Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign operative, was asked this week what she thought the Harris campaign was actually doing well right now. This was her response:
Avoiding substantive messaging on key issues. While “vibes and joy” aren’t particularly persuasive, for voters not living and breathing politics, her campaign is successfully positioning her as a newcomer with ideas and promises, without actually articulating what those are. She’s mainly running on “I’m not Trump,” which is persuasive to the center-right who have Trump fatigue.
I suspect that is the view from the Democratic professional side as well. And I don’t think it’s enough to win. It’s rooted in fear of Trump which, of course, I fully understand. His threat to the rule of law, the US economy, the global order and to domestic stability should absolutely be a closing argument. But it should not be the only argument.
We saw this in 2016. Remember the Brexit referendum, where “Project Fear” was the main argument deployed for those wanting to keep the UK in the EU? It failed. Clinton’s scare tactics scored similarly limited dividends before Trump had spent a minute in office. Now, after Trump has already been president for four years, and his favorables are historically high, it’s “Trump Is Hitler” time again. As if another haughty harrumph from The Atlantic and the neocon Blob is gonna do it this time. Meanwhile, “Hitler” is handing out McDonald’s meals as a friendly grandpa in an apron and winning record support from ... young blacks and Latinos.
And so the few undecideds are looking for a positive reason to vote for Harris. And this is the best she could do in her truly pitiable CNN town hall:
I think that the American people deserve to have a president who is grounded in what is common sense, what is practical, and what is in the best interest of the people, not themselves.
Weak. Lame. This is the first presidential candidate who doesn’t seem to want you to know what she’ll actually do, or what she really thinks about anything much, and who responds to every direct question with a meandering digression. Blathering about an “opportunity economy” and a “middle-class background” doesn’t cut it. With Anderson Cooper — who was superb — she memorably crashed and burned.
She had taken a day off to prep and yet still could not tell us what her first Congressional priority would be, what policies of the last four years she would change, how she would prevent illegal immigration, why Biden had not issued this year’s executive orders three years ago, and why she was now in favor of building a wall she once called “stupid, useless, and a medieval vanity project.” When asked to name just one mistake she’s made over the past four years, in life or in office, she said:
I mean I’ve made many mistakes, um, and they range from, you know — if you’ve ever parented a child, you know you make lots of mistakes. Um, in my role as vice president, I mean I’ve probably worked very hard at making sure that, um, I am well versed on issues, and, um, I think that is very important. It’s a mistake not to be well versed on an issue and feel compelled to answer a question.
Calling Michael Scott. Her entire performance was a near parody of why normal people hate the way politicians talk. Every answer seemed to be a form of damage control, not conviction. And her body language ... well, a near-literal defensive crouch isn’t confidence-inducing. Nor is it reassuring to think someone who cannot crisply answer a straight question will have to make split-second, life-and-death decisions as president. She seems like a party functionary who has never known real political combat — maybe a decent low-level cabinet member. But president? C’mon. Even the Dem strategists after the town hall were bewildered by her “word salad city” — to quote David Axelrod. Substacker Adam Coleman wrote:
There are moments when she physically squirms as she searches for a canned response to give Anderson Cooper. She’s in a friendly environment on CNN, and Anderson Cooper absolutely hates her opponent, but even his basic questions made her squirm.
No one wants a president who squirms, laughs, and prevaricates on her meandering way to a calculated, canned response. The undecideds don’t. And the base is given nothing really to speak of, apart from abortion and the filibuster. She’s neither persuading the center nor rallying the faithful. Her final trump card is celebrity concerts and endorsements. Have the Dems learned nothing? And no serious presidential candidate should have a closing message like this one:
Let me, if I can, just speak to what people are feeling. We cannot despair, we cannot despair … Let’s not let the overwhelming nature of all this make us feel powerless, because then we have been defeated, and that's not our character as the American people. We are not ones to be defeated.
Not exactly “Fired up! Ready to go!” is it?
And I don’t really blame her. She’s obviously doing her best. Careerism is not a sin in a pol. Her best is just, tragically, not enough. She is there because of a corrupt Democratic clique that hid Biden’s rapid decline until it was too late to have a real primary, then panicked at the thought of a chaotic convention, and simply anointed this hack — because no white male or female would run against a black woman and risk their political future in the Democratic Party. Before July, it’s worth recalling, almost every Democrat and legacy media institution knew she was a non-starter, a bad campaigner, a dreadful manager, and the least popular veep in US history. Then they willed themselves into disbelieving it. But denial is hard to sustain three months later. As even CNN’s liberals discovered this week.
