It seems old Nate hit a nerve. I think that most people who write on politics for the Bulwark believe correctly that Donald Trump is a dangerous enemy of the republic and threat to the nation’s liberal order who should never become president again.. There are three ways to accomplish this. The first and easiest is for someone to prosecut…
It seems old Nate hit a nerve. I think that most people who write on politics for the Bulwark believe correctly that Donald Trump is a dangerous enemy of the republic and threat to the nation’s liberal order who should never become president again.. There are three ways to accomplish this. The first and easiest is for someone to prosecute and convict him of one his crimes before the end of the year or at least before the primaries. People should hope that happens, but things need to get moving for it to happen. The next way is for someone to defeat him in the Republican primaries and deny him the nomination. Ar present the person most likely to do that is Ron DeSantis. He is not my favorite. I would prefer Haley or Scott to him, but as long as he is the one with the best shot to take Trump down, I will support him, vote for him in my state’s primary, and try to talk others into doing the same. The final line of defense against Trump is for Biden to beat him in the general election. I don’t like the idea of having to bet the bank on a mentally fading eighty two year old who barely took Trump the first time and may be running next year with a recession hanging around his neck. It might work, but it would be better not to have to find out whether it would.
I understand that an important part of the Bulwark’s work is shilling for the Dems, and that Trump would be the weakest Republican candidate. But with the stakes such as they are now, I think it would be better to ease up on DeSantis and anyone else opposing Trump, and focus on the main task of stopping Trump, assuming of course that people at the Bulwark believe that is the main task.
I don't think you're listening to what they said. They have clearly stated Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat to democracy and that they would pick DeSantis over Trump. But they also recognize that DeSantis is also a threat.
Yeah, they say that, but they don’t act like it. It’s like when dems say they think trump is the greatest threat and then spend money on ads to boost MAGA candidates. Some psychologists call it “revealed preferences“ and anyone who didn’t go full-Jen Rubin can see that their world has come to depend on the Republican Party being the party of Trump, so they’re not ready to see it gradually start to move away from him.
Some may. I think Linda Chavez would. But like I said, some have left never to return and have effectively recanted on much of their conservative ideology and policy views, not just their membership in the Republican Party. (I.e., Jennifer Rubin.) And in my view, that’s the path taken by Tim Miller, Charlie Sykes, Tom Nichols and others, to varying degrees.
I agree that the last few years have affected their thoughts on the Republican party's brand of consevatism, but not on conservatism itself. I think the agreement we see here between them and the Dems today is just a function of common opposition to Trump and Trumpism. I think it masks fundamental underlying differences in political philosophy.
I don't know who Jennifer Rubin is. Never heard of her.
I can see the argument for this view. But to me, it strikes me as being both too pessimistic and too clever by half.
The Bulwark crew is taking the route of not thinking too hard about this. Specifically, they're not thinking too hard about how nervous they are about Biden's age, or how close the Electoral College was last time, or what the models/data/numbers are telling them about the chances of a party winning when it's populated with leaders they simply don't like, respect, or trust as human beings, whether on "conservative" principles or any kind of principles at all.
The article with the most views on the entire Bulwark website last year was titled "The West is Winning, Russia is Losing, and Biden is Doing a Good Job". Which sums it all up, both on principle and politics.
Basically, they're thinking that Biden's the sitting president of the United States, they think he's done a better job than anyone else would have done preserving American leadership in the 2020's so far, and domestic policy differences aside, they've come to like and respect him as a global defender of democracy. They think numbers and party loyalty aside, for their intepretation of conservative principles, supporting Biden would be the smart thing to do because it's (in their mind) the right thing to do.
Beyond that, they're making a tacit assumption that Americans dedicated to stopping Trump are doing so for reasons beyond just getting rid of one man, and that treating it as simply that would be a grave political error, not just a moral one. Taking down Trumpist poison, not just Donald himself, is their main task. If that makes sense.
It seems old Nate hit a nerve. I think that most people who write on politics for the Bulwark believe correctly that Donald Trump is a dangerous enemy of the republic and threat to the nation’s liberal order who should never become president again.. There are three ways to accomplish this. The first and easiest is for someone to prosecute and convict him of one his crimes before the end of the year or at least before the primaries. People should hope that happens, but things need to get moving for it to happen. The next way is for someone to defeat him in the Republican primaries and deny him the nomination. Ar present the person most likely to do that is Ron DeSantis. He is not my favorite. I would prefer Haley or Scott to him, but as long as he is the one with the best shot to take Trump down, I will support him, vote for him in my state’s primary, and try to talk others into doing the same. The final line of defense against Trump is for Biden to beat him in the general election. I don’t like the idea of having to bet the bank on a mentally fading eighty two year old who barely took Trump the first time and may be running next year with a recession hanging around his neck. It might work, but it would be better not to have to find out whether it would.
I understand that an important part of the Bulwark’s work is shilling for the Dems, and that Trump would be the weakest Republican candidate. But with the stakes such as they are now, I think it would be better to ease up on DeSantis and anyone else opposing Trump, and focus on the main task of stopping Trump, assuming of course that people at the Bulwark believe that is the main task.
I don't think you're listening to what they said. They have clearly stated Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat to democracy and that they would pick DeSantis over Trump. But they also recognize that DeSantis is also a threat.
Both of those things are true.
Yeah, they say that, but they don’t act like it. It’s like when dems say they think trump is the greatest threat and then spend money on ads to boost MAGA candidates. Some psychologists call it “revealed preferences“ and anyone who didn’t go full-Jen Rubin can see that their world has come to depend on the Republican Party being the party of Trump, so they’re not ready to see it gradually start to move away from him.
They were Republicans before Trump. I think they will very happily be Republicans after Trump. If only the party would get rid of him.
Some may. I think Linda Chavez would. But like I said, some have left never to return and have effectively recanted on much of their conservative ideology and policy views, not just their membership in the Republican Party. (I.e., Jennifer Rubin.) And in my view, that’s the path taken by Tim Miller, Charlie Sykes, Tom Nichols and others, to varying degrees.
I agree that the last few years have affected their thoughts on the Republican party's brand of consevatism, but not on conservatism itself. I think the agreement we see here between them and the Dems today is just a function of common opposition to Trump and Trumpism. I think it masks fundamental underlying differences in political philosophy.
I don't know who Jennifer Rubin is. Never heard of her.
I can see the argument for this view. But to me, it strikes me as being both too pessimistic and too clever by half.
The Bulwark crew is taking the route of not thinking too hard about this. Specifically, they're not thinking too hard about how nervous they are about Biden's age, or how close the Electoral College was last time, or what the models/data/numbers are telling them about the chances of a party winning when it's populated with leaders they simply don't like, respect, or trust as human beings, whether on "conservative" principles or any kind of principles at all.
The article with the most views on the entire Bulwark website last year was titled "The West is Winning, Russia is Losing, and Biden is Doing a Good Job". Which sums it all up, both on principle and politics.
Basically, they're thinking that Biden's the sitting president of the United States, they think he's done a better job than anyone else would have done preserving American leadership in the 2020's so far, and domestic policy differences aside, they've come to like and respect him as a global defender of democracy. They think numbers and party loyalty aside, for their intepretation of conservative principles, supporting Biden would be the smart thing to do because it's (in their mind) the right thing to do.
Beyond that, they're making a tacit assumption that Americans dedicated to stopping Trump are doing so for reasons beyond just getting rid of one man, and that treating it as simply that would be a grave political error, not just a moral one. Taking down Trumpist poison, not just Donald himself, is their main task. If that makes sense.