Michelle Goldberg On Harris And The Left

The NYT columnist joins a Dish debate.

Michelle is an opinion columnist at the New York Times, and before that she was a columnist for Slate. She has written three books: Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, The Means of Reproduction, and The Goddess Pose. She’s also an on-air contributor at MSNBC.

You can listen to the episode in the audio player above (or on the right side of the player, click “Listen On” to add the Dishcast feed to your favorite podcast app). For two clips of our convo — debating who the real Kamala is, and how much BLM is responsible for lost black lives — pop over to our YouTube page.

Other topics: growing up in Buffalo with conservative parents; her dad a journalist and mom a math teacher; Michelle a teen activist in the “Buffalo abortion wars”; the legality but ugliness of clinic protests; a pro-life man knocking the wind out of her; ACT UP; going to J-school; reporting at mega-churches in Ohio in the 2004 election; Harris’ moderate Smart on Crime book in 2009; her “triangulating” in 2019 (e.g. fracking); her busing moment with Biden; supporting a bail fund in summer 2020; Biden’s bait-and-switch as a centrist; bipartisan support for Israel; Merrick Garland’s effort to appear apolitical; lawfare; from Bush’s “fuck yeah” patriotism to Trump’s dark view of America; the Iraq War and 2008 bailout causing mistrust toward institutions; crumbling infrastructure; Trump never being a majority candidate; the cultural grievance fueling him; Michelle going to Trump rallies; the 1619 Project; debating the US as a “white supremacy”; the left radicalizing after Trump replaced a two-term black president; Covid mania; the distortion of Twitter; the Electoral College and its roots; the violent crime spike in 2020 and after; how the disadvantaged always bear the brunt of disorder; the greed of BLM Inc; the press distortion of unarmed black men killed by police; Michelle’s 2014 piece “What Is a Woman?”; Rachel Levine; puberty blockers; the Dutch protocol; the Cass Review; bathroom bills; and the GLAAD protest against the NYT.

Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: David Frum on Trump, Musa al-Gharbi on wokeness, Walter Kirn on Republican voters, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal welfare, Mary Matalin on life, Anderson Cooper on grief, John Gray on, well, everything, and Sam Harris for our quadrennial chat before Election Day. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

From a listener of last week’s episode with Rod Dreher:

I will say I was moved by Rod’s description of his affection for Vance, and for the pain Rod felt at the loss of a friend who would accept nothing less than a full rejection of Trump.

These experiences, however, seem to have over-personalized the election for Rod. As for the future of the GOP, is it really represented by the likes of Vance, and not those currently banished to the wilderness after supporting the impeachment after January 6?

Another didn’t like other parts of the personalized talk:

It’s very sad to me to listen to you give no pushback to a right-wing demagogue like Rod Dreher (beginning at the 25:45 mark) as he talks about Muslim sexual harassers [in Paris] and child rapists/traffickers in Britain as if they were normative Muslim immigrants. Would you react the same way if he were talking in such generalizations about African-Americans or Jews?

As Noah Carl — a politically incorrect social scientist if there ever were one — has shown, Muslim Brits commit about the same crime rate as white British. (Although, as Carl notes, in many European countries [Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, France], Muslims do have a considerably higher crime rate than whites — but not so in Britain.) Your default assumption when someone on the far-right makes a racially inflammatory point seems to be, “there must be some truth to it,” rather than looking into the empirical evidence.

The history of migrant grooming gangs in the UK is truly horrifying. And the refusal of the British police to investigate sooner was due to their being more concerned about being seen as racist than about the 1,400 girls in Rotherham, for example, who were raped by gangs overwhelmingly of Pakistani origin.

More on the candid convo last week:

You know, the strange thing about Rod Dreher is that I am actually more inclined to believe him on the religious “woo-woo” stuff than his testimonies regarding political events. I have noticed that his stories on modern miracles and signs (with the possible exception of his exorcist story) generally refer to people with actual names. And he can even generally produce physical evidence of some of the weird stuff that happens to him.

