I almost feel sorry for the anti-Trump-but-more-anti-anti-Trump conservatives.

I know—you had to read that sentence twice. I’ll explain.

These are right-wingers who oppose Donald Trump—because of his efforts to overthrow the 2020 election, or his often-incoherent policies, or his utter lack of decency, or his destructive influence on the right, or all of the above—but who devote more energy to decrying liberals for overreacting to and for persecuting Trump. I’m not referring here to Never Trumpers like neocon Bill Kristol or the gang at the Lincoln Project—those onetime Republicans who have readily joined forces with Democrats and progressives to oppose Trump. This is a different group of conservatives who strike a rather complicated stance. They see Trump as bad for the republic, but they cannot yield that age-old position (or reflex?) that the greatest threat to the nation is from the left. This can tie an anti-Trump-but-more-anti-anti-Trumper into knots. As I witnessed just the other day.

I was invited to appear on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal to discuss the New Hampshire election results. The other guest was Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, which was once the flagship publication of the conservative movement. I like Rich. Years ago, we used to tour college campuses debating each other on policy and politics. He's a smart fellow who's fun to argue with. In the Trump Era, his NR, which was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley Jr., has had a tough time maintaining its central role in the conservative cosmos, as it has resisted the urge to MAGA-fy.

Prior to the 2020 election, NR could not bring itself to endorse Trump, noting he threatened “to drag conservatism down to a consequential and avoidable defeat.” But it also could not bring itself to state that right-leaning voters should reject this narcissistic, unprincipled autocrat-wannabe by voting for a Democrat. After Trump tried to subvert American democracy and incited the January 6 riot, the National Review held him culpable and concluded he had “disgraced the office of the presidency”—though it still managed to blame “past Democratic misconduct [that] helped to set the stage for the riot.” That was rich, but clearly a sop to its readers.

So now what do these anti-Trump-and-anti-libs conservatives have to say about Trump’s crusade to regain the White House? Earlier this month—days before the Iowa caucuses—the editors of the National Review urged Republican voters to pick either Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley over Trump. They reminded their readers that Trump lied about the 2020 election results, attempted to bully his vice president “into violating his oath,” and then did little or nothing when his brownshirts attacked the Capitol. “These were infamous presidential acts and represented serious offenses against our constitutional order,” the magazine observed. “Nothing can justify them, and it’s wrong to simply pretend that they didn’t happen.”

With Republican voters overwhelmingly not heeding the wisdom of the NR sages—that is, with DeSantis bounced from the race and Haley likely soon to be—these conservatives have a dilemma on their hands. Can they countenance the return to power of a lying thug who committed “serious offenses against our constitutional order”? To protect the nation, will they have to put ideological preferences aside and support the reelection of President Joe Biden? This was the question I had for Lowry. On C-SPAN, here’s how it played out:

Corn: A few weeks ago, [your National Review ] did an editorial basically saying vote for anyone but Trump in the Republican primary. And [it] said that Trump had committed “serious offenses against our constitutional order.” If it’s going to be Trump [as the GOP nominee], I’m wondering where constitutional conservatives like Rich are going to end up here. Will they advocate, in a race against Biden, [that] voters and American should put into office a man who, on their own terms, committed “serious offenses” against our constitutional order?

Lowry: Obviously, we wanted anyone else. [Trump’s] conduct after the 2020 election was disgraceful. It was literally infamous. I don’t think it was a crime, in the way [special counsel] Jack Smith is alleging in that January 6 case, which I think is a disgrace…But Joe Biden has legislated on his own in an unconstitutional manner with the [student] loan forgiveness program [and] engaged in serious dereliction of duty at the border. The black-and-white letter of the law says, you come into this country illegally, you should be detained until you’re removed or your case is settled. He’s just letting people in, and he’s doing it deliberately. This is a crisis he totally made out of whole cloth by just ripping up all the Trump policies that were working for no reason. And if he had the votes in the Senate, would he pack the Supreme Court? Of course, they would. These are people who believe the Constitution is an endlessly living document that can be totally ignored or reinterpreted to your own reference. So Joe Biden has committed and would commit, if he had the power, serious offenses against the constitutional order.

