In the Trump era, classically liberal conservatives have been standing in the wilderness. From the golden escalator to now, those of us who view conservatism as a philosophical and intellectual effort to renew and conserve the founding vision have stood aghast. Under Trump’s leadership, the conservative movement has evolved into something more akin to the blood and soil values of European conservatism than the ideals of the constitutionally limited republicanism laid out in America’s founding documents.

So, as the 2024 Republican primary contest begins in earnest, many of us seek to coalesce around a single Trump challenger to aid the conservative movement in moving on from the Trump years. We understand that we cannot reassert the values of classical liberalism overnight. We’re simply seeking an off-ramp from the worst eccentricities of Trumpism, a turning point.

And so, given that Ron DeSantis has proven to be “the man of the hour” and has best positioned himself to challenge Donald Trump and win, many non-Trump conservatives are finding their way toward making peace with him even if he fails to depart from MAGA populism as much as we would hope.

But this prudence is met with a challenge. David French recently warned in the New York Times that a DeSantis victory “would signal that the transformation of conservatism since 2016 wasn’t a mere interruption of Republican ideology — one in which Republicans would return to fusionism once Trump leaves the scene — but rather the harbinger of more permanent change.”

This is a real risk. I myself have pushed back against many of DeSantis’ excesses and have voiced concern both for his Ukraine comments and his pandering to Jan. 6 apologists. He is far from the perfect candidate and not someone I would likely support under ordinary circumstances. His governance is too muscular, and his rhetoric is too aggrieved and populist.

I want to support DeSantis in his challenge of Trump because I want to see Trump defeated in hopes we can rebuild the traditional conservative coalition absent his corrosive influence. But I am still very wary that DeSantis might present us only with a “competent Trumpism” that turns Trumpism from a hiccup in the story of American conservatism to a permanent alteration of its fabric.

But despite these genuine concerns, there is evidence they may be overblown. Dan McLaughlin over at the National Review recently penned a response to French’s warning in which he makes the case that DeSantis, despite his excesses, still occupies a position well within the various strains of traditional conservatism.

McLaughlin reminds us that “Even the age of Donald Trump has not driven conservative thinking as far into the wilderness as it was when National Review was founded in 1955” and warns, “We should not write obituaries for our movement lightly.”

McLaughlin concedes, as I do, that DeSantis is far from the ideal candidate for classically liberal conservatives. But he makes the prudential argument for an off-ramp from Trumpism by observing that “It will take time and effort to rebuild the voters’ trust that voting for Republican politicians actually gets you the implementation of Republican ideology.”

Talk to any Republican who isn’t absolutely committed to MAGA, and it’s easy to see that there still exists firm commitments to the traditional values of movement conservatism. The rise of Trump, in many ways, was a backlash against the failure of “establishment” politicians to enact a conservative vision, not a complete abandonment of conservative principles. To get Republican voters back on board with “normie” candidates, we need to address their view that “at least Trump fights” while the old fair offerings just laid down and let the Left have its way.

DeSantis is an appealing opponent to Trump because his tenure as governor of Florida has split the difference between the “fight” of a MAGA Republican and the governance of a “normie” Republican. Yes, DeSantis talks like a populist, and yes, he’s competent and serious in all the places where Trump is not. But the idea of “competent MAGA” is an oxymoron. Simply by being competent and serious, DeSantis seems to offer the very off-ramp we seek. And, as McLaughlin lays out quite convincingly, even the excesses of DeSantis can be articulated from a properly conservative perspective.

As someone who both shares French’s concerns but tends to agree with the prudential consideration of political realities as presented by McLaughlin, the question I am left to wrestle with is this: Where’s the line?

Even as I try to support DeSantis’ challenge to Trump in the Republican primary, I must never abandon the principles and values I have clung to through the Trump years. I want Trump defeated, but there are lines I will not cross to accomplish that defeat. However, I also don’t want to foolishly throw away half a loaf of bread for lack of a whole loaf. Trump himself, his nomination and an unlikely but still imaginable second Trump administration are what would most solidify Trumpism, not a flawed but still far more acceptable DeSantis.

French is right that a classically liberal conservative shouldn’t “quiet his critique of DeSantis in the interest of defeating Trump.” DeSantis should not be beyond censure nor should we accept unacceptable things simply because we want Trump to lose. But McLaughlin is also correct when he warns that “If we demand purity, we will swiftly conclude that our philosophy is not just dead but has never really existed.” So long as DeSantis remains Trump’s most credible challenger, I believe all non-Trump conservatives should do what they can to aid his campaign.

We have to play each moment as it comes, calling the balls and strikes prudentially. DeSantis and Trump are simply not in the same categories of concern. And even as DeSantis throws bones to populists and nationalists, it is nevertheless self-evidently clear that there will be far more space in the Republican coalition for classical liberals under his leadership than under Trump’s.

So, let this be our line. We can both support DeSantis while also operating as the lower lights of a rocky harbor, helping his campaign by aiding its path but also by offering warning when rhetoric and campaign promises go too far afield of what would provide the off-ramp from Trumpism we seek.

Justin Stapley is the founding director of the Utah-based nonprofit Freemen Foundation and has worked as a junior research fellow for UVU’s Center for Constitutional Studies. Follow him on Twitter @JustinWStapley

Newsletter