But I really cringed when you called him “deeply honest.” He is deeply confessional and raw, but I often find that, especially with his political commentary, his writing is filled with these “just-so” testimonials that are always anonymous, seem to reflect his worldview perfectly, and communicate in a manner that is suspiciously and verbosely reflective of the man himself. As someone in journalism yourself, I think you know that when you talk to someone directly affected by a political situation, it’s very rare to find a case study in reality of the abstract picture in your mind.  There’s always something to complicate the picture. But Rod has a knack for finding people who seem to serve as perfect exemplars of his worldview.

Another listener champions the center:

Your recent interview with Rod Dreher was fascinating. I think the point you made about resisting bitterness, even when one has ample justification to feel it, is so important, and I think there was an inconsistency in Dreher’s position in that regard.

On the one hand, when you pushed him not to vote for Trump, he argued that there was no center to occupy between two extremes, so he was voting for the one he feared less. But on the other hand, when he was discussing white supremacy, he said that anti-white, anti-male sentiment on the left was no excuse for young white men to become white supremacists. So if there’s no excuse to abandon the only morally righteous position in the center when it comes to left- vs. right-wing racism, why does he excuse himself abandoning the only morally righteous position in the center when it comes to left- vs. right-wing illiberalism?

More particularly, for a devout Christian like Rod, what biblical grounds could possibly justify him abandoning the center? Occupying the center is not neutrality, as he described it in the electoral context. It’s an active standing on principle, and I would have thought the analogy to the passion of the Christ would be obvious to him. I’m not religious myself, but I find a lot of moral meaning in the Bible. As I read it, the passion of the Christ is a brave and active choice to endure suffering for the love of humanity, not some sort of cowardly opting for neutrality.

This understanding of Christ’s passion formed the basis of MKL’s commitment to nonviolence and refusal to succumb to bitterness. Given that Dreher cares so deeply about seeing himself as an opponent of white supremacy (and good for him), what I would like to know is, what persecution has he suffered that gives him the right to abandon his principles, when so many African-Americans suffering far worse persecution steadfastly refused to abandon theirs? (Though I don’t mean to minimize or excuse the persecution that Dreher has undoubtedly experienced.)

Part of the reason I moved from the left to the center was because the cruelty of left-wing illiberalism appalled me. But conservatives in this country do not face legal apartheid. They do not have to drink from separate water fountains. They do not live under the threat that if they look the wrong way at a liberal women, they will be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night, tortured, and hung from a tree limb. African-Americans were. Some — understandably, in my view — lost faith in the country that had broken faith with them, but so many kept their faith in America.

Every one of us today who feels their faith in America and a moral center tested owes African-Americans an enormous debt of gratitude for exposing our rationalizations for losing faith as excuses. We retain some element of choice. If no moral center exists, as Dreher claims, that is not an excuse to move to the extremes. It is his responsibility — all our responsibilities — to create a center.

Agreed. It’s what I am trying (and largely failing) to do here. Another listener responds to the religious portion of the pod:

Rod Dreher apparently thinks awe and wonder require religion. He should try wrapping his head around even our basic physical and biological concepts. Of course we don’t know why the universe exists, why it has the properties we’ve observed (e.g. gravity and quantum mechanics), and how consciousness arises or even what it is. But how does throwing in God increase the mystery?

So, God created everything and is in everything. Why is that awesome and wonderful? Whereas, 14 billion years of evolution from elementary particles and energy to the human brain — that’s a cool story. And probably closer to “seeing the world the way it really is” than imagining angels and demons battling for our souls. Why it’s that way, what it’s all about, who knows. That’s the real mystery.

Another was “fascinated to learn that you (like me) believe that our planet has an over-population problem, since I’ve been under the impression that most Catholics do not believe that”:

I really wish more conservatives and Catholics would join you in regarding a reduction in global population — through voluntary, not coercive means — as a properly conservative and family-oriented goal, in that it seeks to conserve the planet for the sake of future generations. Dreher is, of course, correct that a reduction in the population would mean a reduction in our standard of living, at least temporarily. But since when did maintaining a certain standard of living become a goal of conservative religious believers like him? Does he not realize that the obsession with preserving a certain standard of living comes out of the libertarian neoliberalism that he and Patrick Deneen and others hate?

