To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris

1. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   Opinion David French
   
   I believe life begins at conception. If I lived in Florida, I would support the state’s heartbeat bill and vote against the referendum seeking to liberalize Florida’s abortion laws. I supported the Dobbs decision and I support well-drafted abortion restrictions at the state and federal levels. I was a pro-life lawyer who worked for pro-life legal organizations. While I want prospective parents to be able to use I.V.F. to build their families, I do not believe that unused embryos should simply be discarded — thrown away as no longer useful.
   
   But I’m going to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 and — ironically enough — I’m doing it in part to try to save conservatism.
   
   Here’s what I mean.
   
   Since the day Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015, the MAGA movement has been engaged in a long-running, slow-rolling ideological and characterological transformation of the Republican Party. At each step, it has pushed Republicans further and further away from Reaganite conservatism. It has divorced Republican voters from any major consideration of character in leadership and all the while it has labeled people who resisted the change as “traitors.”
   
   What allegiance do you owe a party, a movement or a politician when it or they fundamentally change their ideology and ethos?
   
   Let’s take an assertion that should be uncontroversial, especially to a party that often envisions itself as a home for people of faith: Lying is wrong. I’m not naïve; I know that politicians have had poor reputations for honesty since Athens. But I have never seen a human being lie with the intensity and sheer volume of Donald Trump.
   
   Even worse, Trump’s lies are contagious. The legal results speak for themselves. A cascade of successful defamation lawsuits demonstrate the severity and pervasiveness of Republican dishonesty. Fox paid an enormous settlement related to its hosts’ relentless falsehoods during Trump’s effort to steal the election. Rudy Giuliani owes two Georgia election workers $148 million for his gross lies about their conduct while counting votes. Salem Media Group apologized to a Georgia voter who was falsely accused of voter fraud and halted distribution of Dinesh D’Souza’s fantastical “documentary” of election fraud, “2,000 Mules.”
   
   Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
   And that’s hardly an exhaustive list. Several additional defamation cases are pending against MAGA networks and MAGA personalities.
   
   Let’s take another assertion that should be relatively uncontroversial: Political violence and threats of violence have no place in the American democratic process. Yet threats and intimidation follow the MAGA movement like night follows day. One of the saddest stories of our time is the way in which even local election officials and local school board members fear for their safety. The level of threat against public officials has escalated in the MAGA era, MAGA Republicans often wield threats as a weapon against Republican dissenters, and every American should remember Jan. 6, when a mob of insurrectionists ransacked the Capitol.
   
   I know that threats and violence aren’t exclusive to the right. We all watched in horror as a man tried to assassinate Trump; another man threatened Brett Kavanaugh’s life; and no one should forget the horrific congressional shooting, when an angry liberal man attempted a mass murder of Republican members of Congress on a baseball field.
   
   But only one party has nominated a man who was indicted for his role in the criminal scheme to steal an American election, a scheme that culminated in a violent political riot. Only one party nominated a man who began the first rally of his 2024 campaign with a song by violent insurrectionists. He played “Justice for All,” a bastardized version of the national anthem by a group called the J6 Prison Choir. The song features the “Star-Spangled Banner” interspersed with excerpts of Trump reading the Pledge of Allegiance.
   
   It’s not just Trump’s lies that are contagious, but his cruelty as well, and that cruelty is embedding itself deeply within one of Trump’s most loyal constituencies, conservative evangelicals. It is difficult to overstate the viciousness and intolerance of MAGA Christians against their political foes. There are many churches and Christian leaders who are now more culturally Trumpian than culturally Christian. Trump is changing the church.
   
   And to what end?
   
   It is fascinating to me that there are voices online who still claim that a person can’t be Christian and vote for Democrats, when the Trump campaign watered down the Republican platform on abortion to such an extent that it’s functionally pro-choice. Earlier generations of the pro-life movement would not have tolerated such a retreat. They would have made it clear that there were some principles Republicans simply can’t abandon without becoming a fundamentally different party.
   
   It becomes even stranger to claim that Christians can’t vote for Democrats when the prime-time lineup at the Republican convention featured an OnlyFans star, a man who publicly slapped his wife, a man who pleaded no contest to an assault charge, and another man who had sex with his friend’s wife while the friend watched — and that’s not even including any reference to Trump himself.
   
