Issuing Correction to Dispatch Pundits: You Do Not, Under Any Circumstances, "Gotta Hand It To" Chip Roy

Good Chip Roy gets trumped by Pandering Chip Roy, every time.

Above: the Very Serious and Thoughtful Chip Roy explains to Laura Ingraham that voters rejected Liz Cheney because they “didn’t want more of the swamp.”

I gotta get something off my chest. For years now, I have listened to some of my favorite pundits on my favorite site, The Dispatch, extol the alleged Sincerity and Serious Thoughtfulness of one Charles Eugene "Chip" Roy, who represents Texas's 21st congressional district. Roy is a personal friend of Sarah Isgur, who hosts the Dispatch Live podcast and appears on (and will soon host) the excellent legal podcast Advisory Opinions. Isgur, Jonah Goldberg, and Steve Hayes have often talked up Roy and his alleged earnest nature. Even my favorite writer, Allahpundit, whom I will have to start learning to call “Nick Catoggio,” has given Roy points for sincerity, saying of Roy: “You may disdain his policies or his political style but by all accounts he means what he says.”

I beg to differ. It’s rare that I’m more cynical than Nick, but I don’t think Chip Roy is truly sincere about anything . . . other than, perhaps, staying in step with his voters. And if that’s how you define “principle,” then the United States Congress is chock-full of the most principled people on the planet Earth.

If we are going to be charitable—and we like to be charitable, don’t we?—the story of Chip Roy is a battle between good Chip Roy and Pandering Chip Roy. As I will note below, Good Chip Roy exists, and sometimes does good things for a while. But Pandering Chip Roy always wins in the end.

If you want the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read) version of why I doubt Roy’s good faith, look no further than the caption of the photo that opens this newsletter. Chip Roy telling Laura Ingraham that Liz Cheney, of all people, represents “the swamp” is really all you need to know about Chip Roy. I could end this thing right now and it would be a convincing refutation of any argument about the seriousness of Chip Roy.

I could almost equally end the conversation with sane readers simply by showing you this:

Or this:

Acyn @Acyn

Chip Roy: As we are looking at what’s happening in Ukraine… we’re looking at that and we’re talking about war crimes, I want to talk about the crimes against humanity that has been perpetrated by Anthony Fauci, the CDC, and the federal government against the American people

This does not strike me as the commentary of a serious person.

But if you’re a regular reader, then you’re not satisfied with TL;DR explanations. My favorite readers have more of a VL;RA attitude: Very Long; Read Anyway. So strap on your seatbelts and come with me on this ride, while I explain my disdain for the notion that Chip Roy is anything more than a standard pandering politician. Roy is smart, to be sure, and his intelligence gives him the ability to spin out rationalizations for his pandering that sometimes sound semi-plausible. Good Chip Roy pokes his head above ground from time to time. But in the end, Pandering Chip Roy is who he is at his core—notwithstanding the plaudits he receives from my favorite pundits at The Dispatch.

But First, A Digression: I Really Do Like The Dispatch

When I criticize pundits I like, I sometimes feel obligated to do a little throat-clearing at the outset, and explain that I really do like the people whose views I am about to savage. (For example, I did that with posts where I vigorously attacked certain views espoused by David French, here and here. I pulled no punches in those posts, but made it clear that I like and admire French despite my strong criticism of certain of his opinions.) And because in this newsletter I intend to be pretty sharp in my criticism of Isgur and her Chip Roy fan club at The Dispatch, I want to start out by saying that I really do like and admire these folks.

Let’s start with Isgur herself. Now, I have some deep disagreements with her, starting with her patently ridiculous view that the O.J. Simpson jury got it right.

Patterico @Patterico

Listening to Advisory Opinions, the niche (least-dented can) podcast from The Dispatch, only to hear @whignewtons claim the OJ jury acquitted for the “right reasons.” Spoken like someone who was 12 when the verdict came down! Thanks to @DavidAFrench for the much-needed pushback!

Ay-yai-yai. Also, as I think I will make plain in this newsletter, I find Isgur too partisan at times, especially on the question of the significance of January 6. I probably disagree with her more than I disagree with any other regular contributor to The Dispatch.

But all that aside, Isgur is a whip-smart, highly plugged-in legal commentator, and the Advisory Opinions podcast she does with David French is one of my must-listens. Even when she is giving an opinion with which I disagree, she always gives reasons for her opinions, and I absolutely credit her with sincerity at all times—even including when she is extolling the virtues of Chip Roy. Unlike Roy himself, whom I will demonstrate is not fundamentally a serious person, I see Isgur as someone who really does always mean what she says. And frequently, what she says is very insightful. It’s hard to express how much I have learned listening to Advisory Opinions—about the finer points of appellate procedure, esoteric doctrines in the law, and all manner of legal nerdery—and she deserves a significant share of the credit for that.

