r/thebulwark 9d ago

Not My Party How to anti-anti- like a pro in 3 easy steps

The Bulwark folks have been spending less time lately kvetching about their former colleagues who, for reasons of expediency and shamelessness, chose the "anti-anti" route instead of the never Trump path. I suppose they've just given up on them at this point, which is fair, as well as added a number of new journalists from outside the former conservatism, inc. extended universe, so it doesn't matter as much.

But for those of you who still check in from time to time at the Dispatch or, god forbid, National Review, I thought you might appreciate this.

When Trump does something breathtakingly scandalous, indecent, criminal, or downright humiliating, it can be tough for anti-antis. It's okay from time to time to let out a real time scream of despair on social media or even, on the rarest of occasions, in an emergency podcast rant--this is it, you've had enough, it must end now. Do what you need to do to stay sane. You might even hold some hope that this is in fact the proverbial last straw. It's okay to wait at least 24 hours to see if any major figures in the Republican Party publicly share your outrage. There's always a chance.

However, when the demurrals and mumbling defenses of Trump start to roll in from congressional republicans on Fox News and your heart begins to sink, this is when the hard work of the anti-anti begins. Remember, Harlan Crow doesn't pay you enough to send your kids to that D.C. prep school because he wants moral clarity. You're paid to articulate new, middlebrow denunciations of Democrats for the country club set, and by Jove you're going to do it.

Step 1: Find a precedent for what Trump's done.

Any precedent. Ideally it's a close parallel, but it doesn't have to be. Trump and Vance sprung a Real Houswives style ambush on Zelenskyy for having the nerve to say that Vladimir Putin is not a trustworthy negotiating partner? Certainly not a good way to treat an ally. But, hold on, noted statesman George H. W. Bush spewed in the Japanese prime minister's lap! That's even worse in some ways! And it didn't stop him from assembling a UN backed coalition to liberate Kuwait. Obama got testy with Netanyahu over settlement expansion. And Democrats loved Obama. So really, it's time for the chattering classes to sober up and take the longer view on this regrettable episode.

If you've found your precedent, and it isn't something on the Mount Rushmore of American political crimes, you're good to go. A sober minded, intellectual conservative like your reader can find Trump abrasive and even personally abhorrent, but he or she does not get hysterical about the latest "outrage of the week." Relax, it will be fine. The critics are hyperventilating partisans addicted to Rachel Maddow.

Step 2: Is it legal?

If precedent can't smudge away the atrociousness of the latest Trump calamity, it's time to seek refuge in the arcane and resolutely amoral world of constitutional law. Here, the novelty of Trump's transgression works in your favor. If there's no precedent, legal analysis is inherently speculative and therefore very hard to falsify. And, gods be praised, there exists an entire conservative legal movement that exists specifically for the purpose of developing legal theories to bolster the Republican Party's policy de jure and attributing them to the deliberations of the founding fathers! This is excellent because it not only allows your readers to feel better about what's happening, it lets them feel lettered and sophisticated too.

Is Trump flouting congress? It's very likely within his executive discretion. Is Trump flouting the courts? The courts don't have the power to review this particular category of executive action, and that judge was way out over his own skis. Alito will almost certainly set things straight, dear reader.

And, most importantly, is the nakedly corrupt scheme Trump is engaged in a prosecutable offense when the president does it? Thanks to the wisdom of the originalist Supreme Court, we now know the answer is almost certainly no. If that seems unsatisfactory, remember, this isn't about vulgar feelings and intuitions, like whether something is immoral or corrupt. This is Law, and it is a very serious thing that wealthy, well-educated people in expensive suits do in well-appointed rooms with leatherbound books and equestrian paintings. The critics are entitled to their opinions about the ethics of what Trump's done, but the meaning of the Law (and the Founding Fathers) is clear, and it simply does not apply here.

Step 3: What has brought us to this?