You see what Lowry is doing here, right? I did, and the exchange continued:

Corn: Are you comparing these things to inciting a riot? This is the biggest case of what-aboutism I’ve ever heard. One guy incited violence that you even note in [the NR editorial] put the vice president’s life at risk to try to pressure him to do something he should not have done. And [with Biden] you’re talking about policy disputes. There are constitutional disputes all the time. That’s why we have a Supreme Court.

Lowry: It’s the basic foundation of our system that Congress legislates. The president doesn’t legislate on his own. That’s the whole point of things. Joe Biden did it with the loan forgiveness program.

Corn: But is that the same thing as inciting a riot?

Lowry: No. They’re both bad. And [Trump] didn’t literally incite a riot. I don’t defend his behavior. But if you defend the Constitution, do you oppose what Joe Biden did on the loan forgiveness program? Or is it okay because he violated the constitutional crisis in the way you like?

Corn: With every president, basically on the War Powers Act and much else, you can find an argument they violate the Constitution. That’s why we have the Supreme Court, and things get resolved there. None of this rises to the level of doing nothing while your own people are attacking the US Capitol. Come on.

At this point, our always-diplomatic host John McArdle politely cut us off, noting, “This debate could go on for a while.” That was fine by me, for I figured this back-and-forth had fully revealed the weak gameplan of Lowry and his comrades. They’re going to push a false and absurd equivalency between Trump and Biden, dubbing each a threat to the Constitution. Yes, Trump attempted to mount a coup and propelled an attempted violent insurrection with his lies. But, but, but…Biden tried to alleviate a portion of the student debt burden for up to 43 million Americans through executive action!

On a 6-to-3 vote, the Supreme Court last June said federal law did not authorize Biden to order such a move. And this is enough for Lowry to proclaim Biden a danger to the republic as is the inciter-in-chief. This indicates how desperate these folks are to justify a vote for Trump—or to not endorse a vote for Biden—and to not acknowledge that the left is correct to warn that Trump directly imperils American democracy. I get it: NR can never admit that the conservative movement, with its support (and adoration) of Trump, has brought the nation to a dangerous precipice and that lefties (and independents and the Never-Trumpers) who view Trump as an existential threat who must be kept out of power have it right.

In the mythology of the National Review, Buckley in the 1960s boldly and courageously excommunicated the John Birch Society from the conservative movement. The Birchers were hyper-paranoid conspiracy theorists who saw commies under every bed and at every PTA meeting—and who claimed there was a Russian weather machine in the sky. They were led by a nutball who even believed Dwight Eisenhower was a Soviet plant. These conservatives were the QAnoners of their day and discredited the anti-communist right. But, as I chronicle in American Psychosis: A Historical Investigation of How the Republican Party Went Crazy, the story was far more complicated. For a long stretch, Buckley declined to fully denounce the Birchers, in part because Sen. Barry Goldwater needed these extremists for his 1964 presidential bid. (And the publisher of the National Review at the time fretted a full-throated assault on the Birchers would cause the magazine financial losses.) Consequently, Buckley initially soft-peddled his criticism of the group. Only after Goldwater crashed, did he adopt a more forceful stance against these far-right kooks.

I suppose Lowry and the NR do not want to go too far in breaking with Trump and MAGA. (A magazine needs subscribers!) Given that they—and the rest of us—are essentially facing a binary choice (Biden or Trump), I expect these smarty pants will find a way to elude the logical conclusion of their own anti-Trump view that he cannot again be trusted with the power of the presidency. They will concoct phony calculations that equate the perp of 1/6 with a fellow who, according to six justices, went too far in trying to help millions escape the burden of student loans. If such a scenario does transpire, it will be just another of the many debasements of the right brought about by Trump.  

