David French Endorses Kamala Harris

“I’m going to vote for Kamala Harris in 2024.” – David French, New York Times

Those of us who have been pundits, politicians, or even lowly bloggers have read David French for years, if not decades. A former military officer who served in Iraq, a religious liberties litigator, and a longtime Capital-S Social Conservative, French has watched the Trumpification of the Republican Party with abject horror.

That said, the one thing he could not do was vote for Trump’s Democratic opponent. He preferred a third-party or write-in option in prior elections.

He’s decided he can’t do that anymore:

I’m often asked by Trump voters if I’m “still conservative,” and I respond that I can’t vote for Trump precisely because I am conservative. I loathe sex abuse, pornography and adultery. Trump has brought those vices into the mainstream of the Republican Party. I want to cultivate a culture that values human life from conception through natural death. Yet America became more brutal and violent during Trump’s term. I want to defend liberal democracy from authoritarian aggression, yet Trump would abandon our allies and risk our most precious alliances.

The only real hope for restoring a conservatism that values integrity, demonstrates real compassion and defends our foundational constitutional principles isn’t to try to make the best of Trump, a man who values only himself. If he wins again, it will validate his cruelty and his ideological transformation of the Republican Party. If Harris wins, the West will still stand against Vladimir Putin, and conservative Americans will have a chance to build something decent from the ruins of a party that was once a force for genuine good in American life.

I added the emphasis because Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back for French. Much of his column repeats his usual (and correct) assessment of how Trump has degraded the Republican Party and moved it away from a conservatism that he would recognize. He included a lot of verbiage on how the pro-life movement has utterly failed in saving pre-born children. All of that, though, could have been written by any conservative who chooses to vote against both Trump and Harris.

What makes French’s decision (and his column) different is that he includes a reason to vote for Harris: Ukraine. (Emphasis added).

At the same time, we should make the argument — firmly but respectfully — that this is no ordinary race and that the old political categories no longer apply.

For example, how many Republicans would have predicted that voting for a Democrat would be the best way to confront violent Russian aggression and that the Republican would probably yield to a Russian advance? In many ways, the most concretely conservative action I can take in this election is to vote for the candidate who will stand against Vladimir Putin.

In other words, French acknowledges there actually is a current political issue where the Democrats are on the conservative – and I would say, the American – side, an issue important enough to decide his vote.

For the Harris-Walz campaign, the implications are clear: Ukraine is the issue to win over this new group of swing voters. The more they emphasize their willingness to stand up to Putin, the more conservatives they will win over.

In the meantime, kudos to French for being clear-eyed enough to see.