I blame Biden for not letting go sooner (Dr Jill Biden has a lot to answer for), and for ensuring Harris was installed by endorsing her instantly. I blame the other Dems who said they had to beat Trump at all costs — but not at the cost of replacing a mediocrity on the ticket.
So here we are. Statistically, we’re still tied, with “Hitler” marginally gaining in the last few weeks. Underneath that chatter, unless something shifts dramatically, I suspect this is 2016. Or even 1980. If I’m wrong, and in my 2022 bubble, I will gladly submit to brutal humiliation in a couple of weeks. We’ll run a whole page of readers ridiculing and lambasting me. And I will be happy — truly, truly happy.
But I can’t lie. And it’s not my job to keep your spirits up. This does not look good.
(Note to readers: This is an excerpt of The Weekly Dish. If you’re already a paid subscriber, click here to read the full version. This week’s issue also includes: the sudden centrality of the trans issue in the final stretch of the election; my quadrennial chat with Sam Harris on the state of the country; reader dissents over my latest piece on Rachel Levine and WPATH; nine notable quotes from the week in news, including an Yglesias Award over the McDonald’s stunt; 18 pieces on Substack we enjoyed on a variety of topics; a Mental Health Break of Iceland’s interior; a splendid window from Copenhagen; and, of course, the results of the View From Your Window contest — with a new challenge!)
A newcomer writes, “Your work covering the mutilation of children convinced me to subscribe.” Another is a “bisexual in a lesbian marriage, and I started an LGB medical/queer theory watchdog organization.” One more subscriber:
I want to thank you for helping this liberal not fall into the mindset of what too many of my peers think is “progressive thinking.” I don’t like to use the word “woke” because I think it’s a term that now has too many definitions — depending on who’s using it — to be useful. But the way you use it, I agree that it describes attitudes and practices that are largely pernicious. And I’ve come to that conclusion largely through reading the Dish for many years.
Hardly anyone who writes about contemporary issues has infuriated me as much as you have. But you’re the only one who often makes me feel like someone has opened a window in a smoky room and let in the fresh air. And if you had done nothing else but tell us why you’re voting for Harris (with a clothespin on your nose), you would justify the annual subscription fee to the Dish. Thank you.
It turns out this allegedly esoteric issue — unmentioned in the debate and town halls — is a key focus of Trump’s closing stretch. He has now spent $29 million in ads aimed at Harris’ support for tax-funded sex reassignments for illegal aliens and federal prisoners, for biological boys competing against girls in sports, and for backing sex changes for children starting puberty without any reliable medical evidence of their effectiveness. That’s by far his biggest ad buy right now — almost six times as much as ads on the economy!
More revealingly, Harris’ response is a non-response. She will not publicly defend her administration’s extremism. In one interview, she said it was “an issue that ... is really quite remote.” In another, she simply said she was following the law, without saying if she supported the law. The usual void from the vacuous candidate.
But abolishing the distinction between biological men and women is not a remote issue. It affects everyone. And the truth is there is no solid basis for these experiments on children at all. This week, we got another piece of evidence — that a key pioneer of these experiments on children, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, has withheld the results of publicly financed research on them because they reveal no measurable effect on children’s mental health! What ethical researchers withhold evidence on the treatment of children? We already know that Rachel Levine is knowingly lying about this. More and more gay kids, teens, and young adults are emerging to tell of the emotional blackmail and homophobia that led them to be transed by mistake as children. No one — apart from leftist Dems — believes it’s fair for boys to compete against girls in sports.
But Harris is simply the mouthpiece of extremist trans groups who have controlled this White House from the get-go. And so she cannot backtrack, or express her own judgment. The entire issue is a microcosm of the Dems’ capture by the woke left. And it tells any concerned voter that this will not change, that the doctrine will be enforced, the arguments never addressed, the debate not engaged, and the abuse of gay, autistic, and trans kids continue. It’s an emblem of left authoritarianism, backed not by evidence or argument, but by propaganda, unfounded accusations of bigotry, and indoctrination in the precepts of critical queer and gender theory through the public school system. This is not a threat of authoritarianism. It’s already here, powerful, indifferent to reason and evidence, and inflicted on children.
