Ask a Conservative

‍

How could you vote for a convicted felon who is not mentally fit, almost 80 years old and a person with no respect for women, to represent the highest office of our country? - Joy, Arizona

How can you vote for a racist felon? - John, Florida

‍Every Republican presidential candidate in my lifetime had been accused of racism. Mitt Romney supposedly wanted to put black people “back in chains.” John McCain was accused of “creating a political environment that is inciting hate and hate speech.” George W. Bush didn’t care about black people. Reagan was “a racist and someone who blatantly ignored the AIDS crisis.” At this point, accusations of racism against GOP politicians have lost all meaning. But, you might argue, we’re not crying wolf this time, Trump really is racist! He’s worse than all those previous GOP nominees. But is that really true? Consider the following statement from the Trump campaign:

“For years […], Washington talked tough but failed to act….[O]ur borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again.”

Wait, that actually wasn’t Trump. It was Bill Clinton’s 1996 Democratic platform. The same platform which bragged about “putting more police on the streets and tougher penalties on the books,” funding prison construction, prosecuting violent juvenile offenders as adults, and expanding the death penalty. Trump, in other words, is no more ‘racist’ than any other previous GOP nominee, or the Democratic Party a few decades ago. This is borne out by Trump’s strong showing among minority voters.

While Trump has been accused of mistreating women, most of the more serious allegations come with credibility issues. At the same time, plenty of prominent Democrats have been accused of sexual harassment, often without consequences. A few decades ago, a prominent Democratic strategist dismissed claims of harassment against his boss, noting: “Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” That strategist remains influential, and his boss, despite a long list of accusations from numerous women, is still prominently campaigning for the Democratic Party.

As for Trump’s felony conviction, even many liberal commentators agree that the prosecution was based on a “dubious legal theory” that could very well be struck down in the courts.

‍

‍I've always thought of conservatives as people who respect the framers' intentions in the basic tenets of the Constitution, often to the irritation of liberals who would like to see government tweaked to achieve faster social change. Policy aside, are you concerned about Trump's disregard for separation of powers/checks and balances, and the Framers' architecture of government that required compromise and prevented a too-powerful executive? - Sarah, Virginia

Given the likelihood of Trump putting loyalty above all else in his new cabinet, do you think he will find a way to remain in power beyond the norm? - Donna

‍The beauty of the American system of government, with its robust checks and balances, is that it doesn’t rely on norms or goodwill to function. Trump is not the first president to desire more power, and he won’t be the last. Andrew Jackson famously ignored a Supreme Court decision he disagreed with, stating, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Franklin Roosevelt attempted to “pack” the Court in order to get around decisions striking down parts of his agenda.

Barack Obama proclaimed, “We're not just going to be waiting for legislation… I've got a pen and I've got a phone.” His administration only bothered to formally codify rules surrounding drone strikes when it started to worry that he might not win re-election. Joe Biden tried to unilaterally forgive half a trillion dollars in college loans. US history includes lots of examples of presidents trying to seize power, but it’s just as much a history of Congress and the Supreme Court pushing back.

Another reason not to worry is the simple fact that Trump has already been president, and the guardrails worked fine. He abided by adverse court decisions. He worked to pass his agenda through Congress. And, when he lost re-election, for all his bombast on X (formerly Twitter), he left office on schedule. There’s no reason to think he won’t leave again when his term expires.

The Senate, for its part, has already rejected the “MAGA” candidate for Majority Leader and appears disinclined to permit recess appointments. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, consistently ruled against his post-election challenges in 2020. It’s true that for the most part Republicans in Congress and/or the conservative Supreme Court majority are not going to block Trump’s agenda, but that’s because they agree with it, not because the guardrails are broken. Elections have consequences, after all.

One of our contributors adds: I think it’s important to look at why Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, and many others who will be working in the new Trump administration have such loyalty for him. These are individuals who were ostracized by the Left for rejecting the extremism and the “woke” mindset that has captured the Democratic Party. They certainly don’t agree on everything, but they do agree that Trump presents a viable alternative to the status quo. In meaningful ways, Trump’s cabinet is incredibly ideologically diverse, which we view as a strength.

