryan, not really an answer. But I think what Stephen means is conservatism may only exist in people's minds if Trumpism isn't squashed. There's cherishing something in your memory, then there's whether it has any actual impact on the world.
Bryan: I look at it by asking the question: Who is the immediate threat to our democracy and the free exchange of ideas and political/philosopical/social arguments? That is Trump. If you believe that Trump and Harris are equally a threat to our nation, then alas there is nothing to discuss and I despair. Sometimes we need to ally with someone with whom we do not fully or even wholly agree to defeat a greater evil.
And sometimes we need to remember the words of the article we are commenting on to understand the view of the author.
Reading through the comments is interesting. I get the whole if you don't vote for X then by default Y wins. There is the basic problem, not enough choices. Or maybe not enough good choices. I don't like either candidate from the major parties. Deep in my gut my fear is Harris wins much fir the same reason Obama did. But she has an additional ace in the hold that we have never seen before. A viable woman candidate. So many will vote for her because they believe the rhetoric they are better off today than 4-years ago. It is a sad fact that they buy this. Anyone remember the old phrase "it's the economy stupid". Maybe it is because we have become so me centric.I prefer the larger picture and what I see is our Republic is in trouble and neither major party has a clue what to do about it. As I age, I seem becoming more a conservative leaning Libertarian, assuming that is not a contradiction in terms anymore.
That's what I was saying. In a more blunt manner, she wins because she is a woman, she's black and she is not Trump. Three stupid reason to elect a president. For too many election cycles the voters must choose "the lesser of the evils" rather than deciding who is the best candidate.
I quit putting my real name on comments before you retired from the Navy, and I learned the hard way why it was not wise to put my name to things on the net. If your experience is different, more power to you.
Wait until some armed fool comes to your door to take issue with something you've said, then we'll see what your reaction is.
That does absolve French of his repeated idiocies.
But it of course leaves you free to spout yours with no blowback.
when the choice comes to the real possibility of dealing deadly force on some idiot that shows up on your stoop and using my former rating as a pen name, then I will stick with the pen name. French still has no excuse.
Once again, your analysis is spot on. These narratives are more about who controls the GOP than whether or not conservatism is in jeopardy. Candidates prior to Trump contributed healthily to relegating small government, free market conservatives to the corner of the party, clearing the path for big government conservatives. I say this as a Republican who has not voted for a major party candidate since 2004. The problem with the paid political class is they have to self-perpetuate, and contort themselves according to their revenue streams. For eight years, I operated in a world where political positions were staked out over one man, not whether they were good or bad. It's bad public policy at best and dangerous to citizens at worst. Each person has the right to use (or not use) their vote as they see fit. Who cares how other people see it?
Interesting analysis shipmate. I think you are on the numbers regarding your conservative stance and analysis. The reality is Trump is a Traitor to the United States. He violated his oath to support and defend the constitution when he crossed the Rubicon after the last election which he clearly lost. Like you I will not vote for him ever. However, the Trump cult has infected what used to be the Republican Party with a cancer that pervades members of the Congress and Judiciary. Getting rid of him will not retard the infection. Every member of Congress that call themselves Republican and promise fealty to Traitor Trump are so badly infected that they no longer represent the conservative policies for fiscal responsibility and smaller responsible Government. They are mired in social extremism pushed by evangelical dogma. This is supposed to be a non-secular government. The Government has no business in our bedrooms and health choices to include partner selections. The bottom line is if it doesn't affect you personally, it is not yours or the governments business. However, I side with your daughters, we must start the process of excising the cancer by cutting off its head. To vote for a third party, or not vote is an enabler. I will not vote for a Republican for National Office until they take concrete steps to reject Traitor Trump and his Congressional enablers and return to responsible government policies. I respect your choice and position. Best.
We did not get here because Trump was a good choice. We got here through 15 years of the GOP promising one thing while delivering another. The Bulwark types do not acknowledge their failures; instead, they try to scold the voters back to the way things were. That works as well as you might expect.
Well, there is Tim Miller's book, "Why We Did It". I don't think that those who write for The Bulwark served as political appointees or in civil service positions during the Bush, Clinton, Obama, or Trump administrations, so I'm not certain about their failures. They undoubtedly have experienced political and personal failures, of course.
I fall not the left center side, so I suppose I’m an outsider here. However I disagree with this analysis. Both parties are populists. They move whichever way the political wind is blowing as does current ideology. The parties are, in that organizational sense, very similar. The current incarnation of the Republican Party grew out of the response from President Obama’s victory in ‘08. The Tea Party which was a grassroots movement that has morphed into what we have now. The Democrats have moved much the same way with the progressives.
