Voice For Liberty

02/11/2024

31/10/2024

TRUMP EXTERNALIZES US PROBLEMS, PRESENTING THEM AS ORIGINATING FROM ABROAD

In an interview with the European Center for Populism Studies, Dr. Thorsten Wojczewski, an expert in International Relations from Coventry University, delves into how former U.S. President Donald Trump utilized foreign policy to project domestic issues outward, attributing economic and social challenges to external forces. According to Dr. Wojczewski, Trump’s rhetoric framed the “Washington establishment” as part of an elite working against “the American people,” emphasizing immigrants, foreign countries, and globalist elites as sources of poverty, unemployment, and deteriorating infrastructure. Trump’s strategy, Wojczewski explains, capitalizes on a historical American nativist theme of the civic community threatened by outsiders, resonating strongly with nationalist sentiments among white Americans.

Dr. Wojczewski contrasts Trump’s right-wing populist stance with left-wing populists, such as Bernie Sanders, who view foreign policy through lenses of multilateral cooperation rather than isolationism. Sanders emphasizes solidarity and critiques the establishment’s securitization of migration, advocating for open policies and inclusion, while criticizing the U.S.'s interventionist international actions. Sanders’ stance shows how left-wing populism can approach foreign policy as an inclusive and pluralistic endeavor, unlike the exclusionary, nationalist angle Trump adopts.

Comparing Trump’s approach with European right-wing populist groups like Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) and France’s Rassemblement National (RN), Wojczewski observes that these parties similarly focus on national identity and resistance to foreign influence, projecting threats onto global organizations like the EU. However, right-wing populists’ strong nationalist identities often complicate sustained cooperation across borders, as seen with AfD and RN’s divergent views on the EU's power structure.

Wojczewski also critiques populist discourse that uses fear and hope, claiming these emotional appeals reinforce the populist message. Trump’s promise to "restore sovereignty" mobilized fear of the "other" and nostalgia for an idealized American past, presenting his platform as a restoration of lost values. Wojczewski argues that such narratives effectively consolidate populist-nationalist coalitions by framing foreign nations and international elites as scapegoats for internal issues.

Addressing the risks posed by a potential return of Trump to the presidency, Wojczewski warns that while U.S. democratic institutions are resilient, Trump’s divisive style could exacerbate polarization and governmental dysfunction. This polarization could pave the way for an even more radical leader. Nonetheless, Wojczewski notes that Trump’s age may limit his ability to enact long-term damage to the U.S. democratic structure.

“Dr. Wojczewski: Trump Externalizes US Problems, Presenting Them as Originating from Abroad.” *Populism Studies*, 30 Oct. 2024, https://www.populismstudies.org/dr-wojczewski-trump-externalizes-us-problems-presenting-them-as-originating-from-abroad/.

31/10/2024

HOW BAD COULD A SECOND TRUMP PRESIDENCY GET?

The Economist examines the potential implications of a second Trump presidency, highlighting his aggressive campaign promises and the risks they might pose to democracy and U.S. institutions. Despite some Americans dismissing Trump’s intense rhetoric as showmanship, the article notes that Trump’s loyalist base and established agenda could give him greater power to act on his promises than in his first term. His aims include mass deportations, a dramatic increase in tariffs, and a potential clampdown on Democratic-led policies. This shift, the article suggests, could significantly damage American democracy, institutions, and the economy.

Economic impacts loom large. Trump plans drastic tariffs, tax cuts, and mass deportations, moves that economists warn could worsen inflation and reduce GDP growth. For example, JPMorgan Chase estimates Trump’s proposed tariffs could cut GDP by 0.5% in a year and raise inflation by 1.5 to 2%. Furthermore, Trump’s potential interventions with the Federal Reserve could destabilize financial markets, hurting the economy more than his 2017 tax cuts helped. Mass deportations would strain industries reliant on immigrant labor and could lead to inflation in sectors such as agriculture and construction.

