By Mark Antonio Wright
Thursday, September 05, 2024
Noah
Rothman is, of course, correct that J. D. Vance’s decision — when told
that Liz Cheney is endorsing Kamala Harris — to inject pure poison into our
national political discourse by accusing Cheney of being willing to “kill
thousands of children” and send “other people’s children off to fight and die
for her military conflicts” so that she could “get rich when America’s sons and
daughters go off to die” is loathsome and vile and the kind of left-wing fecal
matter that was leveled at Republicans and Republican voters for years.
Yes, Vance scored some cheers at Charlie
Kirk’s Turning Point event, and he got some “Yas Queen!” hosannas from some
of the usual suspects online. Bully for him.
But can we talk about just how dumb-as-rocks stupid this
was as political messaging?
The November election (61 days away, by the by) is going
to be razor-close in five or six states. Look, I am aware that the Trump-Vance
national-conservative wing of the Right is ascendant right now. I am aware that
conservatives like me, who care about a traditional approach to national
security, are not calling the shots in today’s GOP. But Trump and Vance still
need millions of normie-style Republican votes if they want to win the big
swing states. Millions. Many of these people are somewhat reluctant to vote
for Trump because they don’t trust him on national-security issues and
would prefer a more Reaganite approach. Throughout the primaries, even after
the contest had been decided in Trump’s favor, something like 10 percent of
Republicans continued to protest the current direction of the party by pulling
the lever for Nikki Haley.
Now I don’t think that 10 percent of Republicans are
going to turn around and vote for Harris. But has J. D. Vance considered that
they could stay home?
Again, I’m not suggesting that Trump and Vance are likely
to shed their policy convictions and replace them with my or Noah’s or Liz
Cheney’s preferences (even though they should, because I’m right on this
stuff!). I’m not suggesting that a single voter out there is going to change
his vote purely on the basis of Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. And
I’m certainly not suggesting that nuance or persuasion or considered arguments
are what the room-temperature-IQ smooth-brains who look to Charlie Kirk for
their political opinions are interested in.
But one would think that a man running hard to be elected
vice president of the United States would be at least interested in
trying to persuade a shaky wing of his coalition to stay in the boat. One would
think that J. D. Vance would at least try to reel back in the type of
voter who was once a Trump supporter and is now declaring for his opponent.
It’s really not that hard to come up with what Vance
could have said. This kind of thing is the basic blocking and tackling of
politics. It’d go something like this:
Charlie Kirk: Do you want to
comment on the news that Liz Cheney is going to endorse Kamala Harris?
J. D. Vance: Well I
can’t say that I’m surprised, but what I will say is that Liz Cheney voted for
Trump in 2016, she voted for Trump in 2020, and I’d ask her — and I’d ask every
voter out there — why did you vote for Trump?
Was it because you believed in
keeping America strong and secure? Was it because you cared about
national-security issues? Was it because you believed America’s alliances were
important for our defense but that America’s allies needed to start carrying their
own weight too? Was it because you didn’t want someone so weak and foolish like
Joe Biden in office?
Well all of those things still
apply today to Donald Trump and this election in November. He will keep
America strong. He will bring us peace through strength. He will strengthen our
alliances by making sure that they actually work like they’re supposed to.
Donald Trump is the candidate who will be tough with the Chinese and the
Russians in a way that Kamala Harris never could yada yada yada. . .
Notice that most everything I wrote in that short appeal
is language that would be perfectly agreeable to nat-con isolationist types or
neocons or traditional hawks like me.
My point here isn’t to write Vance a new stump speech. My
point is that Vance is making the same mistake that Kari Lake did in 2022 when
she told John McCain voters — in Arizona of all places — to “get the
hell out” and not vote for her. (Pro tip: Kari Lake lost by 17,000 votes.)
Big coalitions tend to win. Small coalitions tend to
lose. Good politicians welcome people who agree with them 51 percent of the
way. Crappy politicians tell them to get lost. Good politicians ask people for
their vote. Crappy politicians institute purity tests.
You tell me which kind of politician J. D. Vance was
acting like on that stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment