Jonathan Last Comments On Harris Positions
As political endorsements go, the support for Vice President Kamala Harris from high-profile figures like Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales—both of whom are heavily associated with the Bush administration's legacy on torture—is eye-catching, to say the least. Cheney, a lifelong Republican, joined his daughter Liz to endorse Harris, citing the “threat to democracy” posed by Donald Trump, while Gonzales praised Harris's “character and judgment” over Trump’s potential impact on the rule of law. This unexpected alignment is creating waves, not just for Harris's campaign, but for what it reveals about the establishment’s stance on Trump and the shifting alliances within the political elite.
It’s worth examining why these establishment figures, who were once central to policies that trampled civil liberties, are now uniting against Trump. Cheney and Gonzales’s stance seems to underscore an intriguing divide: while Trump’s policies and rhetoric may sometimes overlap with Bush-era conservatism, his bombastic, divisive style appears to disturb these figures more than his actual policies.
Essentially, it’s not Trump’s actions, but the crudeness and lack of subtlety with which he pursues them that unsettle the traditional power brokers. Torture and erosion of civil liberties, it seems, are acceptable to this old guard so long as they’re cloaked in the formalities of institutional conduct. Trump’s open defiance of “decorum” creates discomfort because it disrupts the veneer of control and dignity the establishment prefers.
Amazing clip where Jonathan Last brags about the Neocons taking over the Democratic Party and the rest of the Bulwark crew remind him that they aren't supposed to say that part out loud pic.twitter.com/8bOkHa5zkS
— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) October 31, 2024
Looking back, the reaction from major law firms and establishment Republicans following 9/11 reflects a similar trend. When the Bush administration’s actions stretched, or outright defied, constitutional boundaries, support from “white-shoe” law firms and establishment Republicans largely persisted, though a few exceptions emerged. The political elite seemed willing to embrace measures like Guantánamo and the PATRIOT Act so long as they were administered by figures who adhered to institutional norms. With Trump, however, lawsuits and resistance came swiftly, even when his administration echoed similar policies.
The recent endorsement pattern goes further. Figures like Judge J. Michael Luttig—who supported indefinite detention of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” in 2005—now vocally oppose Trump, a shift that speaks volumes. For the establishment elite, Harris represents a return to stability and a respect for institutional boundaries, even if her policies don't challenge the core tenets of U.S. national security strategy, including the military and foreign policy paradigms set in place by figures like Cheney.
In fact, the consensus around national security is one of the few areas where the Bush-era figures find Harris more palatable than Trump, as she doesn’t present the same “threat” to the post-9/11 status quo on issues like foreign policy, surveillance, and detention.
This unusual coalition underscores the often-overlooked truth about political alliances: they are forged less by ideological purity and more by shared visions of order and control. Harris’s support from Bush-era Republicans might discomfort some Democratic voters, especially those concerned with civil liberties. After all, Guantánamo remains open, housing detainees—many cleared for release—who live as living reminders of the Bush administration’s legacy of torture. Harris has said little about Guantánamo or any intention to close it, highlighting a disconnect for those who once thought a Democratic administration might bring reform to such policies.
As for other Bush administration figures, many remain silent. Perhaps some, like John Yoo or Mike Mukasey, are waiting for Harris to clarify her stance on aggressive interrogation tactics. Others, like George W. Bush himself, may simply be watching the political winds. But as for Cheney and Gonzales, their backing of Harris serves as a clear signal: the establishment fears Trump not for what he does but for the unruly, populist manner in which he does it. And while Trump threatens the traditional avenues of influence for these figures, Harris represents a path forward that keeps the existing structures intact.