Voting for Harris means this will continue. I’m doing so because the broader stakes — our democracy, the rule of law, the integrity of our election system — take precedent. But if Harris wins, I will do all I can to raise this issue, defend children, and air the evidence. And if she loses, this issue — as the Trump campaign obviously believes — may well turn out to have been a critical factor.
Back On The Dishcast: Sam Harris
Sam is a neuroscientist, philosopher, bestselling author, host of the Making Sense podcast, and creator of the Waking Up App. He’s also an old friend, jousting partner, meditation role model, and all round wonderful man. His recent work helped me reassess my views on the Gaza war. This week we had our third consecutive talk on the eve of the election — the first on his pod in 2016, the second on the Dishcast in 2020.
Listen to the episode here. There you can find three clips of our convo — on Trump’s insane deportation plan, the depth of his cult, and what Harris should do in the final stretch. That link also takes you to commentary on our recent episodes with Tina Brown and Walter Kirn, as well as continued debate over child sex-changes and the election as it enters the final stretch. Plus, a report card from Truman.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: the return of the great John Gray, Damon Linker on the election results, Anderson Cooper on grief, Christine Rosen on humanness in a digital world, and Mary Matalin on anything but politics. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
A reader criticizes my latest piece on Rachel Levine and WPATH:
Before you find someone guilty, don’t you think it’s incumbent on you to listen to their defense and not just the prosecution? An amicus brief is a brief submitted by one side in a legal case. It is, therefore, by the design of our adversarial court system, a one-sided account to manufacture as damning a narrative as possible to make the best case the lawyer can make for his client. And I don’t think the part in the amicus brief about politics affecting what is released is as sinister as you imagine it. I don’t think it means that these people “know” their position is wrong and harmful. They just know how these study results will be interpreted in the current political climate.
I am deeply concerned about some of the issues you’ve raised, but I also have relatives who passionately insist this kind of treatment is something their teen needs. I don’t think any of this is as black and white as you frame it. In fact, I just happened to be reading a piece in Slate the other day by Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz who said the Cass Review was deeply flawed and shouldn’t be a basis for policy. Frankly I see little difference in your raging against the promoters of gender care and their raging against people who oppose gender care. Both are being political.
Read my response here, along with two other dissents. More are on the pod page. As always, please keep the dissents coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
This is a feature in the paid version of the Dish spotlighting about 20 of our favorite pieces from other Substackers every week. This week’s selection covers subjects such as the insanity of UK speech laws, BLM Inc., and what Israel will do after Sinwar’s death. Below is one example, followed by a new podcast:
John Oberg, a Dishcast alum, launched his own pod on veganism and animal welfare. He teamed up with the great and powerful Selcuk Karaoglan, whose Switch and Board Studio hosts the Dishcast.
If you have any suggestions for “In the ‘Stacks,” especially ones from emerging writers, please let us know: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
The View From Your Window Contest
Where do you think it’s located? Email your guess to contest@andrewsullivan.com. Please put the location — city and/or state first, then country — in the subject line. Proximity counts if no one gets the exact spot. Bonus points for fun facts and stories. The deadline for entries is Wednesday night at midnight (PST). The winner gets the choice of a VFYW book or two annual Dish subscriptions. If you are not a subscriber, please indicate that status in your entry and we will give you a free month subscription if we select your entry for the contest results. Happy sleuthing!
The results for this week’s window are coming in a separate email to paid subscribers later today. From our Burner super-sleuth in Seattle:
I enjoy these contests every week, but last week’s made me want to reach and say thank you. It is clearly a lot of work, and I enjoy it week in and week out, but last week stood out. I watched the music videos (wow!) and one of the movies (watching another tomorrow). THANK YOU!
Chris is the maestro of the VFYW. Below are a few choice excerpts from last week. First up, our resident chef in Tucson:
For this week’s food fest, I turned to a cookbook I have owned for a while but haven’t used much because the recipes are so finicky: Jerusalem, by Yottam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi. The first author is Israeli, the second Palestinian. From the introduction:
Alas, although Jerusalemites have so much in common, food, at the moment, seems to be the only unifying force in this highly fractured place. The dialogue between Jews and Arabs, and often among Jews themselves, is almost nonexistent. It is sad to note how little daily interaction there is between communities, with people sticking together in closed, homogenous groups. Food, however, seems to break down those boundaries on occasion. You can see people shop together in food markets, or eat in one another's restaurants. On rare occasions, they work together in partnership in food establishments. It takes a giant leap of faith, but we are happy to take it—what have we got to lose?—to imagine that hummus will eventually bring Jerusalemites together, if nothing else will.