Perhaps Dreher doesn’t. As I recall you noting in your first episode with him, he seems oddly more interested in the New Testament’s occasional statements on gender and sexuality than with its many criticisms of material wealth. If they are to have a defense against charges of selectivity, conservatives like Dreher have to include the pursuit of a certain standard of living in their critique of the spiritual deprivation and loss of meaning in neoliberal societies. Perhaps the gays, childless cat ladies, etc. aren’t entirely to blame.

And another listener:

Mr. Dreher’s embrace of Viktor Orbán, who has transformed Hungary into an authoritarian, repressive, one-party, one-religion state, makes me more suspicious of his willingness to hold his nose and vote for Trump. Orbán’s support of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the contested belief that NATO forced the invasion and therefore it was justified, also raises suspicions. I can buy the argument that Orbán’s position serves his geopolitical, economic and security concerns, but that does not validate the way he characterizes the invasion.

Which brings me to anti-Semitism. Both you and Mr. Dreher expressed your surprise at the rapid emergence of anti-Semitism in the US following the events in Gaza. I was less surprised. Dreher, should, I think, have been less surprised as well.  In your discussion, he said that living in Europe gave him a clearer view of the situation there than was possible from the US. While he was referring to the refugee problem, I am surprised that he did not notice the lingering and waxing anti-Semitism there, and in Hungary itself.

Which brings me to JD Vance, who was given a pass, I think by both of you, for only following the party line in his recent embrace of anti-immigrant, racist-adjacent rhetoric. But I think that he showed these tendencies before he was raised to his current position. His concern for population decline puts a thin veneer on an underlying embrace of the “Great Replacement Theory” and a view of White Christian Nationalism. Vance is not simply a puppet whose strings are being pulled by Trump or his handlers.

So I disagree with Mr. Dreher in many ways. You expressed your disagreements with him very judiciously and probably more effectively than I did. Thanks again for your exposing me to things I need to be exposed to.

Another has a guest recommendation:

Dreher mentioned in the Dishcast a personal mentor of mine: Carlos Eire. It had never occurred to me before, but I think he would be a wonderful guest to have on. He’s a deeply read and thoughtful historian of the early-modern period, including his latest work, They Flew: A History of the Impossible (referenced by Dreher), in which he discusses the epistemological challenges that historians face in studying reports of supernatural phenomena such as levitation and bilocation. Additionally, he has an incredible story as a Cuban immigrant who fled the Castro regime in Operation Peter Pan in 1962, writing about it in his popular memoir, Waiting for Snow in Havana, which won the National Book Award.

Eire is also just a very kind human being. Both his scholarship and his life experience hit on so many recurring themes of the Dishcast. That’s my recommendation!

We’re grateful. Another rec:

I suggest you have UVA sociologist James Davison Hunter on the Dishcast to discuss his recent book Democracy and Solidarity. Aaron Renn and David Brooks reviewed it, and it’s a pretty bleak book. Hunter uses terms like “late-state democracy,” and he originally coined the term “culture wars” some 30 years ago.

And another:

If you are going to keep shitting on the Never Trumpers, especially the Bulwark crew, have one of them on the Dishcast to talk it through! I vote for JVL. He is always right, and after you he’s my favorite political writer.

Here’s a rec for another podcast — produced by a woman who joined the Dishcast in 2021:

I’ve written to you before — as the mother of a daughter who has spent five years identifying as a boy — to thank you for your ongoing focus on the scandal of paediatric transition. Julie Bindel, who you probably know as a lesbian feminist in the UK, has just released a nine-part podcast that centers the experience of the parents. I’m not featured in it, but I can directly relate to the tales of institutional and societal failures involving schools, doctors, social services and lobby groups. It’s worth listening to if you can spare the time (episodes are about 30 minutes each). Here’s a preview:

Here’s a personal rec:

I’m a longtime listener and enjoy your podcast very much, and since you mentioned using Ozempic in your latest episode, I wanted to say: in my experience, trizepatide (the generic version of Mounjaro) and Mounjaro itself cause less digestive issues than Ozempic, and for the average user it causes more weight loss.

Next up, a bunch of dissenting readers and others keep the debate going over the Harris-Trump contest. One writes:

As a VFYW super-sleuth (always feels nice to say that), I think this may be my first time responding to something other than the contest. This week I’d prefer to respond to your latest column on Harris and the pod with Rod.

