An Unserious Man. A Dangerous Movement.
Plus: Bracing for possible regional war in the Middle East.
If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em: Donald Trump, who appointed the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade and formerly boosted himself as “the most pro-life president in history,” is now insisting that his administration will be “great for women and their reproductive rights.”
Pro-lifers aren’t thrilled. “Overturning Roe was only the necessary first step of a much longer battle to protect the lives of the unborn,” National Review’s Philip Klein wrote over the weekend. “And on that battle, it increasingly looks like Trump is joining the other side.”
Two conventions in the rearview mirror. Seventy-one days until Election Day. Happy Monday.
The Most Important Line at the DNC
—William Kristol
Before Kamala Harris’s convention speech fades into the mists of history, I want briefly to discuss one passage:
In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.
Harris didn’t dwell on the first point at all—that Trump is an unserious man. She did spend a fair amount of time discussing the very serious consequences of putting Trump back in the White House.
But why even mention the fact that Trump is an unserious man? Because I think the Harris campaign understands that it’s precisely Trump’s unseriousness—his showmanship, his buffoonery, his shtick—that can make it hard to appreciate just how dangerous he is. So somehow one has to stipulate Trump’s apparent unseriousness in order to get to his dangerousness.
After all, it’s Trump’s unseriousness as an individual that gives some people an excuse to overlook his danger as a political figure: I don’t like the tweets either, but . . . or I wish he’d stop with the personal attacks, of course, but . . .
The “buts” come easier for Trump-adjacent voters if they’re allowed to think the problem is Trump the individual, rather than Trumpism as an extreme political movement seeking to win and exercise power.
After all, if Trump were merely not serious enough to be president, that would be bad. Indeed, we shouldn’t elect such a person. But, in that circumstance, the consequences could be manageable. The guardrails can hold against such an individual.
But a movement seeking to deprive us of freedoms, eager to divide the country, willing to foster chaos and an insurrection, hostile to the institutions of liberal democracy at home and the liberal world order abroad—that’s a danger of another order.
So it will be important for Harris to continue over the next ten weeks the work she began in her acceptance speech: Explaining what an administration staffed by Trump appointees could do to the rule of law; what Trump judges could do to our personal freedoms; what the real effects of Trump economic policies on national prosperity and Trump foreign policies on world peace would be.
In other words, the election should be about the consequences of a Trump second term, not merely the distasteful prospect of having Trump the person sitting in the White House again.
The Democratic convention began that work. The Never Trump Republicans, and the less partisan Democrats like Leon Panetta, particularly focused on the dangers of a Trump second term.
The good news is that voters already seem to sense the dangers of Trumpism.
James Carville argued a few months ago that Democrats “should run against MAGA and not Trump. Because MAGA is less popular than Trump.” Carville cited a poll showing MAGA with a 24 percent approval rating; Trump’s approval rating at the time was around 42 percent. Carville’s point was that the public seems to dislike Trumpism, the Trumpist movement, more than they dislike Trump.
Similarly, many observers have been struck by how much Heritage’s Project 2025 resonates as an issue with the public as something to be worried about. The public seems to fear the Trumpist agenda more than they fear Trump personally.
The public is ready to be persuaded about the danger of Trumpism. But Harris will have to spend much of her time making the case for herself. Which means the burden will be on other individuals and groups to make the case against Trumpism.
Trump is not a serious man. But the threat of a Trumpist movement with a Trumpist agenda is serious. And so the task now isn’t merely to belittle Trump. It’s to make clear the dangers of Trumpism as well.
How Far Will Israel and Hezbollah Go?
—Will Selber
With America’s attention focused on the upcoming election, the Middle East remains braced for a possible regional war following Israel’s targeted killings of Hezbollah Commander Fouad Shukr in Lebanon and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran late last month.
Over the weekend, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) moved first, conducting pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon after Israel’s intelligence services sniffed out a likely retaliatory attack. According to the IDF, more than 100 Israeli fighter jets struck approximately 270 Hezbollah targets, focusing overwhelmingly on the terrorist group’s mighty rocket arsenal in southern Lebanon.
Following the Israeli strikes, Hezbollah announced the commencement of “Operation Arbaeen Day,” their retaliatory attacks for Deif’s killing. According to the IDF, Hezbollah fired approximately 250 rockets and drones, targeting Israel’s intelligence services. Overall, Hezbollah’s attacks killed one Israeli sailor aboard a Navy vessel and caused minor damage throughout northern and central Israel. Thanks to Israel’s integrated air defense system and American intelligence, Hezbollah’s strike was not very successful.
Both Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared victory in the exchange and said more attacks could follow. Although the situation remains fluid, it appears that both sides are taking steps to de-escalate. That will, thankfully, lower the chances of a regional war, which would almost certainly involve the United States, Iran, and all of Iran’s proxies throughout the region.
But while the region exhales, the fundamental problem has not changed: Nearly 80,000 Israelis from northern Israel remain scattered throughout the country due to Hezbollah’s daily rocket barrage. Until those internally displaced people return home, they will remain an enormous political problem for Netanyahu.