How to address the prospect of another Trump presidency is a defining question for these self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives. What will motivate them more: their concern for the future of American democracy or their antipathy toward the left? I’m pretty sure I know the answer.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) made it into the running this week—not just for a comment, but for an entire performance. He appeared at a rally with Donald Trump to endorse the GOP frontrunner. It was bad enough that Scott was opting for Trump over former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who helped make his career in 2012 by appointing Scott to replace retiring senator Jim DeMint. Talk about a lack of gratitude and loyalty. Vice-president-itis will do that to a fellow. Worse was the over-the-top obsequious suck-uppery Scott displayed while praising Trump. Scott exclaimed: “We need a president who will unite out country. We need Donald Trump…We need a president who will restore law and order.”

Scott certainly knows Trump is a divider who doesn’t give a fig about law and order. (See January 6.) In fact, Scott has declared that “without question” Trump can be racially insensitive. But the prospect of serving as veep to an octogenarian can sure influence a man’s perspective.

Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump outfit, was at it again, railing against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs aimed at recruiting people of color for flight training schools for commercial airlines. He groused, “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”

This was racist and idiotic. Pilots of all skin colors must pass rigorous tests and log the requisite amount of training to get their wings. But Kirk wasn’t content to limit his racism to airline captains. He also said he feared health care professionals who were Black or LGBTQ: “Hold on a second. You’re going to remove my appendix and you’re a Black lesbian?” Imagine if he’s in an accident and a Black EMT shows up.

I still cannot figure out if Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is an imbecile or just really enjoys lying and making false statements. This week, this extremist Trump toady praised Dear Leader with a bizarre statement: “President Trump is the one that gave shock and awe to the whole world when he walked across the DMZ line, hand extended, shaking hands with Kim Jong Un, ending Little Rocket Man’s reign.”

Does Greene not know that Kim, the recipient of love letters from Trump, remains the murderous and tyrannical leader of North Korea? His barbarous and repressive reign continues—as do his programs to further develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), another desperate seeker of the No. 2 slot on Trump’s ticket, went full stupid in trying to defend the man of her power-hungry dreams. After Trump had a mental glitch and confused Haley with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Stefanik denied Trump had gotten anything wrong. Asked about this slip by a reporter, Stefanik insisted, “That isn’t a mix-up.” What? She attempted to explain: “The reality is Nikki Haley is relying on Democrats just like Nancy Pelosi to try have a desperate showing in New Yor—in New Hampshire. President Trump has not lost a step. He is a stronger candidate.”

Her foolish explanation did not explain her foolish remark. But if you want to ride with Trump, you must make idiocy your co-pilot.

I doubt Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has as good a shot at veepdom as Scott and Stefanik, but she, too, was swinging the swill to get on Trump’s good side. Mace, who was a harsh critic of Trump after January 6 and who Trump opposed in her most recent primary contest, has now mainlined the Kool-Aid. She asserted, “We had a stronger economy under Trump. Everything was better under Trump by every measurement, every barometer.”

Mace apparently cannot read barometers. The economy was not stronger under Trump. His years saw a ginormous rise in the deficit, an increase in the trade deficit, fewer jobs created, and a drop in the numbers of Americans who have health insurance. And there was that whole pandemic. She once tried to market herself as an independent-minded GOP maverick. It was just an act. Now Mace is prostrating herself before Trump.

All this brown-nosing got each of these contestants close to the prize, but the winner is a non-American. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Javier Milei, the recently elected radical libertarian president of Argentina, observed:

Communists, Nazis, fascists, socialists, social democrats, national socialists, Christian Democrats, Keynesians, neo-Keynesians, progressives, populists, nationalists, globalists: In the end, there’s no substantive difference. They all maintain that the state must direct all aspects of individuals’ lives. They all defend a model contrary to the one that led humanity to the most spectacular progress in its history.

