Nathan, thank you so much for your careful approach to our current political landscape, which is dire. You've put a lot of research and thought into it and what you have written is an excellent contribution to the conversations in the public square.
I agree with you that both parties are too extreme and threaten the trajectory of American democracy. If fact, I don't feel comfortable being a member of either, and am not. This is a problem to be dealt with after this election.
However, at least as I sit here writing this, my exhausted political soul does not allow me to imagine telling Ms. Harris that I would vote for her only if she did "x." The former president has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and broke his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. She has no such history and every indication leads me to believe she will keep this solemn declaration if elected. In my view what you suggest makes the Constitution a bargaining chip - and that seems to be a recipe for the decline of the American experiment in self-government. I know you would never suggest that, so we must differ on the description and/or gravity of the threat.
So in this view Jeff Flake and Liz Cheney remain heroic champions of that inspired document and the democratic institutions that flow from it, all of which were so abused during the former president's years in office and the three since.
I remain respectful of your position and wanting to better understand it too, in the hopes that I become a voter most beneficial to the American project next Tuesday.
I’m glad for your comment, and want to acknowledge that the unconditional-Harris perspective is fair and persuasive to me. I’d love to speak about this piece more next time I see you, but for now it may be a comfort to know that I voted for Harris and have spent considerable energy working to persuade friends and family in AZ and NV to vote for her as well. I even discourage them from voting 3rd party.
But at the elite level I believe an endorsement is a different thing from how someone votes (as Romney cagily explained recently). As individual voters, we have little leverage over Harris and her policies. But figures like Romney and Cheney have significant leverage. And it appears to me that most “Haley voters” on the right and center are not looking for rhetorical permission to vote for Harris, they are looking for an excuse, in the form of a genuine move to the center. These are voters with serious misgivings about Harris. Her substance-free campaign has not assured them she is no longer a far-left progressive. So my argument is that Cheney making her endorsement conditional, and Harris publicly acquiescing, would actually do more to stop Trump than an unconditional endorsement.
In fact, after publishing this essay one of my friends from BYU reached out and confided that this essay is what persuaded him to vote for Harris. He said none of his pro-Harris friends have been able to appreciate why he is so apprehensive about her, and just reading an anti-Trump piece from someone who seemed to share his Harris-skepticism was enough to bring him around.
I think this may be the absent ingredient in the anti-Trump movement. When Never-Trumpers appear to convert into undifferentiated democrats overnight, it just persuades conservatives and moderates that those never-Trumpers are no longer credible spokespeople for the right and center.
That your piece persuaded someone to vote for Harris is absolutely fantastic news. Utah Monthly, all readers of Utah Monthly - let's share as widely as we can!
Nathan, thank you so much for your careful approach to our current political landscape, which is dire. You've put a lot of research and thought into it and what you have written is an excellent contribution to the conversations in the public square.
I agree with you that both parties are too extreme and threaten the trajectory of American democracy. If fact, I don't feel comfortable being a member of either, and am not. This is a problem to be dealt with after this election.
However, at least as I sit here writing this, my exhausted political soul does not allow me to imagine telling Ms. Harris that I would vote for her only if she did "x." The former president has demonstrated contempt for the Constitution and broke his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. She has no such history and every indication leads me to believe she will keep this solemn declaration if elected. In my view what you suggest makes the Constitution a bargaining chip - and that seems to be a recipe for the decline of the American experiment in self-government. I know you would never suggest that, so we must differ on the description and/or gravity of the threat.
So in this view Jeff Flake and Liz Cheney remain heroic champions of that inspired document and the democratic institutions that flow from it, all of which were so abused during the former president's years in office and the three since.
I remain respectful of your position and wanting to better understand it too, in the hopes that I become a voter most beneficial to the American project next Tuesday.
I’m glad for your comment, and want to acknowledge that the unconditional-Harris perspective is fair and persuasive to me. I’d love to speak about this piece more next time I see you, but for now it may be a comfort to know that I voted for Harris and have spent considerable energy working to persuade friends and family in AZ and NV to vote for her as well. I even discourage them from voting 3rd party.
But at the elite level I believe an endorsement is a different thing from how someone votes (as Romney cagily explained recently). As individual voters, we have little leverage over Harris and her policies. But figures like Romney and Cheney have significant leverage. And it appears to me that most “Haley voters” on the right and center are not looking for rhetorical permission to vote for Harris, they are looking for an excuse, in the form of a genuine move to the center. These are voters with serious misgivings about Harris. Her substance-free campaign has not assured them she is no longer a far-left progressive. So my argument is that Cheney making her endorsement conditional, and Harris publicly acquiescing, would actually do more to stop Trump than an unconditional endorsement.
In fact, after publishing this essay one of my friends from BYU reached out and confided that this essay is what persuaded him to vote for Harris. He said none of his pro-Harris friends have been able to appreciate why he is so apprehensive about her, and just reading an anti-Trump piece from someone who seemed to share his Harris-skepticism was enough to bring him around.
I think this may be the absent ingredient in the anti-Trump movement. When Never-Trumpers appear to convert into undifferentiated democrats overnight, it just persuades conservatives and moderates that those never-Trumpers are no longer credible spokespeople for the right and center.
That your piece persuaded someone to vote for Harris is absolutely fantastic news. Utah Monthly, all readers of Utah Monthly - let's share as widely as we can!
An Open Letter to Your Friend or Relative Planning to Vote for Trump:
Your Vote for Trump Is an Endorsement of Bigotry, Cruelty, and the Erosion of Rights—No Matter the Reason You Give.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150725410?r=4d7sow&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web