Taking both things together — as well as your previous columns this election cycle — I share most of your critiques of both major candidates and empathize deeply with the difficulty of affirmatively saying which candidate to vote for. I’m more curious about you making an explicit cost–benefit analysis — one that plays out your worst-case scenarios under both potential administrations — rather than continuing to list all the problems with Trump’s “malignant narcissism” and Harris’ nonsense “wokery.”

For example, under a Trump–Vance administration, in what ways could Trump’s egotism detrimentally overwhelm all the checks on his power (the MSM, the foreign-policy establishment, a potentially divided Congress, and broader elite culture)? What, for you, would that undesired result be? And how does that comport with what we have already seen under a Trump administration, which you have already admitted was not as bad as you had initially anticipated?

Similarly, under a Harris-Walz administration, in what ways could the ticket’s wokeness detrimentally overwhelm its own checks (not only a potentially divided Congress but also a 6–3 conservative Supreme Court)?

What sparked this line of questioning is your replies to dissents and your discussion with Dreher, in which he communicated what I am increasingly hearing from friends and family on both the right and left: they acknowledge all the problems, corruption, cynicism, and stupidity of the side they’re voting for — but just can’t vote for the other side. Honestly, very few people I’ve talked politics with lately are gung-ho about their chosen candidate. It’s a deeply sad state of affairs.

I have two examples. Just last week, my normie apolitical brother who has voted Democrat his entire adult life — an Afro-Latino Angeleno and former Bernie Bro who held his nose to vote for Clinton in ’16 and Biden in ’20 — just announced to the family that he will be voting for Trump. He’s made abundantly clear over the years that he’s no Trump fan, but he’s been totally red-pilled by what he sees as ever-more blatant media bias and an increasingly out-of-control, oligarchic fusion of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and the administrative state. As a father of a 6-year-old, he has also expressed concern for all the gender stuff. In short, he fears this unchecked and accumulating power far more than Trump in office, whom he sees as incompetent and subject to many more checks.

In the opposite direction, I have a very good friend who’s a pro-life conservative from Texas and argues that the pro-life cause has secured major victories — not just Dobbs, but the judicial appointments up and down. He now only stands to lose cultural ground under a second Trump administration and needs breathing room to regroup. He’s no fan of Harris or the woke elite class supporting her, but he’s sick of Trump, sees him as a cancer on the GOP, and believes that the sooner he’s defeated, the better for the conservative movement overall. For him, the movement will continue to lose whatever cultural cachet it has the longer Trump stays around.

These examples are obviously anecdotal, but they are representative of trends I’m seeing among many different family members and friends. This deep disillusionment with both sides is so clearly not a limited phenomenon.

I guess I’m not alone. Here’s a dissent:

Two things in your column last week really rubbed me the wrong way. Firstly:

A declining industrial town of 58,000 mostly white people admitted almost 20,000 new Haitian migrants into their town over three years. The migrants entered the country illegally. The NYT’s story omits this fact, by writing that “the Haitians had Social Security numbers and work permits, thanks to a federal program that offered them temporary protection in the United States.” There would be no “temporary protection” if the migrants had visas. But practically speaking, they get the working equivalent of a green card almost as soon as they arrive — because adjudicating their cases takes many, many years, and almost no one is ever deported. (That would have saved me and millions of legal immigrants a lot of trouble!)

Temporary protected status does not presuppose that the person entered the US illegally. It merely temporarily suspends the obligation of the individual to return to their home country due to conditions there that render a safe return impossible. Granted, many (perhaps most) people on TPS will have entered the US illegally.

But not so in the case of the Haitians in Springfield! According to the Springfield city homepage, they came to the US entirely legally under a different programme: immigration parole. Since January 2023, there are quotas for Haitians to legally enter the US under humanitarian parole. They can later apply for TPS. People who take this pathway are in the US completely legally.

In addition, to be eligible for parole, you have to, among other things:

• be outside the U.S.;
• have a U.S. sponsor;
• undergo vetting;
• not have entered the U.S. illegally (after Oct. 2022).

