Vote, Just Not for Kooks

By Jonah Goldberg

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

 

I often get asked for my advice on how to vote. I’m the first to concede these requests come from a very niche slice of the electorate—that tiny remnant of people who know who I am, value my opinion and share my exasperation with both parties.

 

I am going to answer the question. But first let me explain why I don’t like it.

 

I think too many pundits on the left and right fall into the habit of confusing or conflating the fortunes of a party with that of their philosophy. Many come by this tendency honestly. As the parties have polarized ideologically, it’s a natural assumption to think that the GOP and Democrats are the sole vessels for conservatism and progressivism, respectively.  

 

Add in the very human tendency to favor the politicians who return your phone calls and seek your approval, and that rooting interest can get even more intense.

 

One problem with this approach—and there are many—is that what is best for the GOP in an election year is not necessarily what is best for conservatism in the long run. The same goes for the Democrats and progressivism.

 

For instance, on many issues—abortion, trade, industrial policy, etc.—President Trump has moved the GOP leftward over his two terms. But just try telling most Republicans in 2016, 2020, or 2024 that a Republican victory would be bad for conservatism.

 

President Barack Obama wanted a very progressive agenda, and he got some of it. He also cost his party roughly 1,000 elected offices across his two terms and left behind a political climate that made the Trump presidency possible (and that erased many of Obama’s executive orders). President Joe Biden left his cause and his party in an even uglier ditch.

 

The point isn’t about political point-scoring. It’s simply to note that ideological and intellectual progress—however you define progress—doesn’t move in lockstep with electoral success or failure. In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and moved rightward on welfare reform. This was a victory for conservatism and a political loss for Republicans, because his triangulation got Clinton reelected.

 

Single-issue activists often understand this logic better than generic ideologues or partisans do. The last thing abortion rights activists want is for anti-abortion Democrats to become a major faction, just as pro-lifers don’t want Republicans who support abortion rights to gain political traction. But the same activists would love to see the other party move in their direction—because the goal isn’t to use the issue of abortion as a wedge issue or for fundraising, but to forge a bipartisan consensus.

 

That’s how I think about the proper goal of the “conservative movement”—to move America’s center of gravity rightward, not just the GOP’s center, or outermost fringe. This means conservatives should celebrate when conservative Democrats are nominated, even if that’s bad for Republicans electorally.

 

I also believe that candidates who discredit or deform conservatism by claiming to be conservative should lose.

 

Which brings me to my advice. I think that voters should be more interested in rewarding good behavior and good character than in ideological or partisan purity tests. That doesn’t mean ideology and partisanship are irrelevant. I think these things can be balanced.

 

Take the Senate race in Texas. Democrat James Talarico is ideologically not my cup of tea, and he is quite far to the left for Texas. But his Republican opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, is in my view a corrupt gargoyle simply unfit for any office. I’m not here to debate that opinion, because the people seeking my advice generally share it.

 

So, if you’re a conservative who thinks Talarico is too left-wing and Paxton is bat-winged, don’t vote for either of them.

 

But you should still vote.

 

You can leave the Senate line blank while voting for other Republicans on the ballot (you can also select Libertarian candidate Ted Brown). Sending the message that your problem is Paxton, not Republicans, is one that Republicans and conservatives need to hear.

 

If I were a progressive, I would have the same approach toward candidates aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America who will hurt both the party and the cause. Vote for all the other Democrats, just not the radicals who spout the sort of nonsense that turns off more mainstream voters than they attract.

 

One reason our politics are such a mess is that fringe candidates know they can count on the reflexive support of their parties—and their pundits!—the moment they get the nomination. Strategically voting to end that dynamic is not inconsistent with the best interests of your ideological cause or your party, because those interests are often in tension in an election year.