The dominant trait of the American political mood at the moment is the exhaustion of the anti-Trump bloc. In 2020, Americans who perceived Donald Trump as a mortal threat to the Republic put aside their reservations about Joe Biden and supported him in large enough numbers to prevail. That coalition has frayed around the edges, and today many anti-Trumpers find the compromises necessary to converge on a single alternative too frustrating or noxious to bear.
One revealing window into this mood is a new editorial in The Dispatch that rejects both Trump and Biden. The Dispatch is a conservative online magazine that formed out of the wreckage of the traditional conservative media of the Trump era. (The Weekly Standard, previously one of the right’s most prestigious organs, was shut down by its pro-Trump owner, and The Dispatch emerged as one of its successors.) As it represents a certain strain of traditional Republicanism that continues to reject Trump as a nonconservative interloper who has corrupted the party, there is something telling about its refusal to accept the logic of voting for his opponent.
Even after half a dozen close readings, I find the editorial’s thesis is somewhat difficult to discern and comes across as the product of committee thinking that staples together opposing beliefs. Nonetheless, it advances two basic claims, arguing that Biden and Trump are both unfit for office and, without endorsing any alternative course of action, urging its audience to reject the notion that they should vote for one or the other candidate as the lesser evil.
The editorial highlights some of Trump’s authoritarian actions and desires, though space constraints inevitably force it to omit several others (ordering the Justice Department to launch spurious inquiries into his political rivals while going easy on his cronies, extorting an ally into smearing his political rival, punishing owners of independent media, to name a few). But it sets this off against a list of President Biden’s sins:
In early 2021, Biden demagogued Georgia’s new election law — which coincided with record voter turnout the following year — as “Jim Crow 2.0.” He’s openly bragged about his administration’s efforts to circumvent Supreme Court rulings, and he’s embraced extreme abortion positions that he’d opposed for his entire career. Democrats’ profligate spending in 2021 and 2022 didn’t cause the rampant inflation we have all been living with for years, but even progressive economists now admit that White House–backed legislation exacerbated it. Biden’s approach to the border and immigration policy has been confused and ineffective, and the weakness he’s projected on the world stage — starting with his disastrous decision to withdraw from Afghanistan and cede the nation to the Taliban — has empowered or emboldened strongmen and terrorist organizations around the globe. As the Houthis’ ongoing attacks in the Red Sea demonstrate, under Biden, the United States is more afraid of escalation than a group of ragtag militias is.
The counterpoint to Trump attempting to seize power after losing an election and turning the government into an instrument of revenge is a list of Biden doing normal Democratic Party governance, such as facilitating higher domestic spending and a less-aggressive foreign policy than Republicans prefer. The only item on this list that’s even close to an attack on democracy is Biden trying to circumvent Supreme Court rulings limiting his ability to forgive student loans — and circumventing Court rulings (i.e., searching for legal ways to advance his objectives without defying the Court) is something presidents do routinely.
Bizarrely, the editorial proceeds to claim “Biden’s worst act as president may very well be his stubborn refusal to step aside.” It argues that he’s losing the election because people think he’s too old and that his losing to Trump would be “a disaster.”
But is The Dispatch saying that Biden should step aside for a better candidate but that if he stays in the race, voters should pick him as the less-dangerous choice? No! It’s saying explicitly that people should not vote for the lesser evil:
As we move toward the general election, the pressure from partisan cheerleaders to line up behind one of these two unfit men will only grow louder. Progressive commentator Robert Reich, for example, has spent months encouraging people who actively dislike Biden to vote for him anyway as the “lesser of two evils.” On Wednesday, prominent right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt pushed Nikki Haley to offer Trump a “full-throated endorsement” and “promise to campaign hard for him” because “that’s the traditional GOP way.”
Look where the “lesser-of-two-evils” mindset and the “traditional GOP way” have gotten us: a contest between the most unpopular presidential nominees in the history of polling.
This goes further than merely stating that people who reluctantly support Biden as the lesser evil should feel free to point out his flaws, something I agree with. It is insisting that the act of selecting the less-bad candidate — “encouraging people who actively dislike Biden to vote for him anyway” — is wrong.
And the main reason the editorial supplies for refusing to vote for the nonauthoritarian candidate is that he is likely to lose to the authoritarian one, a fact that renders the entire thing a pretzel-knot of illogic. Because its reasoning is so bizarre — how can you insist on morally boycotting a candidate on the grounds that he is losing in the polls? — it can’t be understood in ideological or political terms. It is an expression of mood affiliation. The mood it conveys is weariness, an above-it-all detachment, and a desire to avoid sullying oneself by submitting to the compromises that are inherent in practicing and, especially, defending democracy.