   Even if you want to focus on abortion as the single issue that decides your vote, the picture for abortion opponents is grim. Trump should get credit for nominating justices who helped overturn Roe (though the real credit for the decision goes to the justices themselves, including the George W. Bush appointee Samuel Alito, who actually wrote the majority opinion).
   
   But when we’re dealing with a complex social phenomenon, political and legal issues are rarely simple. For the first time in decades, abortion rates and ratios increased under Trump. In addition, the best available evidence indicates that abortion rates are up since the Dobbs decision.
   
   Barack Obama was an unabashedly pro-choice politician, yet there were 338,270 fewer abortions in 2016 than there were in 2008, George W. Bush’s last year in office. Though Trump nominated anti-abortion justices and enacted a number of anti-abortion policies, there were 56,080 more abortions the last year of his term than there were in the last year of Obama’s presidency.
   
   Even worse, after Dobbs the pro-life position is in a state of political collapse. It hasn’t won a single red-state referendum, and it might even lose again in Florida, a state that’s increasingly red yet also looks to have a possible pro-choice supermajority. According to a recent poll, 69 percent of Floridians support the pro-choice abortion referendum, a margin well above the 60 percent threshold required for passage.
   
   If the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to reduce the number of abortions, not just to change legal precedent, then these numbers and these electoral outcomes are deeply alarming. If present trends continue, then abortion opponents will have won an important legal battle, but they’ll ultimately lose the more important cultural and political cause.
   
   Reasonable people disagree with me. I have friends and family members who will vote for Trump only because he is more moderate than Harris on abortion. I hate the idea that we should condition friendship or respect based on the way in which a person votes. Time and again we make false assumptions about a person’s character based on his or her political positions. There are truly bad actors in American politics, but we cannot write off millions of our fellow citizens who vote their consciences based on their own knowledge and political understanding.
   
   At the same time, we should make the argument — firmly but respectfully — that this is no ordinary race and that the old political categories no longer apply.
   
   For example, how many Republicans would have predicted that voting for a Democrat would be the best way to confront violent Russian aggression and that the Republican would probably yield to a Russian advance? In many ways, the most concretely conservative action I can take in this election is to vote for the candidate who will stand against Vladimir Putin. By voting for pro-life politicians down ballot, I can help prevent federal liberalization of abortion law. But if a president decides to abandon Ukraine and cripple NATO, there is little anyone can do.
   
   While there are voters who are experiencing a degree of Trump nostalgia, remembering American life pre-Covid as a time of full employment and low inflation, there is a different and darker story to tell about Trump’s first term. Our social fabric frayed. It’s not just that abortions increased: The murder rate skyrocketed; drug overdose deaths hit new highs; marriage rates fell; and birthrates continued their long decline. Americans ended his term more divided than when it began.
   
   I’m often asked by Trump voters if I’m “still conservative,” and I respond that I can’t vote for Trump precisely because I am conservative. I loathe sex abuse, pornography and adultery. Trump has brought those vices into the mainstream of the Republican Party. I want to cultivate a culture that values human life from conception through natural death. Yet America became more brutal and violent during Trump’s term. I want to defend liberal democracy from authoritarian aggression, yet Trump would abandon our allies and risk our most precious alliances.
   
   The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles isn’t to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his ideological transformation of the Republican Party. If Harris wins, the West will still stand against Vladimir Putin, and conservative Americans will have a chance to build something decent from the ruins of a party that was once a force for genuine good in American life.

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "I believe life begins at conception."
      
      I do not believe that human life begins at conception.  And, when discussing abortion, that's what counts.  No one can reasonably claim otherwise unless they would refuse to remove a live tumor from their body.
      
      So...why does he believe it begins at conception?  A simple statement of an unsupported, irrational, unreasoned belief does nothing at all to support a rational stance on abortion.  If you're going to base your Presidential vote on the abortion issue shouldn't you at least have reasoned out your own position on it?

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         "Time and again we make false assumptions about a person’s character based on his or her political positions."
         
         This has been true on HP too, too, too many times. And I'm as at fault as anybody.
         
         Wilderness, the time/space continuum is at risk again. I agree with you. I understand that all life begins at conception (dogs, cats, ants, elephants). But I understand that human life complete with a soul, a brain, and a conscience begins with the first breath.
         
         Full disclosure: Yes, this understanding is tied to my belief in the God of the Bible. Genesis 2:7
         
         But my question for you is: In all this long dissertation about conservatism, is abortion your priority?
         