Now, the program started in early 2023, and reportedly the influx of Haitians to Springfield started before that. So not all of them will have come through this program. But if the city administration is to be believed, most of them did. But you did not write “most”, “many” or even “some”; you just wrote “the migrants.” Next time, get your facts straight before you defame thousands of vetted, honest, legal immigrants doing the most American thing there ever was: working hard to make better lives for themselves and their families.

I’m happy to concede that things changed last year and some of the new migrants are fully legal under humanitarian parole. But if US immigration policy is to admit anyone from a chaotic, disorderly and violent country, under “humanitarian parole,” the gates are truly open very wide.

Another dissent over Springfield:

You say racism is there and it’s disgusting, but then you proceed to apologize for it by blaming some of it on Biden/Harris. (Haitian immigration to Springfield began in 2018, before they were in office.) Are you really blaming them for facilitating legal immigration that bolsters local economies and has a net positive effect on crime? Because some people don’t speak English? I implore you to be specific about the “huge challenges” that are being faced by the local population. It seems like the Haitians probably saved the town.

You are making the same kinds of arguments that people who are against “gentrification” make. In improving things in the place they move to, the new people are “destroying the old culture.” It’s a silly argument in both situations. Improvement of places is good, and some people will be displaced or their lives will be changed. Thinking we can change that is utopian. Migration is a central part of the history of the world. It’s called cultural diffusion.

By the way, it appears you are fine with some forms of culture change — when it comes to Provincetown, as evident in your 2005 piece, “The End of Gay Culture.”

That piece is quite explicit about loss as well as gain in the evolution of gay culture. And since marriage equality, the transqueer has gone in the very opposite direction, seeking more and more cultural marginalization, and embracing ever more extremist views on gender and sex.

Another dissenter quotes me:

“Does anyone truly believe you can admit 20,000 people from a completely different culture, a completely different language, and a completely different race in a few years — without something blowing up?”

One of those three things is not like the others! I agree that if you want a harmonious society, you can’t just bring in a bunch of people who don’t speak your language and/or don’t share your cultural values around women’s rights, ways to discipline children, annoyances like littering/blasting loud music/double parking, etc. But what does “different race” have to do with it? Are you hinting at some human biodiversity stuff, or using race as a proxy for culture … but then, why say it twice? “If you let 20,000 migrants move to a town of 58,000, you’re going to have gigantic logistical problems with housing, schooling, infrastructure, etc.” is both true and very, very different from saying, “I don’t want colored folk to move in next door, because they’re just Not Our Kind.” Sigh.

In addition to Harris being too woke, oikophobic, and lacking the ability to magically reset prices to 2018 levels, she is also a creature of the “foreign policy blob,” as you put it. You have every right to dislike the Biden/Harris foreign policy, but honestly, I think they’ve done a very good job under the circumstances. Consider: we haven’t started any wars under Biden/Harris; we haven’t sent troops into the three big wars going on right now (Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan); and we are supporting Ukraine with weapons and money rather than standing back and letting Putin eat the country.

The Israel-Gaza war is beyond horrendous and I feel terrible for innocent civilians being killed, but I also recognize Israel’s right to not let a 10/7 happen again. I honestly don’t know what the US should do. I’d probably be in favor of “limit our support of Israel to defensive weapons only, like missiles for the Iron Dome.” Sudan seems like “combatants on both sides are bad; innocents suffer; let’s send humanitarian aid — but otherwise stay out of it, and for heaven’s sake, don’t send weapons lest we end up with Mujahideen 2.0.”

What else would you have Harris do? The Afghanistan withdrawal was botched, true, but I am frankly super happy that we’re not bleeding money and lives in that place anymore. What would your ideal foreign policy be? Are you for total isolationism? That just isn’t realistic or desirable in today’s interconnected world. If nothing else, US Navy FONOPs (freedom of navigation operations) protect cargo shipments that keep prices low for US consumers — you know, those consumers who are so pissed off about the cost of living that half of them are ready to vote for a deranged autocrat.

Yes: I am saying that huge numbers of human beings who do not look like you entering your town in a matter of a few years will create social and cultural backlash. We are wired that way as human beings. Yes, it’s similar to resistance to gentrification: any sudden visible shift in demographics will trigger racial animus. I’m just saying we need to account for this and not force change so quickly that we generate racism and xenophobia rather than color-blindness and integration. The scale and speed of change matters. As for foreign policy, Harris follows the blob.