Trump’s foreign policy also raises concerns. His unpredictable approach and “America First” doctrine may destabilize alliances and incite global uncertainty. Prominent figures like Kori Schake at the American Enterprise Institute warn that allies could face a “chaos premium” under Trump’s leadership, fearing an American pivot away from NATO and possible abandonment of Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Concerns over democracy are central to the article. Trump has previously tried to overturn the 2020 election results, and he remains unapologetic about his actions. His comments labeling January 6th rioters as “political prisoners” and his potential plans to pardon them raise concerns over his respect for rule of law. Experts like Benjamin Wittes of *Lawfare* argue that without the moderating “grown-ups” of his first term, Trump would likely act more autocratically, bending federal powers and potentially pushing the Justice Department to target political opponents. His use of Schedule F, allowing for easier dismissal of civil servants, could also politicize traditionally neutral federal agencies.

While some analysts believe that American institutions might contain Trump’s impulses, the risks are substantial. Political scientists note that populist leaders often fail to establish authoritarian regimes, especially in democracies with strong institutions. However, Trump’s past rhetoric and actions suggest that another term could further erode democratic norms, possibly normalizing selective enforcement of laws.

The article concludes that although some Americans dismiss Democrats’ concerns as partisan exaggeration, voting for Trump carries substantial risks for U.S. democracy, the economy, and global stability.

"How bad could a second Trump presidency get?" *The Economist*, 31 Oct. 2024.

The damage to America’s economy, institutions and the world would be huge

31/10/2024

A SECOND TRUMP TERM COMES WITH UNACCEPTABLE RISKS

The Economist warns that Donald Trump’s return to the presidency would introduce significant risks, not only to the United States but to global stability. It acknowledges that while Trump has supporters who either appreciate his past achievements, dismiss allegations against him, or are drawn to his nationalistic vision, the dangers of a second term should not be underestimated. The publication argues that Trump’s first term revealed his unpredictable approach to governance, but his actions were partially restrained by experienced advisors and institutions.

The article notes Trump’s successes, such as economic deregulation, COVID-19 vaccine funding, strengthened U.S. defense, and diplomatic achievements like the Abraham Accords. However, his tenure was marred by controversial decisions and behaviors, notably his refusal to accept the 2020 election results, culminating in the January 6th Capitol attack. Despite institutions ultimately prevailing then, the Economist highlights that Trump’s approach to governance has grown more extreme.

It also points to his proposed policies as more radical and potentially harmful. For instance, Trump’s plans for a 20% tariff on imports and massive deportations could fuel inflation and risk trade conflicts, threatening U.S. economic stability. His foreign policy also shows troubling signs, with allies concerned by his disdain for alliances. These positions could weaken the U.S.’s global influence at a time when conflict and instability in places like Ukraine and the Middle East pose severe challenges.

The Economist also raises concerns about Trump’s increasingly insular support network. Unlike his first term, when some advisors could moderate his impulses, Trump’s current circle includes loyalists with minimal interest in curbing his agenda. Additionally, structural constraints, like the checks previously imposed by Congress or legal limitations, may be less effective in a second term. The Supreme Court’s decisions on presidential immunity could further erode accountability, amplifying the influence of Trump’s personality on governance.

For voters who fear instability, the Economist offers a moderate endorsement of Kamala Harris, presenting her as a cautious choice compared to Trump. It describes her policies as moderate and stable, even if lacking in inspiration. Despite potential shortcomings, Harris, in their view, presents a lesser risk than Trump, whose impulsiveness, willingness to subvert norms, and divisive politics could jeopardize American prosperity and global peace.

Ultimately, the Economist expresses clear opposition to Trump’s candidacy, asserting that the risks tied to his second term are too grave to overlook. If the publication could vote, it states, it would choose Harris, prioritizing stability over the hazards of Trump’s potentially unchecked leadership.

The Economist. “A Second Trump Term Comes with Unacceptable Risks.” *The Economist*, 31 Oct. 2024, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/10/31/a-second-trump-term-comes-with-unacceptable-risks.

31/10/2024

HATE ONSTAGE AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN

David A. Graham reports on Donald Trump’s recent campaign rally in New York's Madison Square Garden, highlighting the event's inflammatory rhetoric and racially charged content. The rally began with comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who made racist jokes about Latino and Black people. Other speakers followed with similar statements: a Trump childhood friend referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as “the anti-Christ,” while radio host Sid Rosenberg used a derogatory term to describe Harris’s Jewish husband. Stephen Miller added a nationalist tone, echoing a sentiment similar to N**i rhetoric from a 1939 rally at the same location.