         Most conservatives I know accept this human-life-begins-at-conception premise because they've bought in to it back in the 1970s (or their parents did) when a group of presidents of religious colleges set out to create a voting block out of their church memberships around the issue of abortion. They adopted this priority because they couldn't get enough of their members to rally around segregation, which is what they really wanted in order to avoid integrating their colleges while retaining their tax-exempt status as religious colleges. It has defined conservatism for many ever since.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            MizBejabbersposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Kathleen, forgive me, but I'm not sure that I did a very good segue but here it is anyway:
            
            And now the religious nuts are going even farther and passing laws to issue "vouchers" that will pay for children to go to private schools. In plain language we taxpayers are the suckers who are going to be paying for these nuts to indoctrinate their children. Our wonderful governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders brags about getting this law ramrodded through the state's General Assembly as one of her first accomplishments as governor. Several other states have also passed this piece of religious socialism disguised as "as to meet the child's specific needs."
            This article tries to downplay it in a neutral manner, but most teachers I know say that it is draining their schools of badly needed public money. In our state there is no means test for a child to receive a voucher, so many of these children were already attending private schools at their families' own expense or from private funding like church scholarships.
            
            https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ … ce/2024/01
             
            Our local school districts are already feeling budget cuts. Personally, I am seeing the results already. I belong to a civic organization that sponsors a public elementary school in a low income section of our city. A large number of the children are truly indigent. Our organization was putting money into things the school couldn't afford to supply such as playground equipment, sports equipment, and even clothing for some children whose families couldn't afford decent school clothes and shoes for them.
            
            This year we received a desperate plea for help from the school. They needed us to furnish necessities for the children's basic education needs: pencils, crayons, paper, glue, scissors and all the little supplies that lower elementary grades must have for the little ones to use. The school had been providing these basic necessities for indigent children, but their funding for this was suddenly cut off. (I shouldn't have to add that so some little rich kids could go to private school free.) Our organization is now donating to supply these indigent children with basic necessities, not playground and game equipment to make their school more fun.
            
            I realize that some MAGAs in this group probably will say that these children's parents should apply for vouchers to send them to private schools, too. I will point out that that 1. there are still parents with enough pride in their children to want them to grow up to be strong self-reliant adults who can make their own way in the world and 2. many of these kids can't afford decent clothes to attend public school so I hardly think that a private school is going to buy them their Ralph Laurens, Nikes and genuine Levis with the laser holes in them. These kids are very proud to get new clothes from Dollar General. Would you really expect them to fit in?

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               MizBejabbers: Segue or not: I think discussions should seek their own level. Thanks for contributing.

               replyreport
         2. 95

            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I tell you, you are treading on dangerous territory.  When the stars vanish, we will all know it was your fault!
            
            No, abortion is not the defining priority for me.  It is rather high on the list (as pro-choice) but not the top.  It does, however, point out why I make such a poor Republican or even conservative if it is that important to most conservatives.
            
            The only reason I mentioned it here is because David French appeared to make such a deal over it...and all because of an unsupported, unreasoned opinion that should be forced on everyone else. 
            
            (On a side note, I disagree with you, too, as to when human life begins.  Putting air in the lungs of a living organism does not change that organism into something it was not.  I does not magically make it human.  IMO)

            replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I read the article and critiqued French's views, offering a slight debate on why some conservatives might not fully share his perspective, though some might agree with parts of it. Some conservatives may still support Trump for their own reasons. The article was well-written, providing substantial food for thought, and French clearly made his case effectively, backing his views with thorough reasoning.
      
      David French indeed laid out a well-reasoned argument for why he plans to vote for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, despite his longstanding conservative beliefs. His decision is rooted in a deep concern for the direction in which the Republican Party has moved under Donald Trump's influence. French emphasizes that Trump's leadership has led to a significant departure from core conservative principles, such as integrity, honesty, and respect for democratic processes. He argues that voting for Harris is a way to preserve the essence of conservatism and protect the nation from further ethical and political decay.
      
      However, it's important to recognize that French's perspective may not resonate with everyone, and there are valid reasons why others might disagree with his conclusions. One key point of contention is the role of media in shaping public opinion. French's case is supported by numerous media reports highlighting Trump's dishonesty, legal troubles, and the increase in political violence associated with the MAGA movement. Yet, in an era where trust in the media has significantly eroded, some people are skeptical of media reports.   Some may feel that the media is biased or that it selectively covers events to push a particular narrative, leading them to different conclusions about Trump's presidency and the current state of the Republican Party.
      
