Why Vance Matters

Conservatives and liberals need to take a longer view of the right’s future.

By far the biggest revelation of last Tuesday night was what happens to American politics if you remove Donald J Trump.

Everything instantly changes.

We actually had a civil, lively debate between a sane, reconstructed Republican and a likable, if jittery, Democrat. Not in the distant post-populist future, but now. It was a fleeting snapshot of a politics without madness. Yes we can!

Does that mean that JD Vance told the truth? Nope. Among the untruths: hospitals in Springfield have not been overwhelmed by new immigrants; Trump did not salvage Obamacare — he tried to repeal it; and the Trump tax cuts benefited the wealthy far more than the middle class. Walz was better but still couldn’t admit he made up being in China during the Tiananmen massacre (he missed it by a couple of months); absurdly claimed that border crossings were down from the Trump era; and invented the idea that Project 2025 would create registries of pregnant women.

But the thing about these untruths is that they were perfectly, reassuringly, normal. Politicians fib; they exaggerate; they elide uncomfortable truths. It all eventually gets filtered out in the democratic process. Liars aren’t necessarily bad presidents. Bill Clinton proved that. What has changed in this past decade is a whole new category of total gaslighting, an endless series of total lies designed solely to defend the ego and interests of Donald J Trump.

Here is the latest from the man himself, on the federal government’s response to Hurricane Helene:

They stole the FEMA money just like they stole it from a bank so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season.

Disgusting, despicable, demagogic lies all the way down. Yes, history handed him social media as a super-weapon, and he used it like a Jedi. But it is startling how much of our democratic nadir can be traced to a single, depraved monster.

Trumpism isn’t the problem. It was a response to shifting realities as neo-liberalism won its very pyrrhic victory. But Trump really is. Last week, he said:

“[Migrants will] rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill the people of the United States of America. … They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

This is Nazi rhetoric. It is Trump’s alone. There is nothing he will not say. All those who are finding reasons to support his candidacy need to admit they are backing a uniquely indecent figure in American history. And decency matters.

Look at the other manifestations of right-populism in the West, and it’s nowhere near as nuts. Giorgia Meloni is conservative, charismatic, attuned to the populist era but sane. Same with Sunak in the UK during his brief period in office. Le Pen has moderated substantially. No other leader has nearly brought their entire system down with mob violence. No other leader in any other democracy tells lies as depraved as Trump does. Every other right-populist leader has instantly accepted election losses.

And this, of course, is Vance’s core weakness. He has to remain committed to that Lie, because he is Trump’s vassal. In the debate, he eventually hocked up this sad loogie:

It’s really rich for Democratic leaders to say that Donald Trump is a unique threat to democracy when he peacefully gave over power on January the 20th, as we have done for 250 years in this country.

That takes some balls, doesn’t it? Vance then suggested that government censorship of social media was as big a threat to democracy as … trying to overturn the results of an election by fraud and violence. The argument — a reprise of his flailing in an interview with Ross — is contemptible whataboutism.

And we now know in detail, thanks to Jack Smith, the extent of Trump’s crimes. We know he was always going to declare himself the victor on election night, regardless of the results, capitalizing on the fact that Democratic votes would take longer to count and so he’d appear to have a lead.

He then conspired to try and get fake electors to nullify the real ones, pressured key Republican officials to rig the results, targeted his own vice president by claiming he had the power to prevent the certification; and piled pressure on him — including, on January 6 itself, the threat of murderous violence. “So what?” Trump said when he heard Mike Pence was in physical danger. “The details don’t matter,” he told an aide who insisted that the fraud claims would not hold up in court.

Reality never mattered to him:

It doesn’t matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight like hell.

It still doesn’t, as he ranted to a reporter this week:

They rigged the election. The election was rigged. I didn’t rig the election, they did.

None of this can faintly be ascribed to a president’s official actions, subject in some way to presidential immunity. These are, put simply, crimes committed by a candidate to overturn an election result. They are, in fact, some of the gravest crimes ever committed against the Constitution, which is why they required impeachment and barring Trump from office indefinitely. But Mitch McConnell blinked.

Vance has disqualified himself by repeating the Big Lie. It’s why I’m voting, however reluctantly, for Harris. But it’s vital to see that Vance also showed Tuesday night that there may be a Republican future beyond Trump; and that it does not have to be as depraved and deranged as it now is. And this matters. It should matter to you if you’re a Democrat as well as a Republican, because we have two parties, and bringing one of them back to some kind of sanity is vital if we are to rescue liberal democracy.