When Trump took the stage, he joined in, calling Harris “very low-IQ” and pledging to implement the largest deportation program in U.S. history. This tone concerned some Republican leaders, who fear such extreme statements could alienate Latino voters. However, Graham argues that these sentiments define Trump’s campaign message, which centers on nativism and racial stereotypes.

The rally drew a large, enthusiastic crowd, with limited counter-protests, reflecting Trump’s enduring appeal in New York, though not enough to sway the city's overall vote. As Graham notes, Trump’s strategy relies on creating controversy, aiming to steer the national conversation to divisive topics like immigration and race. While some Democrats worry about Harris’s focus on Trump, Trump himself appears confident that his provocative approach will galvanize his base and gain him attention in the final stretch of the campaign.

Graham, David A. "Hate Onstage at Madison Square Garden." *The Atlantic*, 28 Oct. 2024.

At his Madison Square Garden rally, Trump’s argument was hate and fear.

31/10/2024

WHAT ORWELL DIDN’T ANTICIPATE

In "What Orwell Didn’t Anticipate," Megan Garber explores George Orwell's insights on language as a tool of control and warns that today’s political rhetoric manipulates reality in ways Orwell couldn’t foresee. Orwell’s novel *1984* and essay “Politics and the English Language” argue for clear, direct language, highlighting how propagandistic “Newspeak” can suppress thought. Garber asserts, however, that Orwell’s guidance on clarity is strained in modern politics, where language doesn’t just simplify but distorts and disorients.

Garber focuses on Donald Trump’s ambiguous, conditional language, which she argues functions like Orwellian doublespeak by clouding his real intentions while enabling plausible deniability. She cites recent criticisms from former Trump administration officials who, calling Trump “fascist,” warned against his divisive, often violent rhetoric, which characterizes opposition as “the enemy” and distorts language to reframe opponents as existential threats. In this atmosphere, Garber notes, familiar words lose power, as with “fascism”—a term now too exhausted to provoke the necessary alarm.

Garber traces this problem of language manipulation back to political tactics in the 1990s, such as Newt Gingrich's “Newtspeak,” which transformed political opponents into moral enemies, creating an unbridgeable division. She suggests that Orwell, despite his understanding of propaganda, could not foresee how deeply ironic language, paired with digital media, would undermine communication, fostering a pervasive cynicism that disorients and divides society. Garber urges that, rather than look to Orwell for answers, we create new ways to reclaim language as a means of genuine connection and clear truth.

Megan Garber. “What Orwell Didn’t Anticipate.” *The Atlantic*, October 31, 2024.

George Orwell famously argued that clear language in politics can be a bulwark against oppression. But in the Trump era, his solution no longer holds.

31/10/2024

70% OF RACES ON THE BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER ARE UNCONTESTED, UP FROM 2020

A new report from BallotReady reveals that an unprecedented 70% of races in the upcoming 2024 U.S. elections are uncontested, showing a stark increase across all levels of government compared to previous election cycles. This report, presented ahead of November’s election, details that uncontested races have spiked, especially in regional and local offices.

While uncontested federal races, such as those for Congress, now exceed 5%—the highest rate in recent years—state-level races have also seen a jump, with nearly 48% going uncontested. In 2020, for comparison, 41% of state races were uncontested, underscoring this upward trend. BallotReady attributes part of this growth to expanded research into local elections, but the data ultimately points to a lack of competition as a national issue.

Local governments are where the lack of choice is most evident, with roughly 90% of regional positions, like district attorney roles, and 74% of other local offices, including school boards, having only one or no candidate. This lack of candidates means fewer choices for voters and limited options for political representation, leaving millions without real competition in races critical to local governance.

Guminski, Sarah. “70% of Races on the Ballot This November Are Uncontested, up from 2020.” *BallotReady for Organizations*, 30 Oct. 2024,

See a preview of uncontested races on the ballot this November as provided by the BallotReady Research team.