Milei’s comment, of course, was false: Socialists, progressives, Keynesians, and others on the list do not say the state must control all elements of a person’s life. And the unfettered capitalism he advocates has rarely existed in the modern world, let alone yielded “the most spectacular progress.” (Where would we be today without Medicare, Social Security, and other social welfare programs?) His remark was dangerous, for it demonized anyone who does not hew to Milei’s extreme view. But give this Argentine credit for capturing the hateful spirit of MAGAism: commies, libs, antifa, Democrats—they’re all part of the effort to destroy you and this nation. For out-Trumping Trump, he wins the trophy. But we’re not going to spend any money to ship it to him.

Readers, no surprise, had strong reactions to the issue that examined the absurd argument being put forward by No Labels, the dark-money group preparing to run a third-party candidate in the 2024 presidential race.

Barbara Silverman wrote:

This article should be required reading for every registered Democratic and independent voter and every unregistered voter as well. You’ve so clearly laid out the high stakes of this upcoming presidential election and the incomprehensible role No Labels is playing in muddying the water and probably throwing the election to an incompetent, revengeful dictator. You would think that killing our democracy would be of some personal concern to this band of former politically savvy Democrats.

A reader named LA Jack emailed:

Democrats have not been “pulled to the left.” Instead, the GOP has embraced right-wing extremism, bordering on fascism. Compare their stance on issues today with the Republican platforms of the past. The 1956 platform included support for equal pay, the minimum wage, asylum for refugees. expanding Social Security, and protections for unions, all of which are anathema for modern conservatives. Richard Nixon established the EPA in 1970, which the GOP would now love to abolish.

Judy Scarfpin shared this:

As I was reading your column today, I also heard Matthew Dowd on MSNBC say, “You cannot reason someone out of an emotional connection.”  Bingo.  As a practicing psychologist, I suddenly thought of Trump supporters as people beholden to the Stockholm syndrome—when the captives of criminals bonded with and supported them.  And then I thought of my work with victims in abusive relationships. This line of thought obviously needs further development, but I offer this insight to you today.  How do we apply a one-to-one psychotherapy method to a large scale and time-limited need?

In response to the recent article about conservative and very Trumpy Hugh Hewitt, Michele Levan noted:

You really hit the nail on the head. This explains pretty much any conservative who has climbed Trump Mountain. They had no principles all along: “When a constitutional scholar of the right does not recoil at Trump’s attempt to use subterfuge and exploit violence to subvert the Constitution, what does it say about his purported love of this founding document and his adherence to its principles? It suggests he never really meant it.”

Alison Rose had a reaction to the Niki Halley remark—“We’ve never been a racist country”—that was a contender in a recent Dumbass Comment of the Week:

That tremor you felt when she said that wasn't a coast-to-coast earthquake; it was the bones of every deceased Native American and enslaved person spinning in their graves.

“Moxie, when I see you in the snow, you don’t look as white.”
“I don’t see color.”
“I hate when people say that.”
“No, seriously. Human eyes have three types of cones that let them see red, blue, and green. Dogs only have two types that register blue and yellow. We’re color blind. Or partially.”
“Oh yeah. Sorry, Moxie.”
“Nothing to be sorry about. You don’t miss what you can’t see.”

January 23, 2024: Trump, Putin, and Russia—it never ends; my warning to Ron DeSantis; Ava DuVernay’s big idea in Origin; Allison Russell and The Returner; and more.

January 20, 2024: The absurdity of No Labels; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ron DeSantis); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more.

January 17, 2024: Hugh Hewitt’s constitutional con; the truth of American Fiction; George Saunders’ Liberation Day; and more.

January 13, 2024: Is Trump extremism getting more extreme?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (everyone!); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

January 9, 2024: Two historic Dutch girls and today’s world; the creepy chaos of Leave the World Behind; the awesome creativity of Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse; and more.

January 3, 2024: A story of Mother Jones (the labor organizer) and a populist senator; Mark Levin, Joe Scarborough, and me; and more.

December 23, 2023: To disqualify or not disqualify Trump?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Michele Bachmann); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

December 19, 2023: A (cracked) Christmas playlist; the chances of Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley; the return of Brad Parscale; and more.

December 16, 2023: Donald Trump, rubber, and glue; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Brenden Dilley); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.