Some People Just Do Not Care That History Will Supposedly Remember...

And History Doesn't Really Much More Than The Headlines Anyway

There are two kinds of Republicans— the ones who stand with Trump and the ones who stand with America. But there are also two kinds of the second category— the ones who have endorsed Kamala and the ones who haven’t, at least not yet. As Tim Miller noted in his essay They Served With Trump and Saw the Crazy. They Should Endorse Harris, there are two possible outcomes to the election: Trump wins or Kamala wins.

Miller, former Republican operative, is captivated by one moment in the convention: “It came early in the program on Wednesday night, from a former lieutenant governor, a modest slot for a mid-level political figure. He was there in his role as a conservative Republican willing to offer a full-throated endorsement of Kamala Harris, putting patriotism over partisanship or policy particulars. In that speech, Geoff Duncan recalled how his family needed armed officers outside their home to protect them from MAGA radicals who were upset he would not be a party to Trump’s attempted coup. As they bunkered inside, Duncan wrestling with the choices that had led him to this point, his son came downstairs with a coaster that his father had given him years before at a church retreat. It said, ‘Doing the right thing will never be the wrong thing.’”

It made him wonder why the story wasn’t being told be someone higher up on the anti-Trump food chain. As the week went on Republicans John Giles, Adam Kinzinger, Olivia Troye and Stephanie Grisham spoke. But Miller wanted more. I’m sure he wanted Pence or George W. Bush, Chris Christie or Mitt Romney. Liz Cheney? Lisa Murkowsky?

What about any of the men or women who ran against Trump in 2016 and 2024, who have variously issued clarion calls about the threat he posed to the country and the conservative movement?

Where were the Trump officials who got us into this mess? Not a single cabinet member took this opportunity to testify to Americans about the dangerous man they saw up close. Is that not their obligation?

For the past few days I’ve been obsessively asking everyone in earshot these questions. I have heard various explanations, some more generous than others. Let’s walk through them.

1. 3D Chess

Maybe there is some strategery afoot and one or two prominent Never Trumpers have already agreed to come forward, but are keeping their powder dry for the fall. They could be calculating that their endorsements would pack more punch as standalones, not buried in a convention lineup. Or that their calls to arms would be stronger if they didn’t seem to endorse the entire Democratic party in a convention setting.

This strikes me as a misjudgment: There would have been millions more eyeballs on a convention speech than on an October campaign stop, no matter how dramatic the “IS THAT DICK CHENEY’S MUSIC” bass drop would be.

That said, if this is in the works, I’ll allow it. And I know that there are ongoing discussions along these lines for at least one Iron Lady.

But the clock is ticking.

2. Waiting for the Political Whirlwind to Calm

The June 27 Biden–Trump debate jolted everyone’s political calculations and the four-week sprint between July 21, when Biden stepped aside, and August 19, when the Democratic convention kicked off, dramatically condensed the timeframe to plan for an offbeat speaker reveal.

Perhaps that condensed timeframe made it difficult for planners to add a bunch of new, high-profile speakers to the convention they were already putting together somewhat on the fly.

As a result, there was something of a desire to play it safe—from both the Democrats and the most prominent potential Republican speakers. The Harris camp wanted to stick with speakers they knew would be reliable, stay on message, and not create a backlash with the audience. If George W. Bush had indeed been, as some people breathlessly speculated on social media, the much-rumored special guest on Thursday, it’s possible that he would have been greeted by a chorus of boos, or that enough Democrats would make a stink that his appearance would have overshadowed the themes of joy and unity the planners wanted to project during the week.

And on the part of the prominent Republicans who could have been invited, there was a sense that they should let things play out amid all the upheaval of the Democrats’ Brat Summer, making them hesitant to insert themselves until they saw how things played out.

To me, this was misguided on both sides. From the Harris camp’s perspective: Anything a big-name Republican/Trumper official said would’ve been a net positive, even if they went a little rogue. And from the side of the potential endorsers: Anything the Democrats put forth would’ve been superior to Trump.

