I learned that I don't need to agree 100% with an author's premises to find value in what she writes.

She is a bit partisan, but on the other side, it is about time for us on the right to completely re-evaluate MAGA, and go about creating a third way, distinct from the old mainstream republicanism of the McCains and Bushes, but also critical of what MAGA turned out to be.

“This article reached a conclusion from the author’s perspective” is not a criticism of writing. It is a description of writing.

Good writing is almost never neutral. It can be fair, careful, honest, and proportionate. But if it has nothing to say, it isn’t good writing.

“ Republicans who voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and deny the results of that election. The dividing line is the denial itself: the willingness to hold that an election was stolen in the absence of evidence. That single belief turns out to be a genetic marker. Everything else travels with it.”

He doesn’t seem to be talking about conservatives or republicans broadly; seems like he’s focusing on a much smaller minority of people in society with very specific and fringe views. Perhaps it is “bias” to lump these people with the rest of conservatives.

Conservative vote is literally "cruelty is the point" and "empathy is bad thing" vote. That vote was motivated by explicit wish to harm and by masculinity being defined as "manly man is asshole" ideology.

Liberals are big tent of "not like that" that encompasses also assholes, but, crutially, not only them