I think regular readers know how much I admire Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes, and I don’t need to go on at great length about that again. I originally subscribed to The Dispatch not so much because I felt a driving need to read the content that only paid subscribers could access, but because I felt that these two men were among the more principled pundits out there, and they deserved my financial support. When they made the brilliant decision to bring on Catoggio, whom I continue to believe is the best writer on the Web, I showed my appreciation by converting my annual subscription to a lifetime subscription. The site they have built is based on sincerity and telling like it is.

If any of these folks were to happen to read this piece, I would want them to know that although I am going to be tough on them here, I respect them as people. I know it’s tough to be criticized, but when you understand that the criticism comes from a position of respect for the person whose views are being attacked, I think it makes for a more constructive conversation. So, like the Joker explaining his motives for kidnapping Two-Face and Rachel and strapping them down next to some explosives, when I say that my criticism of Dispatch pundits over Chip Roy is nothing personal, you know that I’m telling you the truth.

I should probably add that there is some nuance here. Jonah Goldberg pushes back against the alleged consistency of Saint Roy, and Isgur often agrees with some of Goldberg’s points. And so, although you will see some over-the-top praise for Roy from Isgur especially, you’ll also see her agree with some of the pushback. Taking all of their statements in context and viewing them fairly, the picture they paint of Roy is not always as rosy and uncomplicated as it will sound in some of the quotes I will provide.

Dispatch Pundits’ Praise for Chip Roy’s Sincerity

Let me set the stage by citing examples of the Dispatch pundits’ praise for Chip Roy. As we will see, my loyalty to The Dispatch actually plays some role in some of their recent praise of Chip Roy. This is because I happened to be present and commenting (under my real name, Patrick Frey) during a recent episode of Dispatch Live, on January 3, when Isgur and Goldberg the crew were discussing the recent Speaker of the House fight. Someone made a comment about how Roy’s position was principled. Although I happen to think Roy’s opposition to McCarthy had some merit, the praise for Roy rekindled an irritation I have often felt in hearing these folks praise him, and I made a comment about Roy in the chat function. Isgur happened to see my comment, and it sparked a discussion. You can listen along if you’re a member, beginning at 33:41. (If you’re not a member, I will quote liberally, in the hopes that your interest will be piqued and you’ll consider a trial subscription.)

ISGUR: All right, we’ve brought him up a couple times, but Patrick Frey says: “Can we please stop giving Chip Roy the benefit of the doubt?” And I think it’s worth a few minutes with both of us to talk about why we keep giving Chip Roy the benefit of the doubt, because I think actually we come at it from very different places and have ended up in the same place, and I hope that with Dispatch members we have some credibility to explain why we keep treating Chip differently than some of the other folks in the Freedom Caucus and the Never Kevin crowd.

(By the way, Ms. Isgur, it’s pronounced “Fry”—like Glenn Frey from The Eagles. No relation.)

Isgur discussed her history with Roy, beginning with John Cornyn’s 2002 Senate campaign. Roy was in law school at the University of Texas School of Law (a point in his favor, I should add). Roy went on to become Ted Cruz’s Chief of Staff when Isgur’s husband was Cruz’s Chief Counsel. Roy and Isgur’s husband were both at the Texas Attorney General’s Office. In short, Isgur has known Roy for most of her life. And early on, with what I would argue is a deep degree of credulousness, she extols Roy’s Great Sincerity in truly glowing terms:

ISGUR: You can not like what Chip believes, but believe me when I tell you that Chip believes it. This isn’t about political maneuvering. If Chip thought that his constituents would vote him out of office for believing what he believed and for voting the way that he would want to vote, he will happily leave Congress. He is not one of those guys who just wants to sit in Congress for sort of the power and prestige.

. . . .

So, again, hate Chip Roy. Disagree with everything he does and everything he believes in, but believe me, like, he absolutely believes it. It’s coming from true, you know, strap-on-the-vest type place.

It is this view of Roy that I contest. I believe that if Roy has any foundational principle, it is to pander to his voters. Good Chip Roy has other principles, too, and he sometimes acts according to them—right up to the point where they violate his foundational principle that you ultimately have to pander to your voters. Then he becomes Pandering Chip Roy. That is the case I intend to make here.

