Michael Brendan Dougherty On Why He Changed His Mind and is Voting For Trump
"I was taking myself too seriously — and my vote not seriously enough."
The following is a free post. If you want access to our comment box & community, subscribers-only posts, and future subscribers-only features, you can grab all of that for just $8 a month (or even less on an annual plan) by subscribing right here:
Writing is how I make my living, so if you like what you see here, please support my work by subscribing!
If you’ve already subscribed but would like to buy me a coffee to help keep me fueled up for writing, you can do that here:
Writing at National Review today, Michael Brendan Dougherty reveals that he hasn’t voted in a national election in 20 years, because his standards were too high — in his words, too “precious” — and that he has come to realize that this is a mistake.
“I used to be much more precious about my franchise,” he writes, “and consequently I’ve refused to vote in every election since 2004 because I never felt I was able to send the appropriate or worthwhile message with it. This pose I now deem excessively precious. I was taking myself too seriously — and my vote not seriously enough.”
I know Michael a bit, in real life. He’s way more down to earth than his writing sometimes makes him seem. He’s eaten at my table, and we’ve talked over the phone about parenting and religion and the like. He has offered prayers and support to me when I’ve gone through hard times. We certainly disagree about some things, but he’s good people.
And I’m glad to see his evolution on this.
Sometimes, hardline conservatism really does come across as “excessively precious.” Politics is the art of the possible, as they say, and you go to war with the weapons you have. They are often not the ones you want.
It appears that Dougherty agrees:
My chief objection to voting for Trump in 2016 was his character and what he would do to the country with it. But I was wrong on key aspects, namely that I predicted he would break his promise to appoint sound judges. He kept that promise. I had to reassess.
Trump-Vance is the ticket likely to be closest in my lifetime to the broad strokes of my national-conservative politics. That must count for something. I also feel compelled to lend Trump my popular vote from New York State in case there is another split between the Electoral College and the popular vote. The idea being to hedge with whatever I’ve got against a radical, Constitution-resenting tantrum from the other side. If Trump wins the popular vote, it is likelier to bring about salutary reflection on the other side. Being honest with myself, I found that even if my reservations and objections about Trump remain valid, I would still feel relieved if Trump and Vance won, but apprehensive if Harris-Walz triumphed. Millions feel this way.
It’s time to take my own side of the argument and support Trump with my vote.
And what is his side of the argument? Well, it’s simple:
Progressive cities and states continue to harass Catholic adoption agencies, Catholic health-care institutions, and no doubt soon they’ll soon target the schools and charitable organizations. In all these battles, my great ally is the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment properly understood. The Harris-Walz camp does not recognize the Constitution’s free-exercise clause as a fundamental right. They view it as an unfortunate and revisable exception to their recently adopted understanding of equality: equality as “equity.” The Trump-appointee judiciary is my best defense. I view it as a duty to my children, and the rational conclusion of all my other convictions, that I must eject this Establishment-Progressive worldview out of every office that’s in my power to affect.
I didn’t choose these fights, and I preferred a different champion in the primary. But it is my responsibility to recognize the fight I’m in and acknowledge the man taking shots for me. I think it is morally reprehensible to free-ride on the rest of the country’s votes for Trump, and then to preen that I’m too pure to pull a lever for the outcome I prefer.
This touches on something I wrote a couple weeks ago. You can read that one here:
In case you missed it, here’s the relevant excerpt:
Standing on Principle Is a Noble Thing, But It Only Makes a Difference If You’re Free
I’ve supported third party candidates like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin. I’ve been a single-issue voter for most of my life, putting abortion before all else, since I think it’s the greatest evil that we as a nation are guilty of. Even after stepping away from religion, which was a driving force in my views, I remain steadfast in my belief — based on science, not faith — that abortion is nothing less than the murder of an innocent human being.
But voting for a write-in candidate, or abstaining, isn’t going to do the trick this time. It not only won’t save any babies, it won’t leave us with the kind of nation where babies even can be saved.
We have to operate within a functional legal and electoral framework in order to have a say in anything that happens. If we are set up to lose every election for the foreseeable future, our opinions on issues as fundamental as abortion or as important as immigration or economic or foreign policy may as well not exist at all.
If the Left gets their way, we will be rendered legally powerless, forever.
Right now, this election is much less about any individual candidate, and much more about the future of the democratic process in America.
Some of you no doubt hate Trump. He is unquestionably a polarizing figure. While I have come to like and appreciate him in general, there are times when he drives me crazy. I do not know that he is the best representation of Americans, but I have come to believe he is the solution we need right now.
Given the chance, I would have had no problem voting for Ron DeSantis or Vivek Ramaswamy or JD Vance at the top of a ticket. I think they’re all more articulate, less controversial, and probably more competent at governance than Trump.
But Trump is a force of nature.
He has continued to prove that he stands alone in our current moment of conservative politics. Republican voters in this country are overwhelmingly drawn to him, and he effortlessly secured the nomination, even in a field of worthy candidates.
The Left despises him on a level that looks like a kind of politically-induced mental illness. He is as repulsive a figure to one side as he is attractive to the other.
And they have done everything they can to try to destroy him.
[…]What is it about Trump that drives people so insane? Why are so many powerful people trying to destroy him — if not outright kill him?
These are the same people who gave you extended COVID lockdowns, vaccine passports, and the Great Reset. They are the believers in “build back better,” a euphemism for “never letting a crisis go to waste.” They want to curtail your speech, repeal your fundamental freedoms, and cancel or even imprison you if you disagree. And they are vying for control of the most powerful nation in the world, and willing to move heaven and earth to get what they want.
We have to pick a side. We do not get to sit out this conflict.
Dougherty, too, is excited about the future of a Republican party led by Vance. “I share with him a generational perspective on our movement,” he writes, “on the quality of American institutions, and on the goods that conservatives can achieve for the next generation.”
And citing Vance’s own about-face on Trump, Dougherty sees no reason why can’t do the same.
If you’re still on the fence, there’s still time to vote. Please don’t let an excess of caution lead to an abundance of regret.