Yes, There are Conservatives for Kamala

Plus: American Idiocracy. An Update.

The Do-Absolutely-Nothing Congress heads home. having accomplished (you guessed it) Absolutely Nothing; New York’s mayor is indicted; New York’s former mayor is disbarred; the Mideast is on fire, and the burning question: Is the “Conservatives for Kamala” thing, real? Plus, the obligatory dog pictures.

Happy Thursday. There are 39 Days until the Election.

To the Contrary is a reader-supported publication. You may disagree with me from time to time (and I expect you will, because I’m not promising you a safe space here). But I’ll always try to give it to you straight. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. (And I’m immensely grateful for your generous support.)

American Idiocracy. An Update.

Let’s start with a quick tutorial about symbols of hate. The Anti-Defamation League notes that one of the most popular (albeit stupid) codes for the neo-Nazi right is the number 1488.

1488 is a combination of two popular white supremacist numeric symbols.

The first symbol is 14, which is shorthand for the "14 Words" slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."

The second is 88, which stands for "Heil Hitler" (H being the 8th letter of the alphabet).

Together, the numbers form a general endorsement of white supremacy and its beliefs. As such, they are ubiquitous within the white supremacist movement - as graffiti, in graphics and tattoos, even in screen names and e-mail addresses, such as aryanprincess1488@hate.net.  Some white supremacists will even price racist merchandise, such as t-shirts or compact discs, for $14.88.

And, right on cue, here comes My Pillow Guy, with his Standard MyPillow, priced at… $14.88.

Lindell, the Trump White House habitué who distinguished himself as one of the wooliest election deniers, says he was shocked, stunned, appalled, astounded, and flabbergasted that anyone would think that he was intentionally embracing the bigoted code. And he quickly changed the prices.

The likeliest explanation here is that the deeply gullible Lindell was duped into the $14.88 thing. So, this story may be less about bigotry than Lindell’s inveterate idiocy. But it certainly raises questions: Who is Lindell hanging out with these days? And who is he listening to?

And, really, why did anyone ever take this moron seriously?

**

There are, however, no mitigating explanations for this: GOP Congressman Clay Higgins posted (and later removed) this racist screed yesterday:

Note bene: This is not a one-off for the deplorable Higgins. The Wapo notes: “Higgins resigned from the St. Landry Parish sheriff’s office in 2016 after he described alleged gang members as “heathens” and “animals” in a viral video. He won his House seat months later.” Higgins has also acknowledged voting for KKK leader David Duke, when he ran for governor in Louisiana.

But there’s so much more:

During his time as a sheriff in Lafayette, he was known for pushing an anti-Black agenda and assaulted an unarmed Black man. In 2017, he was widely condemned for filming a selfie inside a gas chamber at Auschwitz.

He predictably continues to insist Trump won the 2020 election and believes violent insurrectionists are heroes. In 2020 he threatened to shoot Black civil rights protesters. In 2022 he dismissively referred to Raya Salter, a Black woman lawyer, as “boo” during a Congressional hearing. In 2023 he assaulted a progressive activist during a press event at the U.S. Capitol. In April, he argued for detaining EPA Administrator Michael Regan, who is Black, and sending him to Angola Prison.

So yeah, Higgins is exactly what he appears to be. And he remains a Republican member of Congress in good standing. Because, of course.

Conservatives for Kamala

George Will

(It’s real. And it’s spectacular. At least for me.)

We know the names of all the fence sitters: Mike Pence, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, George Bush, Bret Stephens; and the names of all of the anti-Trump conservatives who have fallen into line behind a second Trump term: from Nikki Haley to Chris Sununu and the editors of National Review, who have gone from “Against Trump,” to “Maybe Trump,” to “Hell Yeah, Trump.” Polls would suggest that the vast majority of Republican and conservative voters are following their lead.

But there are also the lifelong conservatives who have crossed the Rubicon and endorsed a Democrat: Dick and Liz Cheney; Adam Kinzinger; Judge Michael Luttig; former AG Alberto Gonzalez; Georgia’s Geoff Duncan; Jimmy McCain; Joe Walsh; David French, George Will, and a host of former GOP aides.

To be sure, they represent a minority faction — you might even say a rump caucus — of conservatives. But let’s not underestimate the significance here. A while back, I wrote in The Atlantic:

Before Trump, the ideological divide between Harris and conservative Republicans might have been too large to bridge. But this is not a normal campaign.

And that is the Great Divide.

Many on the right simply cannot disenthrall themselves from seeing this election as a more-or-less traditional choice between the right and the left. Yes, they say, Trump is deplorable and unfit, but (insert blitherblatherbullshit about tax rates, fracking, pronouns, or student loans), they cannot bring themselves to vote for a progressive like Kamala Harris.

On the other side are the conservatives who recognize that this election isn’t about those things at all —- and who recognize that a second Trump term would be off the map of normal ideological/political differences. Here there be dragons, and orcs, and deplorable idiocies and dangers of every stripe.

Leave aside for a moment Trump’s serial lies, frauds, grifts, sexual assaults, crimes, and attempts to overthrow an election. Set aside his abandonment of free trade and fiscal restraint; and his penchant for using government power to pick winners and losers. This is a man who has called for terminating the constitution; who pledges a presidency of retribution; whose campaign has become a bullhorn for the rawest bigotry; and who leads his rally crowds in cheering for Vladimir Putin and booing Ukraine’s Volodymir Zelensky.

So, none of this is normal. And the standards and issues that used to animate us no longer apply. While it is true that some Never Trumpers have morphed into born-again progressives, the vast majority have not. They have simply decided to set aside their differences about things that (at least for the moment) don’t matter, because they recognize what is really at stake here.