      Some conservatives may argue that while Trump's behavior and rhetoric are troubling, the policy outcomes of his administration—such as the appointment of conservative judges and the rollback of certain regulations—justify continued support. They might prioritize issues like abortion, religious freedom, and economic policy over concerns about Trump's character, viewing these as more critical to the long-term future of the country.
      
      Ultimately, while French presents a compelling case for his decision, it is clear that his views may not align with those of other conservatives. The diversity of opinion within the conservative movement reflects the complexity of the current political landscape, where deeply held values and differing levels of trust in media and political institutions lead to a wide range of perspectives on what is best for the country.
      
      The article was well-written and provided substantial food for thought. It's clear that he made his case effectively and supported his views with thorough reasoning.

      replyreport
2. 69

   Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks ago

   Well, they may speak and act more sophisticated, but the people that have been in control for the last four years are slightly detrimental to the country's future and the ability of our children to have things like freedom, opportunity and property available to them.
   
   Trump may seem terrible, and the media has brainwashed the majority into believing he is terrible... but here is a reminder:
   
   Trump’s list: 289 accomplishments in just 20 months, ‘relentless’ promise-keeping
   https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli … e-keeping/
   
   Yes, things really were better under Trump.
   
   Yes, the Mainstream Media has worked overtime to convince you that wasn't so.  The Machine in DC is working overtime to destroy Trump and all those who support him.
   
   Once they are finished with Trump, his supporters (with means), then they can get on to the business of focusing on you and me.
   
   David French may believe his acts are going to save conservatism, or America, but they are aiding in the facilitation of its transformation into a lesser nation whose Constitution will be subordinated to higher international authorities, we are essentially there now, due to the efforts of the Biden Administration.
   
   Any chance that much of what Biden put in place could be undone, must be done by the next Administration, if not, it will be cemented.
   
   Trump, his refusing to join the Paris Accord/Agreement and the Global Compact on Migration, to fight to keep companies here in America, etc. are the reasons why we had an improvement in our lives in 2017,2018, 2019, almost a wistful stroll down memory lane to when the future looked bright back in the 80s.
   
   Yes voting for Harris will get an escalation against Russia, and Iran, and then China.  It will get us Open Borders as well.  https://twitter.com/KAndersonAkron/stat … 9703253215
   
   Between the rising threat of nuclear war and the advancements of AI I'm not really sure any of it matters... it may all be well beyond who you vote for or what Party you belong to very soon.

   replyreport
3. 95

   Readmikenowposted 4 weeks ago

   David French is a person who got kicked out of the Presbyterian church.  Now he spends his time being a conservative impersonator for the left.
   
   
   "David French: A Fallen Conserative’s Fairytale
   In voting for Harris, French knows exactly what he is doing. And it’s not ‘saving conservatism.’
   
   ongtime “conservative” columnist David French has held forth at that routinely far right publication The New York Times.
   
   Oops. Sorry. French holds forth there at The Times but as the universe knows, The Times hasn’t been conservative since before Adam and Eve walked the earth eating apples.
   
   Recently, French penned this headline for The Times.
   
   To Save Conservatism From Itself, I Am Voting for Harris
   
   Shocking.
   
   Not.
   
   The New York Times “conservative” columnist David French is a graduate of National Review and doubles elsewhere, has decidedly abandoned matters conservative.
   
   This time around he says things like this, which deserve a response:
   
   Since the day Donald Trump came down that escalator in 2015, the MAGA movement has been engaged in a long-running, slow-rolling ideological and characterological transformation of the Republican Party. At each step, it has pushed Republicans further and further away from Reaganite conservatism.
   
   As someone who actually served in the Reagan White House as a White House political director, I don’t recall Mr. French’s presence when the Reagan staff was doing battle for our ideological commander in chief.
   
   He protests that he’s “going to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024 and — ironically enough — I’m doing it in part to try to save conservatism.”
   
   Really? As someone who, with Reagan colleagues, did serious political battle to get constitutional conservatives confirmed to the Supreme Court, and who has listened personally to President Trump discussing his commitment to continuing to do the same in a second term that he did in his first, I distinctly recall the appointments of Supreme Court Judges with names like Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch.  He was particularly proud of his conservative appointments to the lower federal courts.
   