But you can understand why both parties in this awkward dance may have preferred to eye each other warily across the disco for a few more weeks, since the time for courtship was short and the stakes are high.

3. Koncerns About Komrade Kamala

For some of the more conservative among the Republican apostates there was concern that replacing Biden with Harris would mean a shift to the left for the ticket. This trepidation was particularly acute with the hawkish foreign policy set, as her posture on national security issues isn’t as clear as Biden’s. For example, there were some whispers that Harris is more sympathetic with the DSA Hamas apologists than Biden, and that some basic assurances were needed that the next administration wouldn’t go full red.

The Democratic convention should have wiped away any worries on that front.

Harris’s acceptance speech was downright McCainian. On immigration, she pledged to sign the Lankford bill into law. She promised to be unceasingly loyal to the NATO alliance, defeat China in the competition for the twenty-first century, ensure that Israel is able to defend itself, and take “whatever action is necessary” to counter Iran and its proxies. She even pledged to make certain that America had “the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” causing some lefties in my social media feed to clutch their pearls. Most stirringly, she paid tribute to American exceptionalism and vowed to defend our democratic ideals against the autocrats who are menacing our allies and rooting for Trump.

Serious question: If it had been Condi Rice accepting the nomination, what would she have said differently on the subject of foreign policy? Go ahead and answer in the comments. I’ll wait.

So to all the Bush administration veterans and the Trump nat-sec types who fought against his isolationist impulses, my only remaining question is this: What more do you people want?

Kamala gave you every signal that she will be stalwart in her commitment to the Western alliance that has been the hallmark of our bipartisan foreign policy tradition for nearly a century. Trump wants to let Putin run roughshod over Eastern Europe, crush our economic alliances with widespread tariffs, give Kim Jong-un a rubdown, and sell our national security to the Egyptian, Turkish, and Saudi autocrats who are funding his family.

If you’re a conservative hawk and you can’t affirmatively sign up for the Harris program when the alternative is Trumpian isolationism, then there’s only one possible explanation. Which brings us to. . .

4. Personal and Political Cowardice

Once the strategic, logistical, and ideological concerns are resolved, there’s only one thing left to explain the lack of anti-Trump Republican support for Kamala.

These people are chickenshit.

Let’s just peruse a small sample of what a few of these MIA officials have said about Donald Trump, with an assist from Al Franken. 

• John Kelly: “The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. . . . He’s the most flawed person I have ever met in my life.”

• Jim Mattis: “He’s dangerous. He’s unfit.” “The president has no moral compass.” “This degradation of the American experiment is real.”

• Dan Coats: “He doesn’t know the difference between the truth and a lie.”

• Rex Tillerson: “A moron.”

• Mitt Romney: “I think he’s not smart. I mean really not smart.” “A whack job.”

• Gary Cohn: “Dumb as shit.”

• H.R. McMaster: “Cannot understand Putin’s hold on Trump.”

So puzzle me this: There are two options for president. On the one hand you have a woman who just presented herself as a mainstream Democrat who plans to respect and uphold the fundamental American political traditions at home and abroad.

On the other you have a candidate who you have acknowledged is the most flawed person you have ever encountered, a danger to the country, and an existential threat to our system of government— a convicted criminal, an abuser of women, and a moron. How in God’s name do you justify silence in the face of that choice? This is not a close call!

Some of these people might be making calculations about their political futures. If so, that’s utterly craven. But take the morality out of it: It’s also ridiculous. None of these folks have a political future as long as Trump is around.

Let’s take one example, Chris Christie. The only possible world in which he has a future in politics is: (1) As a token Republican in a Democratic administration; or (2) as a GOP candidate for president from the blue state of New Jersey following a thrashing of Trump so massive and undeniable that it shakes the entire party to its core and creates space for someone who can ride his repudiation of Trump to the nomination.