Earlier this year, Liz Cheney clarified the choice:

"There are some conservatives who are trying to make this claim that somehow Biden is a bigger risk than Trump," she said. "My view is, I disagree with a lot of Joe Biden's policies. We can survive bad policies. We cannot survive torching the constitution. It's not even the same level."

This is the theme that is echoed by the conservatives who have broken ranks: We may disagree on policy, but that’s not what this election is about.

So, we have Geoff Duncan, the conservative Republican former lieutenant governor of Georgia, acknowledging that endorsing Harris “wasn’t easy. Through my conservative lens, I see very few policy areas where we agree.” But, he wrote, his “current north star is ridding” the GOP of Trump, and Harris is “the best vehicle toward preventing another stained Trump presidency.”

As The Dispatch’s Nick Catoggio wrote: “Reaganites don’t need to quit the Republican Party to advocate for their pet issues. They need to quit it to punish it for its romance with authoritarianism.”

Indeed, more than a dozen alumni of Reagan’s Administration issued a statement endorsing Harris over Trump, and suggested that if Reagan were alive, he would have supported the Democrat.

"President Ronald Reagan famously spoke about a 'Time for Choosing.' While he is not here to experience the current moment, we who worked for him in the White House, in the administration, in campaigns and on his personal staff, know he would join us in supporting the Harris-Walz ticket," the group wrote. "The time for choosing we face today is a choice between integrity and demagoguery, and the choice must be Harris-Walz."

The group explained that their votes in this election "are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy."

When the leadership team of Nikki Haley’s campaign in Michigan endorsed Harris, they declared: “Let us be clear. We disagree, sometimes strongly, with Vice President Harris on some of the ways we increase opportunity for everyone, but we believe she is a person of integrity. And right here, right now in this important election, character and integrity matter most of all.”

Last month, more than 200 former Bush, McCain and Romney staffers also endorsed Harris.

"Of course, we have plenty of honest, ideological disagreements with Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz. That’s to be expected," they wrote. "The alternative, however, is simply untenable.”

The Bush Administration’s conservative attorney general, Alberto Gonzales sounded a similar alarm:

"As the United States approaches a critical election, I can't sit quietly as Donald Trump — perhaps the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation — eyes a return to the White House," Gonzales wrote. "For that reason, though I'm a Republican, I've decided to support Kamala Harris for president."

When 111 former Republican national security and foreign policy officials endorsed Harris they admitted that “We expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues.” But they backed her anyway, because she possesses the essential qualities to serve as President and Donald Trump does not.” They wrote:

Donald Trump’s susceptibility to flattery and manipulation by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, unusual affinity for other authoritarian leaders, contempt for the norms of decent, ethical and lawful behavior, and chaotic national security decision-making are dangerous qualities – as many honorable Republican colleagues and military officers who served in senior national security positions in his administration have frequently testified. He is unfit to serve again as President, or indeed in any office of public trust.

An even larger group of 741 former national security leaders struck a similar note in endorsing Harris.¹

The group characterized the election as “a choice between serious leadership and vengeful impulsiveness. It is a choice between democracy and authoritarianism.”

The contrast with Mr. Trump is clear: where Vice President Harris is prepared and strategic, he is impulsive and ill-informed.

In this morning’s NYT, retired general Stanley McChrystal writes that his decision to back Harris was not based on policy, but on “character.”

As a citizen, veteran and voter, I was not comfortable with many of the policy recommendations that Democrats offered at their convention in Chicago or those Republicans articulated in Milwaukee. My views tend more toward the center of the political spectrum. And although I have opinions on high-profile issues, like abortion, gun safety and immigration, that’s not why I made my decision.

Political narratives and policies matter, but they didn’t govern my choice. I find it easy to be attracted to, or repelled by, proposals on taxes, education and countless other issues. But I believe that events and geopolitical and economic forces will, like strong tides, move policymakers where they ultimately must go. In practice, few administrations travel the course they campaigned on. Circumstances change. Our president, therefore, must be more than a policymaker or a malleable reflection of the public’s passions. She or he must lead — and that takes character.

He added: “To turn a blind eye toward or make excuses for weak character from someone we propose to confer awesome power and responsibility on is to abrogate our role as citizens. We will get — and deserve — what we elect.”

**

The importance of being George

Peter Wehner described George Will, as a “a monumentally significant figure in conservatism.” Which made his decision to vote for Harris especially notable.

Will has been an outspoken critic of Trump, but he has also directed his fire against what he sees as the excesses of the Biden-Harris Administration, and his conservative bona fides are intact. So, his endorsement was less than fulsome. But it was clear.

This election pits someone whose current persona is obviously synthetic against someone whose dishonesty in the service of his egotism is scarily authentic. Now, however, traditional conservatives can envision the least unpalatable November outcome. They have an unenthralled understanding of government’s proper scope and actual competence. So, their preferred outcome would be the election of Harris, and of a Republican Senate to regularly remind her that most Americans disagree with most of what she believes.

**

Exit take: The list is likely to grow. and with each endorsement, it becomes easier for other conservative voters to resist the gravitational pull of tribal loyalty.

Your daily dogs

Auggie on guard. (Actually, he just heard me open the treat jar in the kitchen.)

**

Auggie has some thoughts about what he’d like me to do.

**

Three years ago: Sunset boys.

1. The list includes:

—15 four-star Generals

—10 former cabinet secretaries

—10 service secretaries

—Multiple GOP leaders who served under Trump