To his credit, Goldberg pushes back on Isgur’s upbeat picture of Roy as a man of Deep Conviction, saying Roy has “a problem common to many lawyers, that he can come up with such smart, internally consistent arguments that he convinces himself that a lawyerly argument is an argument from conviction.” (Isgur agrees with Goldberg on that, to her credit.)

Goldberg then goes on to cite Roy’s views on impeachment—which, as it happens, is one of my key grievances against Roy (although certainly not my only one). So let’s explore that.

Chip Roy’s Shifting Rhetoric on Impeachment

As an example of a lawyerly argument that is not really an argument from conviction, Goldberg cites Chip Roy’s explanation of his “no” vote on impeaching Donald Trump for inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

GOLDBERG: Chip Roy’s explanation about impeachment—which I think was within the four corners, as you people say, as your ilk [the legal profession — P] says, totally defensible and correct—was a real “not seeing the forest for the trees” kind of argument. Like, going, as a member of the House, saying that what he did was impeachable, but this bill of impeachment doesn’t work for me . . . I get it, but he was looking to find a way not to vote for impeachment.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

Isgur says she thinks that’s true, which is interesting, but goes on to defend Roy in this way:

I think that’s true, but it’s actually—I’m glad you brought that up, because to me it illuminates Chip’s personality really, really well, the good, the bad . . . look, this isn’t a defense; this is, I actually think you’re exactly right, if you want to know about Chip Roy. So, his argument was, Nancy Pelosi didn’t involve any Republicans in the drafting of that. I mean, I’ve talked to you about this as well, that if Nancy Pelosi actually wanted to pick up more votes for impeachment, you needed to just focus on the dereliction of duty, The End. And instead, it was basically drafted in a way that if you supported Donald Trump on Election Day, then you couldn’t vote for impeachment, because it was about all this other stuff starting back in August or July heading into the fall. Yeah, so Chip’s argument was, “I’m happy to help draft the article of impeachment. I think there’s a lot of Republican votes to be had here. I don’t know if it’s enough. But this ain’t it and it’s not the right process and Nancy Pelosi’s a political hack for doing it this way so I’m not going to vote for it because I don’t believe these things. And if I did say I believed those things, then it would mean that everything I did in the fall didn’t make any sense when I was supporting Donald Trump.”

Isgur agrees that this is a lawyerly explanation and that it misses the forest for the trees, but “that’s very, very Chip, also.” Goldberg responds with derision about lawyers and with their lawyerly arguments about legal procedure with respect to impeachment—which they concede is not just a legal proceeding. He says that “the idea that you can’t have political considerations in an admittedly political proceeding because it violates B.S. nerdy legal technicalities in the language, I think is political hackery masquerading as lawyerliness.” He later makes clear that he is pointing the accusatory finger at Chip Roy (among others) when he says this: "The lawyerliness that is brought to the impeachment stuff drives me crazy and I think Chip Roy’s position on it is part of it.” That said, Goldberg concedes, while Chip Roy’s political analysis on the Speaker question seems questionable, he is willing to concede Chip Roy’s integrity, as compared to the Boeberts and Gaetzes.

Goldberg’s position has been far more popular with the commenters to the January 3 Dispatch Live post, a couple of whom made insightful points I would like to register my agreement with here. CarsonJ said:

It seems to me that Chip Roy will trot out the "of course I support this, just not this *version* of it," whenever he might be in a position to anger his constituents. He did that with impeachment and the bipartisan January 6 committee, so at this point I really wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (and since weasels are not that heavy, I could probably throw him pretty far).

Seth B added:

Roy even did his "yes, but not this way" routine this when voting against making Juneteenth a national holiday.

His argument on that occasion was: "Juneteenth should be commemorated … [but] the holiday should not be called 'Juneteenth National Independence Day' but rather 'Juneteenth National Emancipation (or Freedom or otherwise) Day.' This name needlessly divides our nation on a matter that should instead bring us together by creating a separate Independence Day based on the color of one's skin."

I cite this to show that Roy has a pattern of avoiding tough decisions by saying, as Seth B puts it so well, “yes, but not this way” as an indirect way of saying “no” . . . when saying “no” directly would make him sound unprincipled.

I don’t think anyone not already on the Chip Roy bandwagon believes that, if Nancy Pelosi had just drafted an article of impeachment focusing on dereliction of duty, Chip Roy would have lined up to vote “yes” and torpedo his political career.

