You Bought the Ticket

Last week's "The Illegal News" (sorry, paywalled) podcast was a different format. Guest Andrew Weissman sat in the host's chair and the topic ws the newly published book penned by Sarah Longwell: "How to Eat an Elephant" and one of the things she said was that she is tired of people accusing her of helping Trump get elected. Her position was that she was too young and not in the inner circles. That struck me wrong, and hence this post.

Before Sarah Longwell was a pro-democracy publisher, before The Bulwark, before the focus groups that rearranged her understanding of her own party, she was a political science major at a small college who had published a couple of articles somebody noticed. That's the whole mechanism, stated as plainly as she stated it herself on a podcast this week: they found me. The Collegiate Network moved her into its pipeline, funded a trip to Prague framed as a journalism opportunity, and put her on a track that a lot of ambitious twenty-year-olds would have taken without a second thought. Around the same time, a college advisor told her something that turned out to matter more than either of them realized, that the people at the conservative upper echelons of things did not actually care about the private lives of the people they recruited. It's all a fake, she said. A sop to the voters.

That's not a story about someone drifting into a political identity. That's a recruitment, and Longwell tells it herself, in detail, without apparently noticing what it proves.

The Blanket Defense

Not "I did wrong things when I was young." The opposite move.

Here is the shield she reaches for instead. Ask her about her own role in building the movement that produced Trump, and she says she was young, that the events which mattered most were largely before her time or beyond her influence, and that in any case she was never really one of the bad ones, just a fiscal conservative with small-town values who happened to work in Republican politics for two decades. She extends the identical shield to Tim Miller and Jonathan Last, treating all three as equally exempt on the same grounds.

The trouble with a blanket is that it covers everyone the same way, whether or not they're asking to be covered.

A Different Ticket

Miller isn't asking for the shield. He's refusing it, on purpose.

He titled his own book Why We Did It, not Why They Did It, specifically so nobody could read it as an outside indictment. "I feel like I'm partially complicit," he told the Minnesota Reformer, describing his years as a Republican communications operative whose job, some of the time, was to stir up animus against the left. The book opens by naming his own friends and colleagues as the mechanism, not the excuse. Miller isn't claiming he was too young to matter. He's claiming the opposite, on purpose, at length, in his own voice.

Lumping him under Longwell's blanket isn't generous to Miller. It erases the one thing that makes his reckoning different from hers.

What the Ticket Actually Buys

A boundary, or the argument collapses into blaming everyone the same amount.

There's a piece of moral philosophy built for exactly this problem, and it has a name: moral luck. Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel spent real careers on the puzzle of how much an outcome should determine judgment, when the reckless driver who gets home safely and the reckless driver who kills someone did the identical thing, and only luck separates how each gets judged. Most people's intuitions never resolve that puzzle. They just quietly let outcome do more of the work than it should.

The sharper version is closer to something you already know instinctively: buying a ticket is consent to the distribution of rides a machine can produce, not to a guaranteed pleasant one within it. You don't get to keep the credibility of having ridden a coalition to a career and then disclaim the specific ride it eventually took as somebody else's problem.

That claim needs a limit, or it turns into blaming everyone equally, which is weaker than the argument actually available. A rural voter who pulled the lever every four years bought a smaller, less informed ticket than someone who drew a salary and built two decades of career inside the machine. It bites hardest on the people who printed the tickets, not the ones who bought a single ride without reading the map.

Which is what makes the Federalist Society the sharpest version of this claim, sharper than anything in Longwell's own career. A judge confirmed to a lifetime seat at fifty-five cannot retroactively borrow the naivety of the twenty-four-year-old who first got noticed at a chapter meeting. The pipeline runs on exactly that time lag, identify early, deploy decades later, by which point "I was young when this started" has become true and beside the point, since the person exercising the power now isn't young at all.

Kristol's Ledger

The complication that ends up deepening the case instead of softening it.

Bill Kristol's neoconservatism wasn't proto-Trumpism. It was a distinct, hawkish, elite-credentialist faction that Trump ran explicitly against in 2016, no more stupid wars, the establishment lied to you, Jeb's brother's war. Trumpism displaced that tradition more than it descended from it. If the claim were that the Weekly Standard built the ideological content of MAGA, it wouldn't hold up.

There's a different version sitting right next to it. Kristol co-founded the Project for the New American Century, which helped build the intellectual case for invading Iraq years before it happened, and the Weekly Standard was one of the most influential outlets selling that war on premises that turned out to be false. The credibility collapse that followed, the weapons that weren't there, the war that wasn't quick, the total absence of accountability for anyone who got it wrong, is one of the most commonly cited proximate causes of the "the establishment lies to you and faces no consequences" appeal Trump ran on, and that Longwell's own book describes voters responding to. Jonathan Last's association with that circle isn't tangential in the way the blanket defense implies. It's tangential through a different mechanism than the one people reach for first, not building Trump's coalition, but destroying the credibility of the thing Trump's coalition defined itself against.

The Untested Hometown

The sharpest evidence sits inside her own coming-out story.

Her account of realizing that nobody in her orbit actually cared about her being gay happened inside a political science advising relationship and a conservative media pipeline, an educated, credentialed, mobile world that turned out to be far more privately tolerant than its public politics would suggest. That's not evidence her rural origins were compatible with who she became. It's evidence she left before that compatibility was ever tested. The authenticity claim she trades on now, that she understands these voters because she is one of them, rests on a version of her past that never had to survive contact with the actual town of nine hundred people she grew up in.

There's a documented mechanism for this kind of retrospective smoothing. Leon Festinger's work on cognitive dissonance predicts that when a past affiliation and a present identity conflict, the cheap resolution isn't holding both truths at once, I was complicit and I've changed. It's revising the memory of the past self until it already matches the present one, so there was never really a conflict to resolve. I was always basically a fiscal conservative with small-town values isn't a lighter version of an honest accounting. It's the specific move an honest accounting is supposed to prevent.

Compare it to Miller's own sentence, again: I feel like I'm partially complicit. That's the whole difference, in six words.

None of this requires Longwell to have caused Trump singlehandedly, and nobody serious is claiming she did. The claim is narrower and harder to escape. She was selected into, trained by, and materially advanced by a machine she now disclaims, and her own book wants credit for having understood it all along. You don't get to keep the climb, the career, the standing, the credibility of having been inside the thing, while handing off the specific ride it eventually took as someone else's coaster. That's not survivor's remorse. That's declining to pay full fare after you've already taken the trip.

Keep the lights on

Like what you've read, but not able to switch to paid? Why not buy me a coffee instead! All money goes to help defray the expense of running the site.