Here we go, folks! What do I know, really? I’m just a retired old geezer blogging from the comfort of my bedroom in Mesa, Arizona, with a birth story that ties back to Harry Truman’s era and has seen me through a whopping 15 presidential elections. But even with all that under my belt, I can’t help but chuckle at the spectacle of Jonathan Last’s ideological gymnastics. From the bastion of conservatism at The Weekly Standard to the liberal echo chamber of The Bulwark, it’s like watching someone trade their cowboy boots for ballet slippers. So, grab your popcorn and join me as we dive into the comedic saga of Jonathan Last’s political journey.
Jonathan Last is an Editor at The Bulwark, a magazine that claims to uphold the conservative ethos from before Donald Trump’s political ascent. Yet, skepticism persists regarding the conservative credentials of NeverTrump advocates like Last. Some might have been traditional conservatives, others could still hold onto a nuanced version of conservatism, but a significant number have migrated towards staunch Democratic support, fully endorsing the party’s agenda.
In this respect, Last’s trajectory nearly mirrors that of The Lincoln Project members, who also started as conservatives but are now known for their aggressive anti-Trump stance, fully aligning with progressive policies. Like Last, many from The Lincoln Project have become emblematic of this shift from conservative roots to a more liberal alignment.
The mask comes off in a moment of political honesty.
The Bulwark: Democrats should deport illegals because they’re no longer reliable illegal votes.@JVLast pic.twitter.com/D4OfiOmxyP
— Bluesky Libs (@BlueskyLibs) December 9, 2024
Well, lookee here, the great Jonathan Last, the “conservative” beacon of The Bulwark, has finally let his liberal sheep’s clothing slip off, revealing the wolf of progressive hypocrisy underneath! Democrats, he says, should not waste one ounce of their precious political capital on those pesky deportations Trump’s cookin’ up. Why? Because, apparently, those “people” – you know, the ones with brown skin and funny accents – aren’t part of your shiny, new voting bloc anymore! Madness, he calls it, to care for those who can’t pad your vote count. What a beacon of political honesty! Here’s to Jonathan Last, showing his true colors, proving once and for all that his “conservatism” is just a thin veneer over a heart beating for the Democrat party line, no matter how much it reeks of moral bankruptcy!
Hot Air, David Strom, December 9, 2025: Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud
Last is just saying the obvious: since illegals and their supporters are no longer reliable votes, the transaction Democrats tried to make (votes for a policy that damages America) is no longer viable.
Trump’s success with Hispanics shows that Democrats need to find another coalition partner, so drop the Hispanics and find some other group.
The more enlightening assumption is that the Democrats’ core constituency is the overeducated elite whose class identity matters more than anything else.
In other words, the ideology they claim is a total fraud. It is a costume they put on in order to gain power and nothing more. And hence, in Last’s case, the rejection of the current version of the Republican Party has always been about power. The hatred of Donald Trump has nothing to do with his populist policies and everything to do with his populist appeal.
He appeals to the wrong people–and that’s it. When Republicans were the upper classes’ preferred party, people like Last stuck with them. When they appeal to the working class, people like Last left the Party.
Transition from Conservative to Liberal Democrat Ideology.
Historical Context and Initial Ideology
Jonathan Last first made his mark in the political arena as a conservative writer for The Weekly Standard, a magazine renowned for its staunch neoconservative viewpoint and influential in shaping Republican thought. During his tenure at The Weekly Standard, Last’s articles were emblematic of the magazine’s commitment to traditional conservative ideologies. He championed skepticism towards expansive government intervention, advocated for free-market principles, and defended traditional social norms, resonating with the publication’s core readership. His writings often delved into foreign policy, where he supported a robust U.S. military presence and interventionism, aligning with the magazine’s neoconservative foreign policy stance.
Public engagements and debates saw Last articulating these views with clarity, often appearing on panels and in discussions where he critiqued liberal policies while extolling the virtues of conservative governance. His work during this period was not just about policy but also about preserving a cultural and moral framework that he believed was under threat from progressive changes. This era of Last’s career painted him as a defender of conservative values, a role that contrasted sharply with his later ideological shifts.
Washingtonian: The Bulwark Was Founded to Oppose Trump. Now What?