Ah, but you say, you’re just speculating here, Patterico! What actual evidence do you have to give you a basis to believe Roy would dismiss Trump’s January 6 actions as unimpeachable even if presented with a proper bill of particulars? Well, as it happens, Roy has himself has made statements on more than one occasion to the effect that Donald Trump ought not to have been impeached at all.

In fact, in another Dispatch Podcast episode, Chip Roy himself was interviewed—by one Sarah Isgur!—about various issues like January 6 and the impeachment. This episode took place on May 21, 2021. Members can listen along here. (Please do yourself a favor, by the way, and read the comments from members about Roy’s performance in the interview. They are not kind.) At 34:55, Chip Roy tells the audience that he did not agree that it was appropriate to impeach Trump:

I came down to a different conclusion than others that this is not a time or place to go impeach. I’m a former prosecutor. Some things are prosecutable, and you choose not to do it. I think we do have a duty to move forward.

You see what he just said, right? This was not about Nancy Pelosi failing to focus on dereliction of duty, or any other such bilious rot. He’s saying he was not going to vote to impeach, period. Lest you think this was a one-off, Roy gave a similar quote to National Review’s John McCormack.

But why did Roy, who said in January that Trump had clearly committed an impeachable act, think it was so offensive for Cheney to say Trump shouldn’t have a role in the party?

“That an action was condemnable — that an action was impeachable — doesn’t mean necessarily it should be impeached,” Roy said.

“It’s kind of like there are sins in the Bible for which you might leave a spouse — you know, committing adultery, for example. That doesn’t mean that the marriage should fall apart,” he added. “What I think we’ve got to do is work with the president and work with our entire coalition of Republicans behind four years of a really strong agenda and move forward.”

I’ll have a llllot more to say about Chip Roy and his indefensibly hypocritical and inconsistent views about Liz Cheney in a moment, believe me. But for now, focus on the part of that quote I have bolded. Roy is saying Trump should not have been impeached at all. And he thereby gives away the game.

This was never about Nancy Pelosi giving Chip Roy the wrong article of impeachment to vote on. Not only is that one of those hyper-lawyerly arguments that Goldberg condemned, but the quotes I just provided show that Goldberg is actually being too kind to Roy, because even the hyper-lawyerly argument is not sincere. If this objection had been met, Chip Roy would have found another excuse not to impeach.

I know what it is like to have a juror who will never vote to convict. Try talking to the holdouts on an 11-1 or 10-2 hung jury. (It’s been quite a while since that has happened to me, but it has happened.) Such people can offer you all kinds of rationales, but the rationales are actually rationalizations. These people were simply never going to vote for you. Period.

And Chip Roy was simply never going to vote to impeach Donald Trump over January 6. Period.

So please, please, please, I beg of you, stop trying to convince me that Chip Roy would have totally impeached Donald Trump if Nancy Pelosi would have just done it right. That is a pile of hay long since processed through a horse’s digestive system.

By the way, if you want a little insight into just how partisan Chip Roy is, try this on for size. In the Dispatch Podcast quote I just cited, after explaining that you don’t impeach for every impeachable offense, Roy goes off, with a rousing speech about how we might lose our Republic, saying ”I don’t think we have very much time left.” We need to “save this Republic, or we’re not going to have it.” My goodness! Those are strong words! And . . . just what does Chip Roy think might endanger our Republic? The refusal of a president to accept the results of a peaceful and fair election? That president’s active efforts to steal said election? The violent marching of a mob on the U.S. Capitol to disrupt the lawful counting of votes? The first time in our country’s history where we failed to achieve a peaceful transfer of power?

No, of course those aren’t the reasons that Serious and Earnest Truth-Teller Chip Roy says he thinks we might lose our Republic soon. Instead, he cites a laundry list of typical GOP complaints, like the porous border, our crushing national debt, and even the “undermining of the very American ethos with things like Critical Race Theory and so forth.” Look: I’m a critic of a lot of the new so-called “anti-racism” that I think is mislabeled as CRT for branding reasons, but the idea that CRT is one of the key reasons our REPUBLIC IS ABOUT TO CRUMBLE!!!!1! is just arrant nonsense. And the thoroughly ridiculous nature of these comments reaches its apex when you consider that Chip Roy thinks that someone like Liz Cheney, who actually speaks out against the real threat to our Republic, has thereby forfeited her right to be a Republican leader and is even a member of the dreaded “swamp” of Washington D.C.

So let’s talk about Chip Roy’s infuriating views on Cheney next, because this is where he really, really lost me.