‍

‍When Trump does eventually retire after serving his second term as POTUS, do you think the GOP will continue his policy agenda or return to their traditional party platform? Although I like some of Trump's policies, I think he pushed the Republican party away from many of their traditional priorities, such as free trade and decreased government spending. I think Trump gets away with it through his charisma and force of will, but I have a hard time picturing another non-Trump Republican winning with the same messages. - Casey

The main reason for supporting the Republican Party used to be that they are fiscally conservative. The party seems to have shifted away from that. What are your thoughts on their fiscal policies now? - Anonymous

‍The Republican Party is not going back to fiscal conservatism for a simple reason: voters don’t want it to. Social Security is going bankrupt, but voters don’t want to hear about cuts. Voters may say that the government spends too much, but they don’t actually support spending cuts in practice. Across fourteen different categories of federal spending, a majority of voters don’t support cutting a single one; to the contrary, around half of voters want to increase spending on most of them. It’s true that the federal debt is ballooning, but that’s largely because voters are getting exactly what they want.

Nikki Haley campaigned as a traditional Republican during the primary, but won only a single state in which Democrats were permitted to vote in the GOP primary (there was no Democratic primary held at all). Republican voters were given the option to reject Trumpism, and overwhelmingly decided not to take it. Most of the “Never Trump” Republicans are just Democrats now.

Trump has also expanded the GOP tent, and many newly-Republican voters have different priorities from “traditional” Republicans. GOP gains among the working class have translated into increasing support for unions and hostility to big business. Republicans are starting to embrace paid family leave and toning down their anti-abortion rhetoric. It’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney or John McCain appointing a Secretary of Labor strongly backed by unions.

‍

‍If Trump were to die of natural causes tomorrow, who do you think would have the best shot at holding his supporters together to advance the conservative cause? - Sally, Washington

‍Trump has several potential heirs. Most obvious is JD Vance, the incoming Vice President. He has personal experience with the decline in manufacturing employment and the opioid epidemic that many wealthy, elite politicians lack, and therefore can connect with working class voters. There’s also Ron DeSantis; he’s the successful governor of what was formerly a swing state which under his leadership has turned decisively to the right.

‍

‍I am seeing posts on social media showing differences between the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections that seem to show irregularities in the 2020 election that may indicate there was fraud. I know there were a lot of court cases and allegations after the 2020 election. Are any of them still in progress? Is there any evidence of differences between the 2020 and 2024 election that shed light on 2020? Is there a way to discuss this with people who disagree on it or should we just avoid the topic? - Jill, Kansas

Does Trump's decisive win in 2024 cast doubt among people who believed the 2020 election was rigged against him? If liberals could rig the election with Trump in the White House, why couldn't they do it again under Biden? - Andy, California

‍We looked into claims of fraud in detail here (please search for the sentence “While there is little credible evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, fraud does happen” or scroll down to the bottom half of the page). We haven’t seen anything to change our minds; the legal challenges ended years ago. Many of the claims on social media (such as the claim that 2024 saw far fewer total votes than 2020) were based on partial counts.

It’s worth noting that claims of fraud are bipartisan. In 2018, two thirds of Democrats believed that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.” Some on the left are currently insisting that Trump must have cheated. Some Democrats, for that matter, still believe that Republicans stole the 2004 election. It’s hard to admit that your side lost; it’s much easier to blame fraud. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence can make that feeling any easier to accept.

‍

‍Can you be a non-religious conservative and not be either ignorant or selfish? This question sounds way more harsh than intended - I mean I get why religious people can justify conservatism, but if you're non-religious I would expect that you believe most people are good and loving. - Jared

‍It’s true that many conservatives base their values on religious morality, but that doesn’t mean those values can’t be defended on their own merits. Tradition should be respected because it has stood the test of time and we know it works. Why would we reject social practices that have guided society for hundreds or even thousands of years in favor of things that are new and untried?

