Principle of Power
Two people I follow got into a spat on X this weekend. And since I have an interest in their fight, I thought I would interject.
The spat started when @TheRealBeliveau quote tweeted @HeathMayo.
Let me start by giving you some context. First, I know both of these individuals in different limited capacities. I follow André because he knows a lot about energy policy, and I follow Heath because he is the founder of Principles First. I follow both of them because they are conservatives, well, kind of, and therein lies the beef.
As many of you know, I am a regular at Principles First conferences. As a conservative who wanted an alternative to Trump, I was excited when Principles First started. Heath spoke about important things like institutions and the rule of law, which I appreciated. However, over the years, the organization has become more anti-trump than anything else. It’s also drifted left, aligning closely with the “conservative” outlet Bulwark, which most people would admit is not really conservative.
So what’s the big deal that Heath campaigned with Harris? Why does André have a problem with Heath talking about conservative economic policy?
The problem is that Heath, in an attempt to extend his political sphere and build a larger coalition, has alienated his base. It is a classic political blunder, but it is recoverable. He pitched himself as a conservative alternative to Trump, but everywhere you look, the conservative parts are leaving, and the anti-trump parts are emphasized.
At the 2024 Principles First Conference, it was pretty clear to me that the organization had already made a deal with the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the Republican primary was still going on, and Nikki Haley, while a long shot, was still a candidate—a much more conservative candidate.
I was disappointed the organization didn’t do more to help a republican defeat Trump. They had four years to find and back a candidate to defeat Trump in the primary, but they kind of just sat back and waited until Trump got the nomination. My guess is André feels the same, although I am speculating based on the tweets I read.
Since then, Principle Firsters Adam Kinzinger and Geoff Duncan, among others, spoke at the Democratic National Convention. Kyle Sweetser tweeted, “It’s time to become a Democrat.” and Health has said, “The goal is not to save the Republican Party. The Republican Party has made its choice. The goal is to save the country.” At the same time, removing the word conservative from his X bio.
Just because Health and Principles First has been welcomed into the Democratic Party doesn’t mean he can’t be a conservative. In fact, it would be a politically savvy move to create a conservative faction inside the democracy party. The problem is that while pitching himself as a conservative, he was, as André alluded to in the spat, running cover for Democrats. He should have been more upfront.
I get it; it’s politics. You have to have power to make a difference. I don’t blame Heath; no path to power is ever easy. It appears, though, that he is a Democrat first and a conservative second. If he can’t admit that, then he is going to have a hard time debating in conservative circles.
If he wants to get his base back, he should come clean and explain his choices. If he does, he could expand his political sphere even more. Or maybe conservatives were never his base, and he is okay with letting us go.
Peace and Love,
Jeff Mayhugh
When I've been critical of you in the past, you have responded with a fair and reasonable reply, "I'm just a guy looking to increase representation" and you're doing your best. Fair enough, but why can't you give Heath the same grace? In this crazy unpredictable world, you give Health way to much credit for acting methodically, when like everyone else, he's probably improvising.
I have to say, I'm disturbed by your framing. You write: "The problem is that Heath... pitched himself as a conservative alternative to Trump, but everywhere you look, the conservative parts are leaving, and the anti-trump parts are emphasized."
That suggests Trump's actions were static--he did nothing different than the past--when in fact he keeps challenging Constitutional norms and aligning us with tyrants. Why isn't it reasonable that Heath is "emphasizing" ani-Trump, is because his behavior is becoming increasingly dangerous? I feel you are being unfair to Heath for taking stands that he feels are principled and you represent them as acting in his self-interest. I will put Heath political situation in different terms. He is in a political DMZ where NO ONE has a political future because they are treated with suspicion by both sides. Somehow you present this as a calculating political move, when it took a lot of guts to do what he did.
Also, I'm a Bulwark subscriber, which I suppose confirms your notion that they are "liberal". But frankly I think you'd love their comment section. By far it's the smartest and most civil comment board I've been on (which is not huge praise, but still). You'd have a ball talking about uncapping the house (and pick up many supporters). It is also disappointing that you dismiss a political platform that today can have ME and Bill Kristol participating on it. Isn't that one of your missions? To develop some kind of understanding between partisans? (Also, they weren't anti-Nikki. They had plenty of discussion about her viability. But you forget that Nikki has lots of baggage and many non-Bulwarkian conservatives had problems with her as well.)
What really concerns me is your framing. Apparently it's OK to be critical of Trump, but at the end of the day, to be a good conservative, you have to support him, even if he trashes and violates the constitution. That you use this calculation that to be a real conservative you have to tolerate Trump, vs having nothing to do with him, because he is a anti-constitutionalist (and taking actions to shred the Constitution) who supports tyranny over liberalism. Am I wrong that you can't support Trump and support the Constitution at the same time? That you need to make a choice?