31/10/2024

DONALD AND MELANIA TRUMP WERE MADE FOR EACH OTHER

A recent New York Times op-ed criticizes Melania Trump's memoir, *Melania*, portraying her as disconnected and indifferent. At a rally in New York, her brief remarks about “strength, courage, and unity” felt hollow when contrasted with the derogatory comments from other speakers. Her memoir, intended to clear misunderstandings and offer insight, is instead described as superficial, avoiding self-reflection and portraying an overly perfect image of herself and her close circle. Melania’s avoidance of genuine introspection raises questions about her values and experiences, leaving important challenges and choices unexplored.

When recounting her time as First Lady, she fails to explain her non-traditional approach, including her delayed move to the White House and her focus on home renovations. Melania sidesteps substantial issues, such as her lack of public response on January 6, blaming her staff for not keeping her informed of the violence. Her description of her relationship with Donald also lacks depth, portraying it in overly simplistic, surface-level terms.

The book includes merchandise plugs for her personal business ventures, leading some to speculate that her motivations may be more commercial than personal. Published just before Election Day, the book’s timing and approach appear to align with an attempt to capitalize on her brand.

*“Donald and Melania Trump Were Made for Each Other.”* The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/opinion/melania-trump-donald-campaign.html.

31/10/2024

INFLATION IS BASICALLY BACK TO NORMAL. WHY DO VOTERS STILL FEEL BLAH?

Despite declining inflation, Americans remain skeptical about the economy, a sentiment potentially harmful to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 election campaign. Although inflation has slowed to a manageable rate of 2.1%, consumer confidence remains low. For many, the high prices on essential goods like groceries, housing, and household items still feel burdensome, leaving them unconvinced of real improvement. Surveys from the University of Michigan and the Conference Board show that while confidence is inching upward, it remains notably below pre-pandemic levels.

One reason for this disconnect is that, while price increases have slowed, overall costs for necessities remain elevated compared to past years. This “sticker shock” continues to weigh on households, especially those who feel that wage increases don’t fully offset these expenses. Housing affordability has also become a sticking point due to recent high interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, making mortgages more costly and locking many out of the housing market.

Political leanings also shape economic perceptions. Republicans, in particular, report a significant drop in confidence since President Biden took office, while Democratic confidence has remained somewhat stable. Partisanship is likely to influence how economic issues affect the election, with a recent poll showing 27% of Americans view the economy as the most critical factor in deciding their vote. Both Harris and former President Donald Trump have focused on cost-cutting in their campaigns, hoping to address Americans' concerns over expenses, though experts question the feasibility of some proposals.

Smialek, Jeanna. "Inflation Is Basically Back to Normal. Why Do Voters Still Feel Blah?" *The New York Times*, 31 Oct. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/31/business/economy/inflation-prices-economy.html.

31/10/2024

DONALD TRUMP'S COGNITIVE DECLINE BECOMING A TROUBLING CONCERN

This Las Vegas Sun opinion piece argues that former President Donald Trump, while widely criticized for past behaviors and policies, is showing signs of severe cognitive decline, raising further concerns over his fitness for office. The article points to recent observations of Trump's physical exhaustion, slurred speech, repetitive statements, and incoherent tangents at public events. It highlights that his rallies have shifted over the years from spirited speeches to darker, disjointed monologues filled with anger and paranoia. As a result, the article claims, Trump has become increasingly susceptible to manipulation, posing risks if he were to govern again.

Trump's behavior and rhetoric, which include his repeated calls to imprison journalists, praise for authoritarian leaders, and frequent references to using military power against political critics, align closely with authoritarian regimes. These shifts, the piece argues, mark an erosion of democratic principles in favor of a more autocratic stance. Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, once a Trump critic, is now seen as a supportive enabler, advocating extreme ideologies and backing conspiracy theories. This partnership raises the possibility of a leadership that disregards democratic norms in favor of personal power.

The article concludes by stressing that the upcoming election goes beyond policy preferences and is fundamentally about the defense of democracy against those who appear unfit or unwilling to uphold it.

"Donald Trump's cognitive decline becoming a troubling concern." Las Vegas Sun, 30 Oct. 2024.

Americans from both sides of the political spectrum should be alarmed by Trump’s words and behavior. The nation must confront the fact that beyond his hateful character, he is crippled cognitively ...