The hope expressed in that last sentence is so grimly forlorn right now, but it inspired me to produce a feast of dishes from the book:
From left to right we have:
Sami’s mother’s fattoush, a salad of tomatoes, cucumbers, and radishes, with herbs and bread soaked in fermented milk and yoghurt
fried cauliflower and scallions in a sweet and sour sauce of yoghurt, tahini, lemon juice and pomegranate syrup
a spicy beet, leek, and walnut salad in the tradition of the Georgian Jews who emigrated to Palestine in the late 19th century
burnt eggplant with garlic, lemon, and pomegranate seeds, which the authors decline to call baba ghanoush because of a controversy about whether that dish should contain tahini
and hummus topped with lamb and lemon sauce.
The finickiness of the recipes paid off: the dishes were complex, vibrant, spicy, a coming together of so many flavors. For dessert, my wife cooked a clementine and almond syrup cake from the same cookbook, which was also utterly delicious.
No VFYW cocktails this week, because I spent the entire fucking day cooking and was too exhausted. I think we had Manhattans or something. This was such a lovely feast, which had my wife and I reminiscing about the times we spent in the Middle East for her thesis research … and mourning all that has been lost.
Here’s our resident mixologist in Austin:
In researching my cocktail for this week, I discovered a popular liquor called Tubi 60 that’s taking over the bar scene in Tel Aviv. Distilled in Haifa, it’s a corn-based spirit, with a strong lemon flavor and a shit-ton of herbs, tree-flowers, and other botanicals like ginger and turmeric. It’s only recently been available in the US and only in two markets so far, Austin and New York. I was able to pick up a bottle at my local Specs.
My research indicated that young adults in Tel Aviv like to do shots of Tubi 60 before hitting the clubs. It supposedly causes a euphoric effect similar to ecstasy. I tried some chilled and straight as recommended on the bottle. The flavor is … interesting. It’s reminiscent of limoncello, but a lot more complex and funky. Other than a slight buzz from the 80 proof alcohol, I didn’t feel any specific euphoria. It’s sometimes mixed with soda or tonic water, and that did cut down the funk and brought out the flavors in a pleasant way.
For my cocktail, I added lemon juice to accentuate the lemon, pomegranate liqueur for sweetness and color, ginger liqueur to bring out the ginger more and some muddled mint, since mint and lemon work well together. I’m calling my concoction “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tel Aviv.” Here’s how it turned out:
And the recipe:
In a cocktail shaker add 8-10 torn mint leaves
Add 2 oz. of Tubi 60
Muddle for 30 seconds or so
Add some ice
Add the juice of 1/2 lemon
Add 1 oz. of pomegranate liqueur (I used Pataka)
Add .75 oz. of ginger liqueur (I used the King’s Ginger)
Shake vigorously and strain into a Nick & Nora glass
Garnish with a couple of mint leaves
Sip and stare out at the sea of new apartment buildings going up all across the Tel Aviv area
I found the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tel Aviv” tart and tasty, with the Tubi 60 giving it a complex bottom end and the lemon and ginger shining through. My wife said “It’s good, but also not so good.” She thought the funk of the Tubi 60 was too much. I made her a Tubi 60 and Tonic and she liked that much better. Our tastes don’t always align because I liked the DADTA. The funky spiciness of the Tubi 60 was part of the appeal, but I like complex drinks.
Thanks for the wonderful, challenging contest this week.
And lastly, here’s an excerpt from the weekly music report from our super-sleuth in Indy:
Asaf Avidan was born in Jerusalem in 1980. He completed mandatory army service in the Israel Defense Forces and studied animation at Jerusalem’s Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design. Avidan moved to Tel Aviv and worked as an animator. In 2006, after breaking up with his long-time girlfriend, he moved back to Jerusalem, releasing his first EP later that year, Now That You’re Leaving.
Before I go into his catalog of music, I need to talk about his voice. First, you will definitely think it’s a female singing these songs. His voice has been called a mixture of Billie Holiday, Janis Joplin, and Nina Simone. Supposedly, he’s fine with everyone thinking it’s a female signing.
