What’s the Real Point of the Lincoln Project?

Democrats shouldn’t reject their help, but they also shouldn’t give them money.

I was raised in the Episcopalian church, the American variation of the Church of England, or Anglicanism. It used to be illegal to hold office in England if you believed in transubstantiation. Personally, I prefer to keep religion out of politics, and that goes double for theology, but I’ll note that one of the main appeals of settling in the New World was to get away from governments that dictated what you could and could not believe. That process wasn’t really complete in America until we had to pull all the colonies together into one cohesive unit. It was only then that we banned religious tests, and we originally only banned religious tests for federal offices.

Today, you can believe that the communion sacrament literally turns the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and this belief cannot bar you from working in or for state or federal governments. So, from a legal and political point of view, it’s completely irrelevant what I think about it. I certainly don’t think it’s a terribly important subject for understanding what has gone wrong with the Republican Party, but Ross Douthat differs.

In reviewing Stuart Stevens’ new book It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump,” Douthat places special significance on a passage where Stevens, who served as Mitt Romney’s campaign manager, suggests that no one really believes in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

There is another way of reading this history, though, that’s suggested by a passage where Stevens is emphasizing the fundamental emptiness of G.O.P. rhetoric on deficits and taxes. “But still the Republican Party continues to push tax cuts the same way the Roman Catholic Church uses incense for High Mass,” he writes, “as a comforting symbolism for believers that reminds them of their identity.” And then, pushing the analogy further: “Being against ‘out-of-control federal spending,’ a phrase I must have used in a hundred ads, is a catechism of the Republican faith. But no one really believes in it any more than communicants believe they are actually eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ.”

Douthat believes that this is both naive and disrespectful, which it certainly is. But he also thinks it’s emblematic of something much more significant.

It suggests, instead, that at some level Stevens and his fellow Republican strategists regarded their own voters in exactly the way certain populist conservatives always claimed the Republican establishment regarded its supporters — as useful foot soldiers, provincials to be mobilized with culture-war appeals, religious weirdos who required certain rhetorical nods so that the grown-ups could get on with the more important work of governing.

In which case the original sin of the strategist class wasn’t moral compromise or racial blindness but simple condescension: a belief that they didn’t need to take their own constituents seriously, that they could campaign on social issues and protecting the homeland and govern on foreign wars and Social Security reform and that it would all hang together. Which it did — until a demagogue came along who was ready to exploit the gap between promises and policy, and to point out that the Republican adults supposedly in charge of governing weren’t actually governing very well.

Stevens obviously touched a raw nerve with Douthat, and he really could have been more generous in understanding the intended point, which is that most Republicans still mouth doctrines that they no longer believe. Yet, that doesn’t mean Douthat is off-base in sensing a chasm between the GOP’s base and its consultant class. His main critique of Stevens and the rest of the Lincoln Project crew is spot-on.

Stevens does not really offer a story of intellectual conversion or gradual ideological disillusionment. He doesn’t tell us that he used to believe in supply-side economics but now rejects it, or that he used to be against abortion or same-sex marriage but came to a different view, or that he used to favor welfare reform and tough sentencing laws and now repents…

…But mostly Stevens presses a critique of Republican voters, activists and operatives — and white religious conservatives above all — that makes its author seem less like a convert with a tale to tell and more like the world’s most clueless mercenary, a political veteran who noticed only after several decades that he was fighting for what was, by his own account, transparently the wicked side.

We can certainly say the same thing with equal accuracy about Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson, George Conway, and the other ex-Republican strategists who dominate the Never Trump movement. Even when they ostensibly cop to having some responsibility for creating the monster that devoured the country, they do very little explaining about how they were so blinded for so long. They’re all like King Oedipus, clawing their eyes out when they realize that they’re the cause of the plague. But Oedipus could not have known he was killing his father or bedding his mother, while these political mercenaries were well aware that they were exploiting and stoking the religious conservatism and racial bigotry of a segment of Americans for the political benefit of rich people.