31/10/2024

Some quotes from my former president Donald J. Trump, who recently said. "You can't lead America if you don't love Americans."

"If Comrade Kamala Harris gets four more years, you will be living a full-blown banana republic ruled by an anarchy and a tyranny. You're going to have something. It's not her. It's the people that surround her. They're scum. They're scum, and they want to take down our country. They are absolute garbage."
September 7, 2024

"And I've had more investigations than any human being, including Alphonse Capone, the meanest, the Scarface. I've been investigated more than Alphonse Capone. They even raided my house, little place on the beach called Mar-a-Lago. No, but think of it. They raided my house. Can you believe this is the scum that we have to deal with? This is the scum."
October 22, 2024

"We've become like a garbage can for the rest of the world. They're throwing all their garbage into our country."
October 26, 2024

"Yesterday I said, 'We're the garbage can for the world.' We are. We're a garbage can. We're like a garbage can and they dump their criminals, their people with tremendous mental problems from insane asylums, from mental institutions. Their drug dealers, their gang members."
October 26, 2024

31/10/2024

THE U.S. ECONOMY REACHES SUPERSTAR STATUS

In the years since the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. economy has grown at a rate nearly unmatched globally, outpacing other leading economies such as Canada, the EU, and the UK. From late 2019 to the end of 2023, U.S. GDP rose by 8.2 percent. While other major economies like Germany and Japan faced recession and layoffs, the U.S. economy continued to expand, with historic lows in unemployment and increasing wages for the working class. Median household wealth also saw record growth, rising 37 percent between 2019 and 2022, marking the largest surge since the Federal Reserve began tracking wealth data in 1989. Notably, gains were most pronounced among low- and middle-income workers, with the lowest-paid workers seeing their wages increase four times faster than those of middle-income earners and ten times faster than the wealthiest group.

Lower unemployment and rising wages have improved the financial outlook for many. Since 2021, wage growth has outpaced inflation, a positive indicator of purchasing power. Furthermore, wage inequality, which has widened over decades, is now decreasing, with the gap shrinking between various demographics, including Black and white workers and between those with and without a college degree.

However, persistent challenges remain. Housing costs, exacerbated by rising interest rates, have pushed homeownership out of reach for many. Other issues, including high costs in health care and child care, as well as social challenges like poverty and homelessness, continue to hinder millions. Nevertheless, despite these barriers, America’s economic performance remains historically strong.

Rogé Karma. “The U.S. Economy Reaches Superstar Status.” *The Atlantic*, 10 June 2024. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/us-economy-excellent/678630/.

30/10/2024

HOW A PRO-TRUMP ARMY BUILT A MOVEMENT TO REJECT ELECTIONS

In Washoe County, Nevada, Commissioner Clara Andriola faced intense public pressure to reject the certification of her own election win. A growing “election integrity” movement, rooted in doubts about election fairness, is spreading across the U.S. Led by Trump loyalists and bolstered by influential figures like Robert Beadles, this movement frames certification denials as a way to uphold democracy, despite the legal requirement for certifiers to formally approve election outcomes. Andriola initially voted “no” on her certification after attorney Nathan Edwards from the Washoe District Attorney’s office suggested she “vote [her] conscience,” adding confusion over her obligations. Although she ultimately certified her own win, Washoe County became a microcosm of a wider, well-funded push to contest and complicate election procedures.

Since Trump’s 2020 loss, denialists have strategically worked to infiltrate local election boards, bolstered by groups like Cleta Mitchell’s Election Integrity Network. By attending board meetings, filing extensive records requests, and challenging local officials, activists attempt to assert local control over certification decisions. This wave of anti-certification sentiment has prompted various legal battles, such as Arizona’s “Sharpiegate,” where conspiracy theories about voter suppression due to ballot bleed-through flourished. Arizona saw a significant state-led audit by Cyber Ninjas, a company with no election experience, which ultimately did not uncover fraud but continued to sow distrust.

New state-level regulations attempt to counter the denialist tactics. The 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act clarifies certification deadlines but lacks enforcement penalties, leaving room for delay tactics to disrupt results. A notable shift is underway in places like Georgia, where Republicans supportive of Trump’s claims are replacing officials skeptical of his fraud narrative. They have enacted policies encouraging more stringent audits and investigations that can justify non-certification, even without concrete evidence of issues.