The Weekly Standard was one of many Washington institutions that Donald Trump threw into chaos. In 2018, the 23-year-old conservative magazine was shut down by its pro-Trump owners after the publication’s staff adopted an anti-Trump stance. So Weekly Standard cofounder Bill Kristol and political strategist Sarah Longwell decided to create the Bulwark, a fun, punchy Never Trump website that found success—and broke news—catering to readers who yearned for serious coverage of events through a center-right filter.
So . . . now what? With Trump gone from the White House, lots of media outlets are trying to retool for a less frantic (and traffic-generating) news environment. That task seems even trickier for publications that were created specifically for the purpose of opposing him.
Yet the Bulwark’s editor, Jonathan V. Last, insists that his young publication’s mission “doesn’t shift all that much” even without its raison d’être. After all, Trump might be golfing in Florida, but Trumpism has hardly disappeared. Last also sees a potentially receptive audience among centrist Democrats who, in his view, might be “uncomfortable with the excesses of the progressive left.” He suggests that the Bulwark’s point of view isn’t fossilized; it can expand to greet new political developments: “The nice thing about being in the middle of building something is that you don’t have to have a party line.”
Evidence of Ideological Shift
Shift in Political Affiliation:
Last’s association with The Bulwark, a publication that explicitly positions itself as NeverTrump, marks a clear departure from traditional conservative support for Republican candidates. The Bulwark’s mission is often framed as a return to “pre-Trump conservatism,” but in practice, it has aligned more closely with opposition to Trump than with upholding conservative tenets. This suggests a prioritization of opposition to a single figure over broader conservative principles, indicative of a shift towards a more liberal, or at least anti-Republican, stance.
Endorsement of Democratic Policies:
Recent statements and writings by Last indicate an acceptance of policies that traditional conservatives would typically oppose. For instance, his remarks on not opposing Trump’s deportation plans because immigrants aren’t part of the Democratic electoral coalition anymore reveal a pragmatic, politically expedient position rather than one rooted in conservative values of limited government intervention or individual liberty. This implies a strategic alignment with Democratic political strategies, suggesting a shift in ideological allegiance.
Jonathan Last, The Bulwark: Trump Is Going to Lose. (Probably.) The Democratic convention was a strategic masterstroke.
On the first count, the convention was a total success. The Democratic party was a healthy and united institution.
Consider the following: Democrats featured Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton—that’s all but two of the living Democratic presidential nominees going back to 1992.
The Republican convention featured no former presidential nominees. The state of the Republican party is so toxic that previous nominees—even previous presidents—have been unpersoned and read out of the movement.
That’s a portrait of two institutions: One institution in harmony with its legacy and continuing to evolve in such a way as to hold its coalition together. The other institution in a state of convulsion.
Donald Trump is on track to lose the popular vote for a third consecutive election; a mark of futility and failure unlikely to be duplicated.
He should lose the Electoral College, too.
Jonathan’s article on The Bulwark serves as a poignant illustration of how his conservative coat has become threadbare, if not utterly unraveled. In this piece, Last’s optimism for a Democratic victory articulated through what he perceives as strategic brilliance by the Democrats, betrays a significant departure from traditional conservative skepticism of Democratic policies and candidates. His prediction was starkly off the mark, as evidenced by Trump’s clear victory in the 2024 election, highlighting a significant misjudgment of the political landscape.
His focus on the Democratic Party’s unity and strategic positioning against Trump, rather than critiquing or offering a conservative counter-strategy, underscores a shift from conservative analysis to a more liberal hopefulness. Last’s readiness to laud Democratic efforts in a manner that celebrates their potential to defeat Trump, while downplaying or ignoring the conservative alternatives or principles, suggests he no longer dons the full garb of conservatism but rather wears a patchwork of political convenience that aligns more closely with liberal aspirations.
From Neocon to Neo-Liberal: Last’s Political Journey … Why?
Cultural and Social Positions:
Jonathan Last’s commentary on a wide array of cultural and social issues, such as his critiques of the GOP’s handling of immigration, voting rights, and social justice, clearly reflects his shift towards values more commonly embraced by liberal Democrats. In his writings for The Bulwark, Last often takes a critical stance against traditional conservative viewpoints. For instance, he has argued against the GOP’s stringent immigration policies by highlighting their lack of compassion and economic shortsightedness, advocating instead for more inclusive and humane approaches.