Very few seem interested in this right now, in nursing the signs of pro-family policy pragmatism on the right, a more realist foreign policy, and a less culturally progressive government. Some still want to return to the party of neoconservatism and open borders, and would rather destroy the GOP than reform it. That’s why they’ve done all they can these past few years to prevent any Republican alternative emerging. The campaign against DeSantis was brutal, and relentless and it worked.

Sane liberals have also assailed Vance, many with zest. Part of it is his submission to Trump; part is his constant ideological reinvention. Fair enough, I guess. But part is also, it seems to me, the usual educated liberal’s contempt for an intellectually curious conservative. I just wish they’d stop for a second and listen to some of Vance’s answers on Tuesday night: the way he acknowledged Republican flaws (on abortion, for example); the way he reached out personally to Walz (over his son witnessing a shooting); the way his voice modulated when weighing various points; the way he seemed focused on solutions rather than slogans, as in his agreement with Walz on a federal family leave program.

This tone — and I acknowledge it’s not one he’s used on wingnut podcasts — matters. It really does suggest that there’s a way to have a conversation about our challenges that doesn’t become a rant, a diatribe, or a shout-fest. That’s something that, even if you disagree with Vance, you should welcome. It’s the tone of liberal democracy, and it has been a very, very long time since we’ve heard it on the right. Get rid of Trump, and we have a future for conservatism.

I think there are two ways this election will go. One could be the final turning of the page of the Trump era. It won’t be a victory for Harris so much as a defeat of the ugly, destabilizing, toxic past. At some point, the ratings for The Apprentice collapsed. Maybe the same will happen for a third Trump election cycle. I sure hope so.

The other could be a surprising Trump victory, because the alternative seems too compromised by the Biden record, simply doesn’t have the talent or vision to command even a single news cycle, and is running a dangerously risk-averse campaign, which the press, by and large, is too chickenshit to expose. Yes, I have PTSD from 2016. But you should too.

Either way, Vance will matter — either as a saner version of Trumpism, or as a moderator of the coming madness. Rather than trashing him, we need to engage him. After defeating him, of course.

New On The Dishcast: Bill Wasik & Monica Murphy

Bill Wasik is the editorial director of The New York Times Magazine. Monica Murphy is a veterinarian and a writer. Their first book, Rabid: A Cultural History of the World’s Most Diabolical Virus, was a bestseller, and they’re back with a new one: Our Kindred Creatures: How Americans Came to Feel the Way They Do About Animals. It’s a fascinating account of how the social movement to prevent cruelty to animals took off in America.

Listen to the episode here. There you can find two clips of our convo — on the beginnings of dog welfare, and the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” for animal activism. That link also takes you to commentary on our recent episodes with David Frum and Michelle Goldberg. There’s also continued reader debate over the presidential race, immigration, and inherited IQ.

Money Quotes For The Week

“I was a Republican before Donald Trump started spray-tanning,” – Liz Cheney.

“At least we got one debate this season that was for adults. Vance and Walz offered voters policy details, coherent political philosophies, and few personal attacks. Is it too late for a switcheroo on their presidential tickets?” – Zaid Jilani. If only.

“There’s a clear message to the Trump and Harris campaigns following the VP debate: Harris still needs to speak more and Trump still needs to speak less. That is the fundamental key to this election with 30 days to go,” – Frank Luntz.

“It seems that Hamas and Hezbollah grossly over-estimated the deterrent capabilities of student protesters at elite college campuses,” – David Frum.

“Israel has the greatest opportunity in 50 years to change the face of the Middle East,” – Naftali Bennett, former PM of Israel.

“A country currently mass killing and starving one population (Gaza, over 40k dead) while enforcing apartheid and poverty on another (West Bank, which has no Hamas or Hezbollah), and simultaneously invading still another country (Lebanon) while sporadically bombing three others (Yemen, Syria, Iran) has missiles strike actual military targets on their own soil and declares THIS IS NOT NORMAL,” – Musa al-Gharbi quoting a tweet from the Israeli government on Iranian missiles.

“The Trump ‘economic miracle’ was inheriting an economy that was already booming and then immediately adding trillions more in deficit-hiking stimulus to maintain that growth for 3 more years before the pandemic. Sorry for not being wow’ed,” – Brian Riedl, economist at the Manhattan Institute.

“I hated to give overtime. I hated it. I shouldn’t say this, but I’d get other people in. I wouldn’t pay,” – Donald Trump, tribune of the plebs.

“Hurricane hits, Trump’s first instinct is to say the government is not sending help to MAGA areas. No Democrat is like this. Anyone who talks about the tone of politicians or norms or decency or whatever and doesn’t think Trump stands apart is not worth taking seriously,” – Richard Hanania.