Local tensions reflect a national trend, with some officials citing their refusal to certify as fulfilling a “higher duty” beyond legal obligations. Erosion of trust in electoral outcomes is already causing experienced election officials to resign, leaving crucial roles understaffed ahead of the 2024 election. Such turnover could destabilize the process further, as more officials come under pressure from community members skeptical of election integrity.

As the 2024 election nears, figures like Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar are increasingly concerned about potential voting disruption. He cites the importance of adhering to federal deadlines, yet finds himself contending with legal challenges and public pressure campaigns advocating for more election scrutiny. While many Republicans stand behind traditional certification practices, prominent voices within the party encourage actions that exploit the procedural uncertainty around certification. A continued increase in these challenges may encourage a widespread erosion of public trust in electoral outcomes.

*Rutenberg, Jim. "How a Pro-Trump Army Built a Movement to Reject Elections." The New York Times, 25 Oct. 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/magazine/far-right-election-results.html*

30/10/2024

STOP COUNTING VOTES, OR WE’RE GOING TO MURDER YOUR CHILDREN

Election workers across the U.S. face unprecedented threats as conspiracy theories, primarily fueled by Donald Trump and Republican leaders, have eroded trust in American voting integrity. While these positions once focused on helping neighbors and overseeing ballots, today’s election officials are bracing for harassment, handling safety protocols, and experiencing threats on their lives. Melissa Kono, an election worker in Wisconsin, exemplifies this shift, adapting her training to handle increasingly aggressive questions and intimidation tactics from those skeptical about election outcomes.

Since 2020, violent threats against election workers have escalated, with cases of harassment, swatting, and even poisoning of pets becoming common. Al Schmidt, Pennsylvania’s secretary of the Commonwealth, and other officials report being targeted by those who demand an end to vote counting, often with threats aimed directly at family members. These incidents are part of a broader movement in which election workers are branded as conspirators, an idea spread by Trump’s persistent claims of election fraud after his 2020 loss. This narrative has led to increased confrontations and burnout among election officials.

Additionally, Republican-aligned election-integrity groups, backed by $100 million in donations, are amplifying suspicions through lawsuits and misinformation campaigns. These efforts are further compounded by AI-driven deepfakes and other technology that magnifies disinformation and undermines trust in election procedures. The effect is an “ongoing onslaught” that burdens election workers, compromising their ability to ensure a fair voting process.

Wong, Matteo. “‘Stop Counting Votes, or We’re Going to Murder Your Children.’” *The Atlantic*, 25 Oct. 2024, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/10/election-workers-threats-trump/680362/.

30/10/2024

A CLOSING CASE AGAINST TRUMP

In “A Closing Case Against Trump,” Peter Wehner argues that conservatives have a strong case for voting against Donald Trump—even if it means voting for Democrat Kamala Harris. Many Republicans view supporting a Democrat as unacceptable, especially given Harris's liberal background, but Wehner emphasizes her moderate and pragmatic policy shifts in recent years. Harris’s recent campaign has focused on centrist positions, like middle-class tax breaks, support for Ukraine, and small-business growth, while eschewing some of her former liberal stances.

The heart of Wehner’s case, however, is not Harris's policies but Trump’s threat to conservatism. Wehner contends that Trump has transformed the GOP, undermining traditional conservative values on character, government spending, and policy. He argues that Trump’s actions betray core conservative principles, particularly through his moral misconduct, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and praise of authoritarian figures. Trump's domestic policies have bloated the deficit, hurt trade, and shifted the GOP away from values like federalism, decency, and international alliances.

Many Republican figures, including retired officials, now openly label Trump as authoritarian. Wehner claims Trump’s embrace of violence, disregard for the Constitution, and pursuit of power pose a risk to democracy and conservative ideals. Harris’s election, he concludes, is the best option for conservatives seeking to reclaim their values and limit Trump’s influence, preventing the “irreversible” damage that a second Trump term could inflict on America.

Wehner, Peter. “A Closing Case Against Trump.” *The Atlantic*, 29 Oct. 2024, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/conservative-argument-against-trump/680438/.