That’s why a temporary ceasefire deal is critical. It would free some of the Israeli hostages in return for Palestinian prisoners and allow some Gazans to return to areas they evacuated. It might also allow some displaced Israelis to return to the north of Israel.
Although the Biden administration spoke optimistically about the possibility of a ceasefire deal before the Democratic National Convention, Israeli press reports that progress between Israel, Hamas, Qatar, Egypt, and the United States has been minimal. Israeli negotiators traveled to Cairo following the weekend’s strikes to continue talks. However, it’s been nearly nine months since the first hostage exchange, and there’s little reason to believe that a breakthrough is imminent. The chances of a long-term ceasefire are even slimmer.
With nearly three months before Election Day, Vice President Kamala Harris will have to hope that America’s military posture in the region, which includes two carrier strike groups, a recently-added F-22 squadron, and an Ohio-class submarine, will be enough of a deterrent to keep any future attacks limited to Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza.
Quick Hits
BACK TO THE STONE AGE: Grim scenes out of Afghanistan this week, where, three years after toppling the nation’s U.S.-backed democratic government, the Taliban-run government has announced their most radical yet set of “vice” laws yet. Under the new laws, women must veil their bodies and faces at all times while in public, may not look at men not in their families, and may not be heard “singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public.”
WILL THE TRUMP CABINET PLEASE STAND UP? We were all heartened to see so much space made for Democrat-agnostic anti-Trump voters at the DNC last week. But as Tim wonders in a piece up at the site today: Where are all the ex-Trump officials who have told the world that they think he’s a raving lunatic? Why aren’t they endorsing Harris? No offense to the former lieutenant governor of Georgia, but were these really the most high-profile Republicans willing to step up at the convention?
Tim has some theories. Maybe the likes of Liz Cheney, Mark Esper, and Mike Pence are keeping their anti-Trump powder dry for the fall. Maybe they were worried they’d be sharing a DNC stage with deep ideological foes, like the Israel-hostile set. Or, well, maybe “these people are chickenshit.”
“It’s not too late for these people to heed their better angels,” Tim writes. “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.”
A WILD RIDE: One ex-Republican official who was willing to stand up and be counted last week was, of course, our pal Adam Kinzinger. Up at the site this morning, he shares the story of how he decided to speak and how it felt:
As I walked onto that stage, I was acutely aware of the gravity of the moment. The lights, the cameras, the sea of faces—even for a former politician, it felt like a big stage. But the weight of the message I was about to deliver grounded me . . .
The response was overwhelming. Yes, I lost friendships, but there were also countless messages of support from people across the political spectrum. Many Republicans reached out to say they, too, felt lost in today’s political climate, and they appreciated my willingness to speak out. Democrats, independents, and others expressed their gratitude for my words. (I later learned that Fox News cut away during my speech and those of the other Republicans at the DNC. I guess that’s one indicator of success.)
I would have been proud to speak at the Republican convention this year. If invited, I would have spoken on the same themes: respect for the Constitution, the precariousness of democracy, the indispensability of the rule of law—all of which I learned from the Reagan-era Republican party I joined. If the Republicans aren’t interested in that message and the Democrats are, I figure it says more about them than about me.
HE COULDN’T BEAR TO GO ON: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ended his presidential campaign last week and endorsed (no points for guessing) Donald Trump. Andrew joined Sonny Bunch and Jim Swift to dissect the weirdest campaign in American politics. Watch here:
Cheap Shots
You’re going to want to click through for this one.
Correction, August 26, 2024, 11:35 a.m.: An earlier version of this newsletter misstated the identity of the terrorist leader killed by the IDF in Lebanon. The IDF killed Hezbollah leader Fouad Shukr in Lebanon on July 30. On August 1, the IDF confirmed that Hamas leader Mohammad Deif was killed in a July airstrike in Gaza.
 | A guest post by
|
While much of the MSM is reporting on Trump more realistically, they are still treating him as if he was a normal candidate. They are saying he has trouble following a script, won’t talk about policies, and still relies on insults, but they are not pointing out how Trump isn’t qualified for any job, anywhere in the US. He is too old to pick vegetables. No parent would leave him with their kids to babysit, he doesn’t take orders or follow procedures, he never admits mistakes, when he has been in charge he has gone bankrupt or been sued — He has been in court (or his lawyers have) as much as Kamala Harris was when she was a prosecutor. Fights with anyone who offers suggestions, and he is too old for any complex task. Yet, there are 20 states that will still vote overwhelmingly for him.
There is something very wrong with America. This is the result of 30 years of the Republican’s “win at all costs” strategy and of them demonizing the opposition. No negotiations since the Hasert Rule.
Been knocking doors for two Georgia state house candidates every weekend this summer and can confirm that Democratic voters are indeed aware of Project 2025, even if they don't know it by that name. I've grown used to the reaction I get when I ask Dems about the issues they're most concerned about. They just roll their eyes and say, "Everything."