Noah Rothman is, of course, correct that J. D. Vance’s decision — when told that Liz Cheney is endorsing Kamala Harris — to inject pure poison into our national political discourse by accusing Cheney of being willing to “kill thousands of children” and send “other people’s children off to fight and die for her military conflicts” so that she could “get rich when America’s sons and daughters go off to die” is loathsome and vile and the kind of left-wing fecal matter that was leveled at Republicans and Republican voters for years.
Yes, Vance scored some cheers at Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point event, and he got some “Yas Queen!” hosannas from some of the usual suspects online. Bully for him.
But can we talk about just how dumb-as-rocks stupid this was as political messaging?
The November election (61 days away, by the by) is going to be razor-close in five or six states. Look, I am aware that the Trump-Vance national-conservative wing of the Right is ascendant right now. I am aware that conservatives like me, who care about a traditional approach to national security, are not calling the shots in today’s GOP. But Trump and Vance still need millions of normie-style Republican votes if they want to win the big swing states. Millions. Many of these people are somewhat reluctant to vote for Trump because they don’t trust him on national-security issues and would prefer a more Reaganite approach. Throughout the primaries, even after the contest had been decided in Trump’s favor, something like 10 percent of Republicans continued to protest the current direction of the party by pulling the lever for Nikki Haley.
Now I don’t think that 10 percent of Republicans are going to turn around and vote for Harris. But has J. D. Vance considered that they could stay home?
Again, I’m not suggesting that Trump and Vance are likely to shed their policy convictions and replace them with my or Noah’s or Liz Cheney’s preferences (even though they should, because I’m right on this stuff!). I’m not suggesting that a single voter out there is going to change his vote purely on the basis of Liz Cheney’s endorsement of Kamala Harris. And I’m certainly not suggesting that nuance or persuasion or considered arguments are what the room-temperature-IQ smooth-brains who look to Charlie Kirk for their political opinions are interested in.
But one would think that a man running hard to be elected vice president of the United States would be at least interested in trying to persuade a shaky wing of his coalition to stay in the boat. One would think that J. D. Vance would at least try to reel back in the type of voter who was once a Trump supporter and is now declaring for his opponent.
It’s really not that hard to come up with what Vance could have said. This kind of thing is the basic blocking and tackling of politics. It’d go something like this:
Charlie Kirk: Do you want to comment on the news that Liz Cheney is going to endorse Kamala Harris?
J. D. Vance: Well I can’t say that I’m surprised, but what I will say is that Liz Cheney voted for Trump in 2016, she voted for Trump in 2020, and I’d ask her — and I’d ask every voter out there — why did you vote for Trump?
Was it because you believed in keeping America strong and secure? Was it because you cared about national-security issues? Was it because you believed America’s alliances were important for our defense but that America’s allies needed to start carrying their own weight too? Was it because you didn’t want someone so weak and foolish like Joe Biden in office?
Well all of those things still apply today to Donald Trump and this election in November. He will keep America strong. He will bring us peace through strength. He will strengthen our alliances by making sure that they actually work like they’re supposed to. Donald Trump is the candidate who will be tough with the Chinese and the Russians in a way that Kamala Harris never could yada yada yada. . .
Notice that most everything I wrote in that short appeal is language that would be perfectly agreeable to nat-con isolationist types or neocons or traditional hawks like me.
My point here isn’t to write Vance a new stump speech. My point is that Vance is making the same mistake that Kari Lake did in 2022 when she told John McCain voters — in Arizona of all places — to “get the hell out” and not vote for her. (Pro tip: Kari Lake lost by 17,000 votes.)
Big coalitions tend to win. Small coalitions tend to lose. Good politicians welcome people who agree with them 51 percent of the way. Crappy politicians tell them to get lost. Good politicians ask people for their vote. Crappy politicians institute purity tests.
You tell me which kind of politician J. D. Vance was acting like on that stage.