Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kevin Bowe's avatar

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?

Expand full comment

No posts