Even if one doesn’t accept the theology, it’s undeniable that the major world religions have stood the test of time. They have brought meaning and succor to billions of people across cultures and geography. Religions that are not sustainable, or actively harmful, tend to die out pretty quickly. You don’t have to embrace Christianity to believe that murder is wrong, that stealing and adultery are bad, or that it’s a good thing to honor your parents.

While many conservatives are in fact religious, the underlying values are not inherently so. For a detailed look at what values motivate conservatives as opposed to liberals, we recommend Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory.

One of our contributors adds: I’m not religious, and I don’t think that most people are “good and loving.” In fact, I think that even a cursory look at history shows human nature to be quite terrible. Exploitation, war, genocide: such behavior is largely the norm, not the exception. It’s hard to square that with most people being good. The state of nature is, as Thomas Hobbes noted, “nasty, brutish, and short.” That’s why we need the government to restrain people’s nature. And because anarchy (nature) is so terrible, we’d better make absolutely sure that any changes we make aren’t going to cause problems. Much safer to simply keep up the same traditions that we know are effective.

‍

‍How do I address conservative family members minimizing the harm their votes caused relationships? They are accusing others of destroying family unity over politics, without acknowledging that these “political opinions” attack our identities and reproductive safety. - Alice, California

‍With all due respect, it sounds like you’re the one with the issue, not your family members. You describe their votes as “harmful” and their opinions as “attacks.” Do you think that your family members are deliberately trying to hurt/attack you?

“People vote for one candidate or the other for many reasons: they may agree with certain policies, have personal experiences that guide their choices, or simply want to oppose the other side. Just as your feelings about your political group may be complicated, so are others’ feelings about theirs.” It’s often helpful to disentangle our feelings about certain politicians from those about their supporters.

Political disagreements can be challenging, especially within families. But we recommend (as we do every day here at The Flip Side) to always assume good faith. Yes, we may disagree on some things, and those things may be very important. We may even feel that the other side’s preferred policies will cause immense harm. In those cases, we think it’s even more important to be open-minded, so that we can understand why someone we care about might espouse such views. At the same time, understanding the other side allows us to communicate our own views in a way that is constructive rather than antagonistic.

‍

Ask a Liberal

‍

Most of us were surprised by how badly the election went for Democrats. I'm curious, do the Democrats understand WHY things went so badly for them? What did they learn from this loss? - Liz, Texas

There’s widespread agreement that the Democratic Party was too focused on social issues and not enough on economic issues, and that the party needs to work harder to win over working class voters. Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, who flipped a rural district in Washington State from red to blue, and the Democratic Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear provide good examples of how to focus on kitchen table issues without compromising other important values.

For example, Beshear writes, “As governor, I have vetoed numerous anti-L.G.B.T.Q. and anti-choice bills, yet I still beat Mr. Trump’s handpicked candidate last fall. That happened because even if some voters might have disagreed with the vetoes, they knew the next day I would be announcing new jobs, opening a new health clinic or finishing a new road that would cut 20 minutes off their commute. They knew my focus and effort was on their daily needs and that our gains as a commonwealth would help every single one of our families.”

There is, however, much disagreement about the extent to which the recent defeat is simply due to a failure of messaging or reflects something deeper. Many note that the economy has been doing well: inflation has fallen, unemployment is at near-historic lows, and the stock market is reaching all-time highs. But “an eye-popping survey from the spring found that 56% of Americans believed the country was in recession, 49% thought the stock market was down for the year and 49% believed unemployment was at a 50-year high. None of those beliefs were remotely true.” Similarly, crime rates are down, but most voters think crime is increasing. In other words, Biden’s policies were successful; the problem was that he and Harris failed to communicate this to voters.

Others, however, argue that there is a more fundamental problem with the modern Democratic Party, which has courted “white-collar, highly-educated, often more affluent Americans who tend to live in metropolitan regions… Democratic strategists paid less attention to rural and exurban working-class voters and turned more of their attention to securing votes in suburban areas.” The party has embraced Big Tech and Big Pharma, along with trade policies that hurt the working class.

