I tried to stay out of @stephenfhayes Twitter fight (he stays out of most of mine). But I do want to return to a point I tried to make in my response to @DavidAFrench's column on Kamala Harris that is very relevant to Steve’s critics – and some of his defenders. Voting. It’s amazing how many people took Steve’s initial and entirely valid point – about conservatives “embracing” RFK Jr. and “fluffing” Kamala Harris – into a lot of prattle and poetry about voting. What the Hell does voting have to do with Steve’s accurate opionion? Apparently a lot according to people who think that if a writer votes for a candidate his writing must then lend aid and comfort to that candidate. I know people who deeply dislike Kamala Harris who are voting for her nonetheless because Trump is worse. I know as many who are making the opposite decision. But is the idea that they can never reveal their ambivalence in a public forum? Must they keep up appearances and act like a hard choice is an easy one? Must they not point out facts that contradict their voting preference? In short, must they lie? Or is that solely the standard for, of all people, journalists? I can’t tell you how stupid I think a “Yes” to any of those questions is. I have no problem with journalists writing favorably or unfavorably about candidates they’re voting for. I have no problem with journalists writing favorably or unfavorably about candidates they’re not voting for. But the idea that they are required to write, report, and argue in ways consistent with how they’ll vote is the purest horseshit. And the finger-wagging and scolding from people who claim to have the *less* intellectually corrupt position is hard to stomach. If a butcher or baker said they were voting for X, few sane people would say “you have to make your sausage and bake your bread with the goal of getting X elected.” But a remarkable number of people seem to think that voting and journalism are somehow morally linked. That’s bullshit. Some Never Trump tribes love, love, love, to talk about the importance of truth-telling when that argument makes Trump look bad (and it *always* makes him look bad because he’s easily the most inveterate liar who has ever occupied the White House, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon included). But some of the same people roll their eyes at commentators who tell the truth when the truth inadvertently helps Trump. Make up your minds. Journalists aren’t supposed to be de facto party hacks. I’m not fastidious about this, some people come to their hackery honestly and there will always be room for nuance. But there’s something about the way people think about binary choices (real or alleged) at the ballot box that makes it impossible for them to comprehend – or admit – that the choices at the ballot box do not follow you after you leave the polling station. And I grow weary of people claiming to take the high road while simultaneously claiming that journalists should think like political consultants and act like party hacks. https://t.co/7RRW3pJxht
See Tweet