On voting rights, Last has challenged conservative efforts to limit access, aligning himself with progressive arguments that emphasize the importance of broad voter enfranchisement. Furthermore, his discussions on social justice issues reveal a nuanced critique of conservative positions, often focusing on the need for equality and inclusivity, which resonates with the liberal push for social equity. This pattern in his work signifies a departure from the conservative social policies he once supported, indicating a significant embrace of liberal perspectives on these pivotal issues.
Collaborations and Alliances:
Jonathan Last’s collaborations have become a clear indicator of his ideological drift, associating with figures and organizations that are markedly left-leaning or outright liberal Democrats. His frequent appearances on platforms like MSNBC or in publications like The Atlantic, which cater predominantly to liberal audiences, showcase a stark hypocrisy. Here’s a man who once championed conservative values now seeking validation from those he would have previously opposed. His partnership with Bill Kristol, another figure known for his conservative roots but now an ardent critic of Trump and supporter of Democrats, particularly in the context of opposing Trump, underscores this transformation.
This association is not just about shared opposition to a single political figure but seems to reflect a broader alignment with the Democratic agenda, revealing Last’s ideological reorientation with a glaring inconsistency between his past and present political stances. This shift is all the more hypocritical when considering Last’s earlier criticisms of liberals for their supposed lack of principles, now seemingly mirroring the very traits he once denounced.
Rhetorical Style and Framing:
The language and framing Jonathan Last employs in his recent articles have starkly shifted, adopting a tone and critique that mirror those of liberal commentators. His writings now frequently delve into topics like authoritarian tendencies, systemic racism within the GOP, and the urgent call for political reform, using language that resonates with progressive critiques rather than the balanced or skeptical analysis expected from a conservative viewpoint.
This evolution in rhetoric not only highlights a significant ideological realignment but also marks a descent into commentary that has degenerated well beyond the realm of reason. Last’s current discourse often lacks the nuance and critical examination of both sides that characterized earlier conservative thought, instead painting with broad strokes that caricature conservative positions while elevating liberal ones to an almost unassailable status. This departure from reasoned argumentation into polemic suggests a complete embrace of liberal narratives, where the complexity of political issues is often reduced to partisan talking points.
TheBulwark.com: Where Liberal Narratives Drown Out Reason
Oh, what a delight, The Bulwark – the bastion of supposed “conservatism” that’s turned into a veritable playground for anti-Trump liberals masquerading in conservative drag! Here’s a site where the stories drip with such a thick layer of anti-Trump vitriol you’d think they were trying to drown the man in their own sanctimonious ink. Every click leads you down a rabbit hole of articles that are less about conserving anything and more about conserving their newfound love for liberal talking points. They’ve got a veritable buffet of stories that paint Trump as the devil incarnate, while simultaneously kissing the feet of any Democrat who might even whisper the word “progressive.”
Their coverage is a masterclass in cherry-picking facts to fit a narrative that would make even the most biased MSNBC host blush. You’ll find pieces that not only critique but downright mock the GOP’s approach to anything from immigration to voting rights, all while wearing the mask of “principled conservatism.” But let’s be real, the principles have gone out the window faster than a conservative at a DNC fundraiser!
The Bulwark’s articles are a parade of “look at us, we’re the ‘good’ conservatives now,” but really, they’re just liberals who’ve found a new stage to perform their melodrama. They talk about authoritarianism, but only when it suits their anti-Trump vendetta and social justice. Oh, they’re all in on that, but only if it’s framed in a way that bashes the right. Their so-called “conservatism” is nothing more than a tattered flag waving in the winds of liberal ideology, making The Bulwark less a fortress of conservative thought and more a turnstile for anyone wanting to jump on the Trump-bashing bandwagon.
In February of this year, Charlie Sykes addressed his exit from The Bulwark:
As you may have seen yesterday, I have some actual personal news:
After five years of daily podcasts and newsletters, I’m leaving The Bulwark. I’m immensely proud of what we’ve done and of my amazing colleagues. Founding and contributing to The Bulwark has been an honor and a privilege.