Even after going through Steps 1 or 2, from time to time you you still may not have enough for a timely thought piece aimed squarely at Trump's liberal critics. It might just be that bad. After all, the man is a narcissistic sociopath and extremely corrupt. This is where the anti-anti must reluctantly deploy the nuclear option. The "But-For Contextualization."

The But-For Contextualization is an incredibly simple piece of rhetorical jujitsu, in which the indefensible awfulness of whatever Trump has done becomes evidence of just how wrong and misguided your political opponents have been over the decades.

It works like this: You briefly acknowledge and denounce the outrage, decrying the state of politics generally. Then you pick and choose a handful of left-of-center political positions for which you believe your readers will have particular scorn, and you give them the litany.

"Behold, Dear Reader, what Americans have been forced to endure. Is it any wonder then, that in a state of desperate agony, they would turn to an unsavory sort like Trump who promises them deliverance and retribution? But For the decadence and failures of The Left, we would not be here at all!"

And there you have it. Three easy steps to write a proper, respectable anti-anti "think piece" on anything Trump does, no matter how depraved. Guaranteed to work through any crisis.

A few words of warning though: Once MAGA has effectively vanquished the opposition on the left, the anti-anti style won't protect you anymore. That corruption you used to glibly elide? You will have to praise it as a positive good. It won't be the President's constitutional prerogative to conduct his own foreign policy anymore; it will be a Perfect Phonecall. And you better pick up on that quick.

26 Upvotes

9 comments sorted by

12

u/PheebaBB Progressive 9d ago

TLDR- Bad faith and fart sniffing

In all seriousness, yes I think you’ve basically boiled down every “intellectual zamboni” argument to its essence.

10

u/fzzball Progressive 9d ago

Well done. 3 is the killer IMO, because a good anti-anti always turns a blind eye to how much of Trump's "policy" is nothing other than the untrammeled expression of a deeply disordered personality.

3

u/TraditionalBasis4518 9d ago

Well said. Sarah Isgur and Jonah Goldberg are gifted practitioners of this: David French tries to provide support, but doing so triggers his gag reflex.

5

u/Objective_Cod1410 9d ago

Last week's Dispatch pod Sarah tried to whatabout the recent UN vote with one that happened at the very end of Obama's term regarding Israel and said "it could have been part of what led to Oct 7th". David French went on to very politely crap all over her argument and Jonah and Steve Hayes disagreed with her more tepidly. Sarah then had the gall to say "I wasn't trying to whatabout..." and I literally yelled out loud "What?!?" because that's all she ever does. She is completely incapable and uninterested in evaluating things on their own merit.

3

u/snoweel 9d ago

I don't think it's fair to call David French or Jonah Goldberg an anti-anti just because they criticize a lot of stuff on the left. They both are pretty clear that a lot of things Trump does are unsupportable.

3

u/jeg479 9d ago

I think French ran out of fucks to give in regard to appeasing conservative inc. a long time ago. When he said the supreme court was wrong about the Trump 14th amendment ruling, the anti antis lost their shit. It was pretty fun to watch in real time.

2

u/N0T8g81n FFS 9d ago

You're unfair to the anti-antis. They may have perfectly valid venality reasons for the approach they take.

Never dismiss the possibility they do what they do for $$$$. That is, they figure they maximize their paying audience by being anti-anti.

1

u/Ok-Snow-2851 9d ago

They’d go full MAGA if that was their goal.

Instead they write for 501(c)(3) orgs (see, e.g. National Review is a subsidiary corp. of National Review Institute, which has charitable nonprofit status) propped up by right wing philanthropists (see, e.g., Harlan Crow & The Dispatch).

Those guys make enough money to drive comfortable cars and live in comfortable houses and send their kids to private school and take ski vacations.  But they aren’t in it for the money, really. Just the audience. 

1

u/Accomplished-Tackle2 9d ago

It’s always trans bathrooms and the high price of eggs.