As with any major defeat, we expect that different members of the Democratic coalition will offer various solutions; we’ll see which side triumphs, and how successful it is, over the coming years.

Who are the next big candidates that the Democratic party will rally behind in future national elections? It seems that almost all of the party leadership is very old, and I think many of the younger politicians like AOC are too progressive for the majority of the American people to get behind. Honestly, I can't think of any younger Democratic politicians that I can picture winning the majority of the American public's support. - Casey

There are several Democratic candidates with national appeal. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s ability to win and maintain support in Michigan—especially during her handling of the COVID-19 pandemic—demonstrates her appeal to both working-class and suburban voters. She has balanced progressive policies like expanding healthcare and addressing climate change with a pragmatic approach to economic growth, which helps her connect with moderates and independents.

Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 presidential run showcased his ability to connect with a broad electorate, particularly younger voters and suburban moderates. As Secretary of Transportation, he’s gained significant policy expertise, particularly in infrastructure and climate change. His military background (serving in Afghanistan) adds to his credibility on national security, appealing to voters who prioritize defense issues. Buttigieg’s candidacy also stands out due to his identity as an openly gay man, which could energize LGBTQ+ voters.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is the successful, photogenic governor of the nation’s largest state. He has been a leader on climate change and has a solidly liberal voting record. Another potential candidate is Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who was nearly selected as Kamala Harris’s running mate. Shapiro is the governor of a swing state and has a reputation for building consensus.

Why do you think Trump's election will be the end of democracy? - Winifried

Why did you feel Harris was more capable to handle difficult foreign affairs over Trump? - Nick

For one, there was his coordinated effort, both before and on January 6, 2021, to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. He repeatedly pushed false claims of fraud and encouraged illegal and even violent behavior in furtherance of this objective. He threatened election officials with retribution if they certified the election results even though multiple audits and investigations were unable to produce any evidence of widespread fraud. His inflammatory rhetoric contributed to numerous threats against election officials simply for doing their jobs.

During his 2024 reelection campaign, Trump promised multiple times to jail journalists and his political opponents (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Liz Cheney, and even Mark Milley, his former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). Journalists and political opposition are always the first targets in an authoritarian takeover.

His openness to dismissing the Senate so he can appoint whomever he wants to the Cabinet (no matter how unqualified or corrupt) is dangerous to our system of checks and balances. His efforts to dismantle government agencies are also dangerous. Vivek Ramaswamy’s pledge to fire 75 percent of the federal workforce would “unravel significant parts of the civil service and disrupt government services that are central to the operation of modern American society, including law enforcement, background checks for firearm purchases, student financial aid and special education programs.” Many of those cuts would necessarily come from the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security, which employ around 60 percent of federal civilian workers.

It’s important to note that it is not only Democrats who think Trump is unfit to lead. Many of his own Cabinet-level appointees (lifelong Republicans who experienced his governing style firsthand) opposed his re-election. Many people who worked with him, including other world leaders, warned against allowing him to return to power.

Regarding foreign policy, Trump has shown little respect for NATO, the UN, and other multilateral organizations. These organizations are not perfect, yet they are at least partially responsible for the most peaceful 75+ years in human history we’ve ever known. We worry that a second Trump presidency will cause significant damage to their credibility and functioning.

The US President is the leader of the free world, but Trump is not seen positively in other countries. Several former officials have warned that he is extremely susceptible to flattery, to the extent that it becomes the basis for US policy. Our allies no longer see the US as a reliable partner, which is particularly dangerous given the current global situation. Confronting Russia and China will require friends; we can’t do it alone.

Finally, it's worth noting that Trump has refused to divest from his businesses, and he and his family members have numerous significant commercial interests in other countries (for example, a Saudi-backed fund invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner’s venture capital firm despite “objections from the fund’s advisers about the merits of the deal”). Whatever you think of Harris, no one is worried that she would base foreign policy decisions on personal whims and/or attempts to enrich her family.