Yet another dissent:

You wrote that “Trump’s biggest advantage is that Americans feel poorer today than the felt in the Trump boom years.” In referring to the Trump administration as “boom years,” you’re making the same mistake as the MSM. Let’s look at the facts in order to decide whether the years 2017-2019 were “boom years” for the economy. I think it’s fair to compare the first three years of the Trump administration (2017-2019) to the last three years of the Obama administration (2014-2016) in order to determine whether Trump gave us a “booming” economy compared to the much derided economic performance under Obama:

• The average monthly job gain for 2014-2016 was 232,000; and the average gain for 2017-2019 was 194,000. So Obama’s numbers beat Trump by 38,000 jobs per month, which is about 450,000 jobs annually.
• The average real GDP annual growth rate for 2014-2016 was 2.2%; and the average rate for 2017-2019 was 2.6%.  So Trump’s numbers beat Obama by .4% per year.
• The average annual inflation rate for 2014-2016 was 1.2%; and the average rate for 2017-2019 was 1.7%.

Overall, Obama does better on job growth and inflation, and Trump does better on GDP growth. (Please note that I did not include the Covid year of 2020; if I had, Trump’s numbers would have been significantly worse in all three categories.) My point is that Trump’s economic performance was primarily a continuation of the economic performance of the second Obama administration, which means that if you’re going to say that the economy boomed under Trump, you have to say that the economy boomed under Obama in his second term. But I’ve never seen you say that, just as I’ve never seen the MSM say that. It is a tribute to Trump’s strategy of endlessly declaring that his presidency created “the great economy ever!” I’m surprised that you let yourself be taken in by him.

All I was talking about was how people feel and remember things. I’m not taken in, but I do think it’s realistic to understand where many people are coming from. Another makes a prediction:

I think immigration will be why Trump wins. I do not understand why Harris does not throw Biden under the bus on immigration. I don’t get it at all. And, just for good measure, how about, “As a former prosecutor, I will make sure we immediately deport any migrants convicted of a crime.”

Another imagines more quotes from Harris:

I share your frustrations with the non-debate last week. Granted, Harris went in there to show that a poised opponent can reduce Trump to an overcooked bowl of pudding, and that’s useful on two fronts. It enthuses her supporters (turnout!), and it makes anyone paying attention see her point about the ease with which adversaries can manipulate him. But you’re right: not enough of a good performance by Harris.

Still: calm down and vote for her with a serene conscience. Here is how I would answer your questions if I were Harris (though I doubt she is confident enough to be so frank):

“I came up in politics on the liberal side, and I was sent to the Senate to represent the liberal voters of California. I joined a contest in 2019 where I was on a team, working for its causes. My task was to push for progress, not to balance the pace of progress critically against the other team’s calls for restraint or reversal.”

“I confronted a different task in my role as vice president, and that is the task I reflect on as I prepare to be president: governing for the good of the whole country, understanding and weighing the claims of all sides. It is not wrong but only natural that I should be open to reconsidering past positions.”

“My values have not changed: the world should progress towards a future less reliant on fossil fuels. But my perspective has changed: measuring that progress against economic costs and practicalities is now my task. Rational assessment of the options before us today is my task. On that basis I changed my views on fracking, and any leader should be ready and willing to make such changes.”

If she could defend each evolution of her positions in language like that, I think you would be whole-heartedly in her corner. They are flip-flops in the correct direction, towards prudence and good sense.

That would help a lot. Another reader suspects that vibes will be enough:

It is quite likely voters will forget the debate soon. However, Kamala’s performance is going to help Democrats raise more money, recruit volunteers, and improve the ground game. Republicans can not match her campaign in this regard. The pundits and media, on the right and left, emphasise past failures and future policies too much. The conventional wisdom is Hillary lost because she was not well liked. Kamala is getting more popular and preferred, compared to Trump. Most undecideds are inadequately informed, and so they will go with the vibe.

We know Trump will change his mind and want the second debate. Kamala should decline it, continue on aggressive campaigning the way she is doing, and be interviewed on friendly podcasts and television outlets as much as possible. And here is a risky but potentially winning October surprise she can throw in the mix: announce a week before November 5 that if elected, she will pardon Trump.