As much as I love putting out a 2,000-word morning newsletter and six podcasts a week —and having conversations with the smartest and most interesting people around — there’s always the risk of being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of idiocracy out there.
As I mentioned on yesterday’s podcast, I think it’s easy to lose perspective (and sanity) by tracking every development, hot take, poll, and hair-on-fire outrage.
It turns out that having your face pressed up against the firehouse of hackery, lies, and absurdity is not the optimal way of understanding what is actually happening to us. Losing our minds is not the way to win this fight.
And we have to win this fight, because everything is on the line this year, and it is more important than ever for rational, principled center-right voices to stand athwart the right’s mad rush toward cultism and demagoguery.
Charlie Sykes’ departure from The Bulwark, as announced in this piece confirms the broader ideological shift among self-described conservative writers. Sykes, once a prominent conservative voice, has increasingly aligned himself with liberal critiques, particularly in his vehement opposition to Trumpism. His decision to step back from daily involvement with The Bulwark does not alter the trajectory of his ideological journey, which has seen him move from a staunch conservative commentator to a figure more comfortable within the liberal discourse against Trump and his supporters, hence his note of goodbye: “Since so many of you have asked, I’m staying with MSNBC, so you may catch me there from time to time.”
MSNBC is decidedly not known for its conservative-themed offerings; rather, it has carved out a niche as a liberal-promoting news network. Its programming and commentary consistently reflect progressive viewpoints, with hosts and contributors often critiquing conservative policies and figures, making it a go-to channel for liberal analysis and Democratic perspectives.
MSNBC is the grand stage for liberal histrionics where the hosts don’t just report the news; they perform it like it’s the last act of a Shakespearean tragedy. Take Mika Brzezinski, who once had a meltdown so epic you’d think she was auditioning for a role in “The Exorcist,” ranting about Trump with the kind of fervor usually reserved for someone who’s just discovered their beer’s gone flat. And let’s not forget Rachel Maddow, the queen of conspiracy theories, who turns every segment into a dramatic unveiling of “truths” that somehow always paint conservatives as the villains in her liberal fairy tale. Then there’s Joy Reid, whose show is less like a news broadcast and more like a therapy session for the perpetually outraged, where every Republican policy is a personal affront. These folks don’t just have liberal outbursts; they’ve turned it into an art form, making MSNBC the place where sanity goes to die and where every word is slathered in so much bias you need a shovel to get through it.
Just like The Lincoln Project… minus the grifter gravy train.
TheBulwark.com … the spit and image of The Lincoln Project, but without the sweet, sweet cash from liberal grifters lining their pockets? They’ve taken the same playbook, swapped out the fundraising scams for a subscription model, and voilà, you’ve got yourself a media echo chamber where the only thing conservative is their logo. They’ve got their hands out for donations, sure, but it’s all wrapped in the guise of a nonprofit, making you think they’re above the fray of political grifting. But let’s not kid ourselves; they’re peddling the same anti-Trump vitriol, just without the handy support of those big, fat liberal checks. They’ve got to hustle harder for every penny, relying on the few who’ll pay for their sanctimonious drivel or watch their endless stream of podcasts and live streams, all while pretending they’re the last bastion of “principled conservatism.” It’s like watching a circus act, where the clowns are now wearing suits and preaching from a soapbox.
So here we have The Bulwark, these hard-working “Carnival Barkers” doing their damnedest to keep the show running, while The Lincoln Project’s insights come from the “nosebleed section” of political commentary – high up, far away, and barely relevant, but oh, how they love to shout down their opinions with all the fervor of fans who’ve had more than their share of beers.
Conclusion
While Jonathan Last once embodied many traditional conservative views, his current activities, statements, and the platform he leads suggest a clear transition towards embracing liberal Democrat values. This shift isn’t just about opposition to one political figure but encompasses a broader alignment with Democratic policies, cultural values, and political strategies. The evidence from his public discourse, affiliations, and the evolution of his commentary all point towards a journey from conservatism to a position more aligned with liberal Democrat politics. This conclusion is drawn not from isolated incidents but from a pattern of behavior and advocacy that has evolved over time.