“I’m conservative. Liz Cheney makes me look like a raving liberal. She’s extremely conservative. Our viewpoints haven’t changed. … So what changed? The answer is really simple: we didn’t bow the knee and pledge allegiance to Donald Trump,” – Adam Kinzinger on Cheney joining Harris at a rally.

The View From Your Window

Fermanagh, Northern Ireland, 3.44 pm

Dissents Of The Week: You’re Coconuts!

The first of many readers to criticize my endorsement of Harris:

Sure, Andrew, reward the Democrats for unchecked illegal immigration; the creation of the Censorship Industrial Complex; the institutionalization of neo-racism against white people; the corruption of science; the defunding and demonization of police forces; the transformation of universities into illiberal factories of intersectionality and post-modernism; the flooding of K-12 with radical leftists posing as teachers who intentionally confuse kids; the weaponization of the intel agencies; the degeneration of the MSM into a DNC propaganda arm; the imposition of gender ideology on the public and erasure of women’s rights; the replacement of merit-based hiring and admissions with DEI; and the perversion of the justice system.

But Trump is soooooo bad, and soooooo dangerous, that you’re more than willing to endorse all of the above.

I’ve never voted for Trump, but I’d crawl a mile over broken glass to vote for him this time. Unlike you, I’m capable of understanding that all of the Progress™ this country has seen over the past decade or so has been utterly disastrous, and that the issue was never Trump, but the left’s response to Trump.

Tell us how you really feel. And, yes, I get it. I’m in an awful spot. But for me, Trump is a non-negotiable.

Another focuses on “two primary points (and the reasons I’m voting for Trump)”:

1. Free speech. This, more so than anything else, has to be protected. Harris and the Democrats have made no secret that they can and will attack the free exchange of ideas to protect their power. And they do this in the worst way. While the GOP will go after cultural speech like porn, they will still let you criticize the government. The Democrats, however, will not allow this. If we lose the ability to speak, no other policies matter. We lose our republic.
2. Wars. Pause for a moment to think that you’re advocating a vote for what is now the party of Dick Cheney. Cheney has not changed; he’s the same neocon he was 20 years ago. So his endorsement of Harris should be terrifying. Trump is reckless, but the Democrats are far more likely to get us into another major war if they are in power.

I agree with just about all of your criticisms of Trump. But between these two big issues, I view Harris as the worst of the two options. I hope you will reconsider.

Let’s tackle 1. I find the Democrats’ fixation on countering “disinformation” deeply worrying. Their views on free expression appall me. On Tuesday, Tim Walz said again that he doesn’t believe there is free speech for “hate speech” which gets the First Amendment entirely wrong. But we have that Amendment, and a court likely to support it. We have independent news channels. We have ways to combat this censorship that we have never had before. We have Substack!

On 2. yes, the Dick Cheney endorsement troubles me. He lost an unnecessary war at horrifying human cost and committed the worst war crimes in American history. And he’d do it all again in a millisecond. So would his daughter. Harris is also pledging open-ended support for Ukraine when some kind of negotiated settlement is inevitable; and is sitting back as the Jewish state uses military power to remake the Middle East, and take out Iran’s nuclear capacity. What could go wrong? Nonetheless, do we really think a Trump victory would do anything but wreck NATO and give Putin a massive advantage in any negotiations over Ukraine?

Another dissent:

How will you feel if the Dems sweep and eliminate the filibuster, pack or term-limit SCOTUS, push through a wealth tax, etc. — all of which they’re dying to do.
So your endorsement of Harris is ridiculous, given the stakes. We all hate Trump, but this is honestly a choice between two really bad candidates, and Harris will be more than happy to comply with the furthest left of her party, who will be effectively running the White House.

At least with Trump we will know who’s actually running things. He was, in fact, in office for four years, and despite being under constant and vicious attacks for the entire time, he managed to produce above-average results for the country. Your endorsement of Harris, coming from a supposed conservative, negates my ability to take seriously anything you write going forward.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Honestly, I doubt the Senate Dems would abolish the filibuster on abortion, and Court-packing would provoke a massive backlash. But I can see the worries, and share them. I’m more concerned with their relentless, racist war on merit, color-blindness and equality of opportunity.

Another dissenter writes:

Add your name to the list of so-called conservatives who are voting for this communist/socialist wannabe. You’re right that she’s deeply insecure, because she’s grown up in a progressive bubble and has never had to fight for her own identity or ideals. She’s just soaked it all up and is now regurgitating it all, as much as she can remember, and as long as it’s couched in hazy terms and immature laughter.

