Last weekend I exchanged texts with two close friends, equally vehement in their disgust for Donald Trump. It can be dangerous territory, especially this close to the election, but I was curious about who they thought would win, and was nimble in my comments, unwilling to poison the well our long friendships. They’re smart and generous guys, roughly my age, and agreed with my unoriginal, if true, belief that no one with any sense would bet a wheat penny on Election Day’s outcome.
The first “correspondent,” who I met in the fall of 1973, was an early conservative, casting his first Republican vote in 1980 for Ronald Reagan at age 24, and continuing that practice until 2016 when, repulsed by Trump, went for Hillary Clinton, and not reluctantly even though he despised her, so dismayed by the prospect of a Trump presidency. Unlike my son Nicky—who also voted for Clinton that year, but predicted a Trump win—we were both stunned by the result. I thought it was a fascinating phenomenon—but didn’t vote—and expounded on that idea at a Christmas party six weeks later.
He was distressed (although hardly consumed by the result), said I was far too cavalier, and then we sensed it was time to steer the conversation to our families, work and the continuing corruption that’s defined Baltimore City politics since Martin O’Malley left the Mayor’s office for the less-taxing job as Maryland’s governor in Annapolis. Anyway, he fears a Trump return, and when I suggested that Harris’ biggest mistake (what a hurdle!) was nixing Pennsylvania’s Gov. Josh Shapiro for the Dancing Queen/football strategist Tim Walz, he tartly replied, “Obviously, Mr. David Halberstam!”
I’m still amazed that the DNC operatives, public and private, who engineered the abdication of Joe Biden post-June 27th, didn’t insist he skip a reelection bid. I understand the hubris of running against Trump, but if the Democrats had a primary contest, chances are that the winner would now have a sizable lead. Where were Clooney, Barack and The Boss a year ago?
The excellent journalist J.D. Tuccille—an appellation as rare as a wheat penny for, generously, the past decade—wrote about the silliness of divisive political arguments in Reason on Oct. 28th, making more sense than the 100 or so pundits/reporters/armchair partisans who’ve made a mockery of intelligent discourse during this election season (the left and right equally noxious), so much so that in a “normie” world their careers would go up in smoke at Chief Wahoo’s teepee. Tuccille writes: “There’s also a good chance that, despite your sincere efforts to choose the least-bad option, you’ve received a ration of shit from true believers who insist voting differently from them makes you just evil. Unfortunately, many people let politics taint their lives in weird ways and damage relationships. In truth, a lot of Americans need to chill the fuck out.”
(Tuccille, in the quadrennial Reason round-up of who their staff is voting for, wrote: “[Libertarian candidate Chase] Oliver is a capable advocate for liberty representing a collapsing organization, while Trump, scumbag though he is, could be less bad than the empty vessel for the control freaks around her that is Kamala Harris.”)
I noted to my second texting friend that despite all the tumult this year, at least it’s spectacular theater, and he took umbrage at that, agreeing with so many other lefties (he’s a union lawyer) that this is an “extraordinarily consequential election,” putting “Drumpf” on the same level as operatives in 1931-32 Germany. While admitting he’s “held his nose” voting for every Democratic presidential candidate since McGovern, nevertheless said that Harris was far more accomplished than commonly thought and that Walz has “done some great things in Minnesota.” This exchange was going nowhere fast—we both knew it—and we shifted to common ground: our mutual hatred for the New York Yankees, delight in the Dodgers taking the first two games of the World Series, and, as lifelong Red Sox fans, disgust that Boston owner John Henry appears satisfied with four Series rings this century and has closed his checkbook.
The prolific journalist Christopher Caldwell took the Switzerland approach in his pre-election essay for UnHerd. And it was reasonable. Giving no hint about the candidate he prefers (talk about unorthodox!), his conclusion was matter-of-fact. He wrote: “Americans may yet have a future as leaders of the free world. But that will have to await an end to the conflict between Republican populists and Democratic elitists, a conflict that November 5th is more likely to exacerbate than resolve.” Caldwell didn’t call Trump a Nazi, or Harris a drunk, but simply laid a plausible scenario.
—Follow Russ Smith on Twitter: @MUGGER2023