The thing about mercenaries is that you only hire them when you need them. They’re inherently unreliable because they’re always for sale. Right now, they’re acting as volunteer soldiers against Trump, and perhaps there’s a genuine desire for atonement involved here. Still, even if they’re not expecting the Democratic Party or its candidates to pay them, they’re still trying to sell books and make a buck.

Douthat is actually fairly successful in exposing their game, despite his idiosyncratic take on the subject. I won’t reject their help as long as it’s free, but I don’t recommend handing them your money.

Author: BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.

14 thoughts on “What’s the Real Point of the Lincoln Project?”

  1. Did hand Stevens some money (but not Bezos). He does a pretty good job of pointing out Republicans’ hypocrisy. No recognition that even relatively honest Republicans are still wrong about almost everything.

  2. Stevens and the others (Schmidt, Conway, Nicolle Wallace, Rick Wilson, etc) are playing a longer game. They want to restore the Reagan-Bush dynasty. Their apostasy is partly real — they do hate Trump — but they have no interest in being powerless or in any rational policies that might sustain a new minority party. As soon as Joe wins, they will be back to yapping about family values, tax-and-spend Democrats, ‘going too far’, peace through strength, while waiving the talisman of ‘national security’ at everything they think frightens the hayseeds. (Its too bad that ‘compassionate conservatism’ had its time because it would fit the new movement that will start on 1/21/21). They will have a message on 1/21/21 — they’re simply going to retitle some old stories — but what they won’t have right away is a leader. I’m sure they’re thinking intently about that now.

  3. I feel exactly as you do: I don’t trust them at all, but if FDR could make common cause with Stalin, I’m not going to turn up my nose at the Lincoln Project.

    At the same time, Steve Schmidt’s howls of anguish will never NOT be funny and I will never stop reminding George that he and his wife met when they were trying to take down the Clintons, and that she works in the Trump cesspool, and that he himself voted for Trump (despite his repeated apologies for so doing).

    1. I feel exactly as you do: I don’t trust them at all, but if FDR could make common cause with Stalin, I’m not going to turn up my nose at the Lincoln Project.

      Except Stalin was a left-winger and all the Lincoln Project clowns are racist right-wingers who are pissed Trump is using an air horn instead of a dog whistle. Hell, Wilson was denigrating veterans long before Trump.

  4. I think one of the main goals of the Lincoln project and the anti-Trump former Republican operatives, aside from making a buck (never underestimate the importance of that in America), is to try to keep the Democratic party as conservative as possible. One way to do that is suck up corporate media time now so you can drown out liberal voices- who have been right about the Republican party ages before most of these guys started blaming Trump for the horror that they themselves had a huge part in creating.

    Guess who is on MSNBC and the other broadcast media every 15 minutes? Most likely a “former Republican strategist” who will then hurl a few minutes of clever insults at Trump and then probably demand a voice at the table after the election when Biden and his Democratic majority try to make policy. Sure, it’s entertaining and they do make good adds, but I don’t want these guys anywhere near the Biden administration or the Democratic majority in the house & Senate when this election is done.

  5. The Lincoln Project is making a *lot* of money for the principals. Not through embezzlement or anything like that, but they contract with political advertising companies to generate their content at generous rates – and they generally own the companies in question.

  6. Here are my tests for the Reagan-Bush Restorationists. As Senator Harris might say, a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer* will do. (1) Do you favor M4A as a national policy objective ?; (2) Do you favor the GND ?; (3) Do you favor restoring the Iran nuclear agreement; (4) Do you agree with Senator Sanders position on the rights of the Palestinians ?; (5) Do you support significantly higher income taxes on people making > $500k/yr; (6) Will you support significant (at least 10% in real terms) cuts in defense spending in Biden’s first term ? (7) do you agree that Citizens United should be overruled through legislation ?; (8) Do you agree with the renewed VRA ?; (9) Do you favor a carbon tax ?

    *if Restorationists wish to give details on their positions, they can do so in an annex to the yes/no answer, but the details should not be presented so as to obscure the answer.

  7. I’m happy to laugh along at their ads while staying cognisant of the fact that they are produced by people who dream of a Marco Rubio presidency.

Comments are closed.