Yes, we know what Trump is, and isn’t. One thing he is not — the biggest thing he is not — is a step in the direction of socialism and communism. Kamala won’t turn the country into a communist state or full-blown socialist state, but she will take a step or two in that direction. And the frog will continue to sit in the ever-warming water for four more years.

Another quotes me:

“But leave Trump there and watch the degeneracy spread. We are witnessing truly foul developments on the American right — old-school anti-Semitism,” etc. You are apparently the only person on the right who is worried about rightwing Semitism. I’m sure there are fringe groups, but they don’t move the needle a millimeter. Can you honestly ignore the blatant anti-Semitism emanating from major groups on the left, proudly displaying their venom in our universities and public squares in Dem-controlled cities?

No I honestly haven’t ignored leftwing anti-Semitism. But if what Musk has enabled on X on the ugly right doesn’t disturb you, I don’t know what to say.

One more dissent for now:

I have supported you and the Dish for over a decade, and I have enjoyed your writing as a voice standing against insanity of the gender critical movement and how it is harming children, teenagers and young adults. So your endorsement of Harris was disappointing. You have written many pieces critical of the ideology, the institutions, and people who are indulging this harmful religion. You were exiled from establishment media and I wanted to see your voice continue, so I was ecstatic when you started the Weekly Dish. I was angered by Jon Stewart’s condescension towards you, and when Ben Smith virtual-signaled to the world at your expense, I defended you to anyone that would listen.

But now, I feel silly having invested so emotionally in you. For all the conflict you had with Stewart and others, you ultimately end up voting for the same person who absolutely supports all the things that you are afraid of with gender critical psychosis/religion.

I’m not even sure what the purpose of your endorsement was, as it was such an emphatic backhand to Harris — one that neither she or any of her surrogates could ever make reference to. I’m also angry that you consider voting third-party or abstaining as a “cop-out”. I fall into this camp, and I think an equally valid argument is that a backhanded endorsement is a cop-out, perhaps even more so. Dick Cheney’s endorsement of Harris is more loved by the leftist establishment than your endorsement, and rightly so, because he has made the calculation that he wants to help Harris win.

These are all good points. I’m profoundly worried by the toll that gender ideology is having on gay, autistic and transgender children. It’s the greatest assault on gay kids since the religious right’s conversion therapy campaign. But we are slowly exposing the young, gay bodies this transqueer movement has irrevocably violated, and we are making progress in the states and winning public opinion. In other words, this is not a presidential dealbreaker for me as such.

And look: I know my position is excruciating. I accept many of you will be deeply disappointed. But for me, the removal of Trump from our political scene is the absolute sine qua non of our recovery as a liberal democracy. I said on Substack Notes that I’d vote for Vance over Harris in an instant. But I cannot enable Trump.

I may be wrong — and if I am, you know I’ll acknowledge it in due course. But this is my gut choice. I hate it. But, in my view, it is the only responsible thing at this point for an American citizen to do.

More dissents continue on the pod page, arriving in your in-tray soon. As always, please keep the criticism coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Mental Health Break

A supercut for the late great Maggie Smith:

In The ‘Stacks

• Eli Lake praises the escalation that took out Nasrallah, and Joe Klein hopes for a liberated Lebanon. After Iran’s retaliation, Ken Klippenstein considers the US at war.
• Iran is now “profoundly vulnerable,” says Paul Salem; but Israel “can’t survive as a pariah state,” counters Sam Kahn.
• Greg Lukianoff schools Walz on free speech.
• Ann Coulter chronicles the many lame lies of Walz over his career.
• Will the stellar performance from Vance clash with Trump’s ego?
• Matt Yglesias tackles Trump’s “incredibly dumb economic mistake.”
• Noah Smith does a deep dive into Harris’ economic plans.
• Dem appeal among Hispanic voters “really is getting worse,” notes Teixeira. Yglesias has advice on the growing gender gap.
• Ross Barkan partially defends Eric Adams and sizes up his bleak future.
• Austria becomes the latest country to feel the “rising tide of the populist right.”
• Coleman Hughes reviews the new encyclical from Coates: “the most shamelessly one-sided summary of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I have ever read.”
• Jim Fallows honors his old boss, Jimmy Carter, on his centennial.
• The new counterculture is on the right, but it’s an empty one.
• Scott Alexander considers the case for “cultural Christianity.”
• Ross Douthat experiments with a serialized fantasy novel on Substack.

The View From Your Window Contest