More thoughts on last week’s debate:

This isn’t really a dissent, but I just wanted to thank you for being one of the few people who are being honest about that presidential debate. I worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and I have said the same things about the similarities in some of the arrogance and overconfidence of both the Clinton and the Harris campaigns. The major differences are that Clinton was detailed in her policy, a skilled debater, and a stickler for detail. I think Harris missed huge opportunities in the debate to show any kind of detailed policy positions.

I also thought Trump did much better than he did in any debate with Clinton. He did land some blows on the economy, the war in Ukraine, and his closing statement was excellent. Again, I campaigned against him, and I am not a supporter now, but I can see why a lot of independents are still going to vote for him. The Harris campaign will dismiss him at their own peril.

The other thing to remember is that, as you said, Clinton polled much better than Harris after the debates, even after the Comey letter. Trump also always underperforms in polls. I admit that the Clinton campaign made several fatal mistakes, but I think the Harris campaign has made many more. I think the American people are voting on three main issues: the economy, immigration and crime — all issues that Harris is woefully weak on.

Thanks again for the wisdom every week. As a life-long Democrat recently turned independent, I never thought we’d have so much to agree on.

Another reader flags a news story:

You wrote, “Unlike the rainbow flag — a mere symbol of diversity — this new flag is an attempt by the far-left activists who have captured the remnant of the gay rights movement to press their point.” As it so happens, there’s a recent development for what might be the most famous pride flag in the world: at the intersection of Castro and Market streets in San Francisco. Here’s what I consider to be the most important comment from that article:

The Historic Preservation Commission recommended the landmark designation to the board in May, but the process was temporarily delayed so that the ordinance could be reworked to not allow for other flags to fly at the site. City officials pushed for preserving the rainbow-flag installation because it is ‘a site-specific permanent artwork,’ according to the commission, and is the only such work [Gilbert] Baker made.

Emphasis mine. In other words, the government of SF appears to have officially declared the city’s famous rainbow flag to be a landmark in order to defend it from transgender activists who, as best I understand them, wanted to expunge the most famous icon of gay rights in history because “many transgender people don’t identify with the rainbow flag.”

So if my interpretation of these recent developments is correct, I consider it to be good news: a minority of the activist left appears to have been prevented from executing an extreme, unpopular, and hostile removal of a beloved gay symbol.  But just imagine if they had succeeded! Replacing the giant rainbow flag on San Francisco’s Castro street, it seems to me, would’ve been as clear a sign as any that the gay rights movement was now wholly subservient to extremists. Instead, sanity seems to have prevailed.

Hilariously, however, the SF Chronicle’s article (by Tony Bravo) insists on presenting it mainly through the tired and, in this case, inaccurate narrative of conservatives vs liberals:

The news comes at a fraught moment for the flag and the LGBTQ community it represents. Across the country, movements against flying the flag in public spaces including schools, city halls and United States embassies are being spearheaded by right-wing anti-LGBTQ groups.

The idea that the city of San Francisco just fought off some “right-wing” and “anti-LGBTQ” reactionaries, as if such forces had even the remotest influence in that infamously liberal city, is so misguided as to basically amount to actual misinformation. That SF Chronicle article does reference a “wider discussion” on the left about the Pride flag, but that euphemistic type of language elides the basic reality of the situation: liberals prevailed over leftists for once. And that’s something to celebrate.

I raise a glass of champagne! One more email for the week:

While listening to Gregorian chants on Alexa this morning as I did some housework, I thought of you as an Irish-Catholic altar boy growing up in England. Would you ever consider writing a memoir? You have been very open about your gay life, but I think many would be interested in your other life with your siblings and parents. Now that your mom has passed, maybe you would think about it.

The book I have a contract for — on Christianity — is very autobiographical, because it is impossible to talk about faith without talking about one’s own life. It’s also theological: an attempt to combine memoir with argument as I did with Love Undetectable. And my reader is right: I was blocked because my parents were still alive and I would never violate their privacy. So I find myself beginning to write parts of it in my head now, in ways I haven’t before.

Thanks as always for the tough dissents and other emails. Send your own to dish@andrewsullivan.com, and see you next Friday.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Weekly Dish, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends