In theory, politics implies diversity – of faith, of socioeconomic background, and most importantly, of thought. Our republican form of government derives its name from the Latin term res publica, customarily translated into English as “the public affair”, and no affairs may claim to be truly public without being representative of the people in question.
This sentiment used to be a no-brainer for many generations of American leaders. Partisan discord did not prevent Republicans and Democrats from rescuing the Union under Abraham Lincoln or outlawing racial discrimination in voting and enfranchising the remainder of American citizens with the historical adoption of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.
Today’s situation is different. Our parties seem all the more monolithic and unwelcoming of internal criticisms, with Trumpism and progressivism dominating their respective discourses and expurgating dissent. In this climate, we have grown to appreciate anyone, who rises above this tribalism and gives due credit to political detractors.
The Lincoln Project, launched by several Bush-era Republicans, perhaps aspired for these laurels too. Certainly, an alternative centre of conservative thinking to the White House would have been welcome as a means not only to check President Trump’s initiatives, but also to broaden the gamut of ideas represented in politics. But it has failed to live up to this status, and resultantly, may not be seen as a silver bullet to the country’s polarization.
Without doubt, the group is right to critique Trump. He is no angel, after all. Sometimes, his behavior warrants comparing him to a bull in a china shop and makes even his most loyal supporters uneasy. On other occasions, his decision-making materializes in something that is objectionable to many Republicans, let alone Americans. Though a conservative myself, I am not opposed to the fundamental premise behind the group’s Mourning in America advert, modeled on Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America campaign address. Yes, its assertion that the country is “weaker and sicker” with Trump in charge is indisputably exaggerated and ideological; and yet, I cannot but concur the current administration’s pandemic record is mixed, at best. Few would deny this has not been its finest hour, and that Trump’s bickering with governors and extraneous relationship with Dr Fauci did much to exacerbate the sanitary situation in the United States.
However, this healthy critique unfortunately ends up diluted by the project’s otherwise risible methodology. Taken as a whole, its actions are both hypocritical and destructive to the Republican Party, as its attitude towards other right-wing politicos clearly suggests.
The movement’s founders justified its emergence with the fact that “two views cannot exist” in the GOP, as we currently know it, but seemingly display little sympathy to those with whom they disagree. Rather than tolerating conflicting views, the group takes no issue in fighting the so-called enablers of Trump, inter alia by producing adverts for the Democratic contender for the Governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, against the Republican incumbent and overtly criticizing Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell exclusively because they have collaborated with the President.
The Lincoln Project does not shun dishonesty either. Its 45-second video #TrumpIsNotWell, is a prime example thereof. Calling Trump feeble and accusing him of physical and mental incapacity, this advert might appear to be giving him a taste of his own medicine, perhaps. Certainly, our leader is known for pointing to his opponents’ health problems, most notably coining a classy bon mot to describe his Democratic re-election rival “Sleepy Joe”. However, such overtones seem strange from an organization trying to distance itself from the supposedly caustic fashion, in which Trump often carries himself.
Equally strange was that its advert, focusing on his rally in Tulsa emphasized not the country’s dire pandemic situation, though this would have been difficult to refute, but its date. It claimed that Trump was somehow desecrating the memory of Juneteenth, the day commemorating the end of slavery, despite the fact that both Lincoln and the Civil War hero, Ulysses Grant, proudly flaunted the Republican Party colors.
The organization’s hypocrisy does not end with the content they create: one of the Lincoln Project’s video editors, Ben Howe, was recently fired after his offensive tweets had been leaked to the press.
What discredits this group as an answer to polarization is its disdain for the Republican Party as an institution, seeing that they are alienating other right-wing individuals and imperiling conservatism at large. Absent a formidable Republican Party, there will be little to no room left for the group’s members. Steve Schmidt was John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign manager, John Weaver oversaw his run eight years prior, and Stuart Stevens has worked closely with Mitt Romney – none of them will find solace within the Democratic camp, all the more considering McCain’s warmongering reputation and Romney’s Mormon background.
The wedge this group is willing to drive within the party is unlikely to disappear on its own. Worse still, the Lincoln Project remains oblivious to what it should do after Trump’s defeat in the 2020 presidential election. As its communications director, Keith Edwards, stated, “We are focused [on] making sure Trump is a one-term president and ensuring Biden takes the oath of office in January. We’re not thinking of anything beyond that.” Much as this might score points for the Lincoln Project from amongst the Democratic-leaning voters, it will estrange anti-Trump conservatives, who are yet to severe their ties with the GOP. Herein, any attacks on Republicans are conducive to getting hoisted by their own petard; most party voters approve of Trump’s performance and are not prepared to disavow the Party over Trump’s individual blunders.
Fortunately for America, their destructive efforts do not chime with most conservatives in the first place; the group’s primary audience continues to be the left. Although its co-founder Reed Galen summarized its mission as addressing “Republican voters with Republican language and Republican iconography”, it is not their fellow right-wingers, but left-leaning journalists, who endorse such efforts.
For instance, the former Mitt Romney staff, Oren Cass, and George H.W. Bush’s speechwriter, Andrew Ferguson, both chose to condemn the Lincoln Project in public, the former slandering its ads as “personally abusive, pointlessly salacious, and trip-wired with non-sequiturs”. Even some vehement critics of Donald Trump concede these ads are intended for an audience that is already predisposed to dislike Trump and are inauspicious at converting people.
The Lincoln Project’s rise and lionization by some is a further indication of how far the rot has spread inside our governmental institutions. Political division is pervasive in America, and it is in the public interest to aim for consensus on those issues which affect our daily lives. However, the Lincoln Project neither has brought, nor will ever bring, the country’s politics towards balance and rejuvenation. Its attacks on President Trump, while commendable prima facie, are only perpetuating our politicians’ reliance on ad-hominem lampooning and equivocation and do not offer the much-needed conservative alternative to Trumpism. The end result for this organization will involve not unseating Trump, but fortifying the prevalent anti-establishment, Trump-versus-all mentality that enabled his rise to power four years ago.
