A young man who is active in Republican politics engaged me in conversation last weekend at the True Texas Project conference in Fort Worth. He was deeply disturbed that “radical Democrats” were taking over the city council in Austin and mentioned how hard he was working to make sure “moderate Democrats” would win local elections instead. Since Republicans were not likely to prevail in these contests, it seemed to him that the next best thing was to support “moderates” on the other side.
When I asked my interlocutor why he thought this was the best course to follow, he was nonplussed. He simply assumed an alliance between conservatives and what looked like the less nutty elements on the left was a reasonable step, if his side couldn’t win.
I then asked why he thought the so-called moderates were less noxious than the radicals. After all, these moderates help bring the radicals to power and they are much more likely to form alliances with the radicals than with anyone on the right. At the time this conversation took place, I didn’t think of something Chronicles’ assistant editor, John Howting, just mentioned to me, which is that one critical reason the “moderates” oppose Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates is that the radicals sometimes sound like right-wing populists.
For example, when a DSA candidate opposes foreign wars because we are spilling blood and treasure in conflicts that don’t benefit the American people, that person sounds more like Pat Buchanan than either Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or National Review’s Rich Lowry. The question is not whether the DSA member’s argument is entirely true. It’s just not something that a typical leftist like AOC or a neocon like Lowry would be likely to say.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member