   Perhaps even more telling is that the “conservative” French has bought hook, line, and sinker into the idea that a corrupt left-wing government, Justice Department, and various local Democrat governments has in fact not done what it so plainly has done: weaponize federal, state, and local governments to get President Biden’s — and now Vice President Harris’s — main political opponent: Donald Trump.
   
   There is nothing remotely “conservative” about this massive, decidedly corrupt use of government. But French signs on — and by voting for Harris is clearly stating he is signing on for more.
   
   When he focuses on the issue of voter fraud, French quite tellingly is silent about the extensive record of voter fraud right here in my own state of Pennsylvania. Voter fraud which has been long documented — say again documented — right here in this space.
   
   https://spectator.org/david-french-a-fa … 2021-02-02

   replyreport
4. 67

   abwilliamsposted 4 weeks ago

   One has to wonder.... what is in it for him?
   Why are all of the political insiders, the so-called movers and shakers... all working against Trump?
   Really, Mr. French? You really believe that Kamala Harris saves Conservatism, which, by the way, is the only thing standing between us and losing our Republic?!
   We know better.

   replyreport
5. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 4 weeks ago

   RMN: "As someone who actually served in the Reagan White House as a White House political director" - WOW. Seriously - somebody in the room.
   
   Wilderness: As I disclosed, my definition of when life begins is based on my faith. If you distinguish between human life and animal life, at what point do you think the difference happens?

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

   I would say it is very important to understand Trumps' economic policy and compare it Harris's.
   
   and determine which is the most sound, practical and vital for our nation.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2QxBydcG8E
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-z6Ysd7FdQ

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I watched the video, and Harris is making a lot of promises that essentially offer free benefits. However, she doesn't explain how she plans to fund all of these initiatives. In contrast, from what I've seen, Trump isn't offering free handouts but instead is focused on fixing existing issues. He claims to have different strategies to address the border, the economy, and more. So, I see one candidate who is proposing new spending on unestablished projects and another who is aiming to address current problems that require immediate attention. Trump has expressed a need to pump and sell oil, as well as new better trade deals. What I have gleaned he wants to make money, not spend money. He speaks of making SS solvent once more and paying down the debt. Being a Trump supporter, and a conservative, my bias shows. But I can assure you I do my research.
      
      Your advice emphasizes the importance of critically evaluating political promises. It's true that while candidates often lay out ambitious goals, the feasibility of those goals often depends on detailed plans and the cooperation of legislative bodies like Congress. Without clear "how-to" strategies, promises can easily become empty unrealistic rhetoric.
      I think when evaluating political candidates, it's essential to dig deeper into how they plan to achieve their goals, considering factors like the need for legislative approval, budget constraints, and the political climate.  By researching and demanding specific, actionable plans, voters can hold candidates accountable and ensure that promises are grounded in reality rather than just being appealing rhetoric to win votes.

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      His "intellectual" speech on the economy became, predictably, another dumb speech on a bunch of stuff that had nothing to do with the economy.
      
      I think he proved, once again, that insults are all he has. 
      
      Labeling Harris crazy and mocking the way she laughs is the kind of thing Republicans keep advising Trump not to do. But he couldn’t help himself could he? Like a petulant child,  calling her an “incompetent socialist lunatic.”.
      
      When he did speak of the economy, he provided no concrete policy proposals other than specious claims he will singlehandedly fix everything.  You know the script...big beautiful economy...blah blah .... Like no one's ever seen before blah blah blah... Oh yes and it'll all be done very quickly.
      
      The routine is tired and old. Certainly, someone has written out an economics policy agenda for him, he just can't articulate it.
      
      The economy is doing reasonably well. Unemployment is low, the stock market has been breaking records and inflation continues to drop.
      
      Calling America a third-world country while taking juvenile swipes at Harris's laugh and fearmongering about an immigrant crime wave that doesn’t exist? That’s not going to do much to swing voters who have been swinging in Harris’ direction since she entered the race.

      replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

   We are still producing oil.
   
   Thats big.
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art … y-election

   replyreport
8. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 weeks ago

   I have a feeling we will come to appreciate Biden's term over Harris's if she gets elected/takes office.
   https://www.wri.org/insights/ca-oil-ref … transition
   
   https://www.chevron.com/newsroom/2024/q … evron-exec
   
   https://www.energy.ca.gov

   replyreport