I personally think the Democrats are handling this change better than the Republicans, but that’s certainly can be attributed to my bias. Point is, liberalisms and conservatism are fluid. Reagan Conservatism and Camelot exist in the history books. You may just be out of step with political reality.
I’m not a Harris fan. I wasn’t a Biden fan either but I must admit he did a decent job. I don’t like the choices. However, if history is any type of a guide, the Democrats win with heavy turnouts and Republicans win on tactical turnouts (the Democrats don’t understand the game at play, the Electoral College). If you don’t vote, you’re voting for Trump, it’s really that simple. If you want President Trump, then that’s fine, but if you’re not a Trump supporter, then your daughters are correct.
This election cycle we are left with two perfectly horrible - some would say dangerous - choices. Living in Maryland, it matters little for conservatives whether one votes for anyone other than Harris because the outcome isn't in doubt. So feel free to vote for Joe Shit the Rag man. It doesn't matter.
I fault the foaming-at-the-mouth, intellectually starved populist conservatives who installed Trump at the Republican candidate. If it were almost any other principled Republican (DeSantis, Haley, Bergum, e.g.) , the Presidential race would be a runaway, with Harris (or the survivor of an open primary) feeling very much like a sacrificial lamb. But no. Republicans are stuck with an unprincipled, critically flawed, character-deficient, narcissistic jerk who, frankly, isn't trustworthy enough to lead America in this very threatening time any more than an incompetent, radical Kamala.
So, the middle, (those who can't stomach either candidate) are left with Jack Aubrey's dilemma....which is "Lesser of of two weevils...?"
Ah, the luxury of living in a blue state.
If you think that is why I think as I do, you are out to lunch.
Bryan, I get it. I did the same in 2016. Wrote in Paul Ryan. But I lived in the democratic state of CA. If I had lived in Michigan I would have not had that luxury. I would have voted for country over Trump. Your subscribers in the battleground ground states I am convinced are astute.
My primary vote was for either DeSantis or Rubio. Call me shallow but I’m thrilled with Trump drilling lefties.
My problem with my Republican team is what a congressional staffer once said to me - that compromise by Republicans means us moving their way.
I can’t think of a thing where the left compromised with us.
Take abortion - DeSantis signed a bill allowing abortion for a defined period. He’s pro life. He moderated his position.
In Minnesota all restrictions are lifted up to the point of birth, including requirements to notify parents. Despite 50% of the folks who support abortion also support restrictions. The left doesn’t compromise.
We Republicans do a poor job of pointing that out. And now a pox on both parties for adding $32 trillion in debt from the year 2000.
Trump got Solemoni. HC would never have done that.
Trump allowed/ordered the Air Force and Naval Aviation to decimate ISIS in 2017, saving hundreds of thousands of Muslims and religious minorities in the Middle East.
Trump got Dear Leader to stop shooting missiles over Japan.
And I recently heard a detailed explanation of the Trump tax cuts specific to the increases to California and New York property taxes that went up. They used federal dollars to fund/subsidize those properties and now those communities are on their own.
Trump isn’t the Reagan conservative I want him to be. But you can’t deny his knack for preventing all out war because our adversaries believe he will respond in kind.
Walz or Harris doesn’t have that credibility.
"THEY think that because the Republican Party no longer represents the ideology they once held dear, they need to support the other Party and its candidates in order to bring about some kind of Stalinist “purge” in the GOP."
This certainly isn't why I will vote for Harris and I think, in the case of Nichols who I read more frequently, isn't their position either. The issue isn't that MAGA needs to be purged from the GOP before they permanently reconfigure the Republican Party. It's that they must be purged before they permanently damage and/or destroy the Constitution. I believe that threat is real and therefore a) it must be stopped and b) the only way to stop it is to vote for Harris.
A second factor is I live in Michigan so my vote matters more from an electoral perspective.
The GOP's stated "policies"--to the extent that there are any--are irrelevant to me. Even if they perfectly aligned with mine, I would still vote for Harris. There are only two candidates who have a chance of becoming our 47th president. One of them instigated a coup attempt when he lost in the last election, and implies that he will do so again. The other one didn't. For me, the choice is simple. I will vote for the one who has not fomented a coup attempt and shows no indication that she would do so in the future. And here's another thing. Most of the "conservative" GOP officials have excused and enabled the career criminal who desperately wants to win so that he can stay out of jail. How can we vote to retain them in office, once Trump is out of the picture? How can we trust them, now that we have seen them repeatedly kiss the ring of Trump?
One could readily make the case that Harris ( with the help of Obama and Pelosi) engineered a soft coup herself.
One could if one wanted to twist oneself into a pretzel.