In his latest column for The New York Times, heroically titled “Done With Never Trump,” Bret Stephens has saved historians hours of work. In just a few hundred words, he has demonstrated how a former Never Trump Conservative justifies defection. It is tempting to read the article as an exercise in hackneyed excuses, as if Stephens wanted most of all to round them all up together for the benefit of future readers. And perhaps it should be read that way. Stephens claims the late William F. Buckley, Jr., as a hero. Buckley once told a debate opponent “I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said.” Perhaps Stephens deserves the same act of grace. Let us proceed with that generosity in mind.
After reminding his readers that he was a “Never Trump conservative,” Stephens proclaims, like Zeus at the apex of Olympus, that it is time to “drop the heavy moralizing and incessant doomsaying that typified so much of the Never Trump movement.” Stephens does not explain how the Never Trump Movement committed such offenses, but that’s part of the point. In post-truth, post-rational discourse, proof of claims is no longer a requisite for cushy gigs at legacy outfits. America is one giant bar at last call. Every drunk gets to bloviate according to his whims and prejudices. Stephens is at the corner seat, signaling for another round.
Among his incoherences, Stephens claims that the “Trump movement” is “patriotic.” Patriotic according to whom? The founding fathers who warned against despots, while writing the Constitution that Trump routinely attempts to shred, and once said should be “suspended”? The heroes of the Civil Rights movement and immigrant rights movements who fought, bled, and in some cases, died to construct a multiracial democracy? The legal system that ensures a separation of church and state? The women who make up half the population, and would like control over their own bodies and to have a president who is not credibly accused of sexually assaulting and/or harassing dozens of women? The people who like the country that Trump has called a “garbage can”? Stephens never explains.
As to be expected, Stephens’ reverence for the Trump movement and their patriotism is matched by his contempt for the “self-satisfied elite” who lack it — the same elite who, according to Stephens, were wrong about “Covid restrictions” and “immigration policy.” Stephens again refuses to explain who constitutes the elite and how they were wrong about Covid and immigration. Were they wrong to encourage vaccination? Or the wearing of masks? Were they wrong to insist on pandemic preparedness, as the Bush and Obama administrations had done before Trump shut down their public health innovations? As far as immigration goes, was Trump right about family separation? Is mass deportation a good idea? Is borrowing the rhetoric of Hitler – “poisoning the blood of the country” – in reference to immigrants better leadership than renewing the DACA policy?
And again with the “E” word. Elite in what sense? Donald Trump is a billionaire. He is staffing his cabinet with billionaires, and taking close counsel from Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men in the world. All this while leading one of the two major political parties in the United States. In a few weeks, he will be the leader of the most powerful and wealthy country on the planet. But not an Elite? Not according to Stephens.
Stephens tells us that there is “plenty to fear” about Trump, but then insists nonetheless that the “Never Trump” movement “overstated our case.” In what way? Well, for one thing — the Never Trump Movement had feared that Trump would start World War III. And did you know, reader, that the man failed to do that? That’s a pretty low bar, but according to Stephens it qualifies as an achievement. The same day that he wrote his column, Stephens, presumably, didn’t commit a violent crime. So, it was a banner day.
Next Stephens asserts that the allegations of “collusion with Russia” were a “smear.” A smart journalist with minimal integrity would note that even leaked Kremlin documents showed that Vladimir Putin authorized a spy agency to assist the electoral effort of Donald Trump in 2016. The Russian Federation believed that Trump’s election would lead to “social turmoil” in the US, while weakening America’s standing in the world. No one has ever proven that Trump knew of the Kremlin operation, but the former and future president did admit, during a television interview, that he fired James Comey, former director of the FBI, for allowing an investigation into Trump’s relationship with Russia.
Then, Stephens makes his most brilliant turn, because he not only educates enterprising historians, but also moral philosophers about the emptiness and cowardice at the heart of American political culture. He redefines democracy, the very institution he, and many other powerful people like him, is currently selling out. He began his column by reminding readers that he once denounced Trump as a “loudmouth vulgarian appealing to quieter vulgarians.” It seems that Stephens has forgotten the meaning of the word vulgar in the years since that writing. Typically associated with the distasteful and crude, its original definition meant popular with the masses. To be vulgar, in the classical sense, was contemptible, because it could lead one to believe that a simple majority makes anything right. To the vulgarian, whether he is loud or quiet, there are no principles or values that transcend popularity. And Stephens has confused the term “vulgar” for the term “democratic”: “We also talked a lot about democracy. That’s important: The memory of Jan. 6 and Trump’s 2020 election lies were the main reasons I voted for Kamala Harris. But if democracy means anything, it’s that ordinary people, not elites, get to decide how important an event like Jan. 6 is to them. Turns out, not so much.”
According to this corrupt logic, victory validates all. This worldview is the foundation of a reckless consumer culture. And Stephens has replaced the admirable commitment to democratic principles which animated his forsworn opposition to Trump for a debased consumerism according to which “The customer is always right.” No matter how harmful a product, if it makes enough people rich, it is beyond reproach. No matter how harmful an idea, if enough people believe it, there must be something to it. No matter how harmful Donald Trump is, even if he tried to steal an election and subvert the peaceful transfer of power, if he wins the popular vote by 1.5 percent, he embodies democracy itself, and everyone opposed to him should stand back and stand by.
All this from a man who committed himself with such integrity to upholding one of the fundamental principles of democracy: that power does not get a blank check, and that in a democracy the press has a sacred obligation to oppose power in the name of democracy. Winning an election does not give anyone carte blanche, not in a functioning democracy. And likewise, in a functioning democracy members of the press are not moved to retract all criticism simply because their opponent has won. Stephens’ cowardice is especially galling juxtaposed with the courage of other fellow Never Trump conservatives who have not wavered. Conservatives like David Frum, Mona Charen, Jennifer Rubin, Pete Wehner, Bill Kristol, and David French will spend the next few years insisting that their former allies have betrayed the country. And now Stephens will be among the guilty and the cynical.
Stephens ends, “Done With Never Trump,” with advice: “Let’s enter the new year by wishing the new administration well, by giving some of Trump’s cabinet picks the benefit of the doubt, by dropping the lurid historical comparisons to past dictators, by not sounding paranoid about the ever-looming end of democracy, by hoping for the best and knowing that we need to fight the wrongs that are real and not merely what we fear, that whatever happens, this too shall pass.”
“Wish them well,” “benefit of the doubt,” and “this too shall pass” form a neat trio of self-abdication; the conclusion to an announcement of retirement. But we are not so lucky. Stephens is not retiring. He will continue to write for one of the country’s most influential newspapers. He just won’t do it as someone paid to think.