In both of those scenarios, Christie’s prospects would be improved by supporting Harris this fall.

As for most everyone else marked absent on my attendance sheet, they are nearing— or already in— retirement. They have no GOP future to speak of.

So what’s the holdup?

I have been told that one answer to this is concerns about personal safety. And I hear that. But lots of people have put their personal safety at risk. I’ve gotten threats. So have Kinzinger and Duncan and my colleague Sarah Longwell. We all have young kids and none of us has either Secret Service or the scratch for private security. Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman had to move out of their damn home. That didn’t stop them.

Here is the truth: Every person who agrees to be a poll watcher this fall is putting themselves at a risk that is equal or greater to what John Kelly would face if he were to cut an ad for Kamala Harris.

So what it comes down to is something more mundane than safety. These people aren’t endorsing Harris because they don’t want to deal with the hassle.

The bleats from Trump. The media requests. The chastising emails from their MAGA friends (or spouses, in a few cases). Getting an earful at the club every time Kamala does something that conservatives don’t like. Maybe they have a board position or another influence-peddling gig that’s dependent on their status as a Republican in Good Standing.

Dealing with all that is a pain in the ass. Doing nothing is easy.

And maybe this would be a fair excuse in normal times. They’ve done their bit; they should be able to retire in peace.

But these are not normal times. Donald Trump engineered the first non-peaceful transfer of power in our country since the Civil War. In a second term, he would be unleashed to act on his worst impulses, having cast off all of those who dared try to check him.

IT’S NOT TOO LATE FOR THESE PEOPLE to heed their better angels. Donald Trump must be stopped. It is incumbent upon everyone who sees this clearly— and who played a part in getting us here— to speak out and deal with the personal ramifications. Frankly, it’s the least we should expect of them.

So, to all the anti-Trump cabinet officials. To all the GOP politicians who, deep in their heart, know that Trump is too grave a risk. To the seventeen Republicans who voted to impeach and convict him. To the vice president he would’ve happily left for dead.

Say it loud and proud: Kamala Harris for president.

I promise you it will be a relief to get it off your chest. Because doing the right thing is never the wrong thing.

Who likes rolling around in the mud with pigs?

Or maybe at least some of them think Trump is killing himself anyway, so why bother. I bet, for example, Christie read the editorial in the Star Ledger this morning: Trump holds shindig for heroic domestic terrorists, that begins with “A cult of criminals and their devotees is coming to New Jersey in a fortnight, because Donald Trump is throwing a party for them… Trump is opening up his divot hotel/ex-wife cemetery in Bedminster to his diehards to help raise money for the convicted criminals who tried to end American democracy, because in Trump’s world, they celebrate a public riot that led to the death of five Capitol police officers. There is a surreal promotional video for the event, which includes snippets of Trump calling the thugs ‘peaceful’ and ‘patriots’ and ‘hostages.’ He also declared that ‘there have never been people treated more horrifically than J6 hostages,’ and reminds us that ‘it will be my great honor to pardon the Jan. 6 protesters.’”

Would anyone who Christie could possibly influence  really be considering voting for Trump? That could be Christie’s excuse. “One guest speaker  is Rudy Giuliani. It is unclear whether Giuliani has any open warrants in our state, but if anyone needs to serve Rudy legal papers, this is a splendid opportunity. There might will be a line, however... There is no denying that Trump is in earnest, however, as the crimes of Jan. 6 have become a cornerstone of his campaign. It was only two months after the riot that he described the mob as ‘loving,’ claimed that the Capitol police had ‘ushered’ them into the building, and that the rioters were ‘hugging and kissing’ the cops. His first major campaign rally included the preview of a song he produced by inmates known as the ‘J6 Prison Choir,’ which is played regularly at other appearances. Just last week, he reminded supporters that one of his ‘first acts’ as president will be to pardon every Proud Boy and Oath Keeper and other assorted MAGA muppets.”