With Harris Endorsement, Duncan Becomes a Man in Full

On Monday, in a post on Biden’s decision to end his Presidential campaign and throw his support to his Vice-President, Kamala Harris, I mentioned that former Georgia Republican Lt. Governor Geoff Duncan, who had endorsed Biden over Trump in a May op-ed, had, “stopped short of endorsing Harris, but double downed on his ‘Anyone But Trump‘ position.”

Today my fellow Chattahoochee High School classmate made it official, as he went on the Politically Georgia podcast to officially endorse Harris’s bid for the White House.

Duncan reinforced and reiterated his decision on X.

While some could almost excuse Duncan’s decision to endorse Joe Biden, who for his Senate career was mostly a middle-of-the-road Delaware Democrat, Duncan’s endorsement of the Vice-President and former California Senator, who was ranked in 2019 the most liberal Member of the U.S. Senate by GovLink, a ranking that suddenly disappeared from the Internet earlier this week after Harris became the likely nominee, seems almost shocking for a former Republican elected official who described himself as a “lifelong conservative” and was once backed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who was reported to be on Trump’s final short list for Vice-President.

In 2021, Duncan published his vision of where the Republican Party needed to go in the aftermath of the MAGA movement. In GOP 2.0: How the 2020 Election Can Lead to a Better Way Forward for America’s Conservative Party Duncan made the claim, “GOP 2.0 is not a new party – it’s a better direction for our Republican Party.” 

However, Duncan seems to believe the best course for the Republican Party is to burn the whole party down, including conservative elected officials who are not part of the more Populist wing of the party that Trump and his supporters represent. In reality, his decision to back Harris makes his crusade look more like a personal vendetta against Donald Trump, who drove him out of elected office, rather than genuine concern for our Party’s future.

In 2021, while running for Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, I met with Duncan in his office at the capitol. While I will not reveal specific issues that we discussed, I left the meeting disheartened as Duncan’s war was not just against the chaos caused by Trump within the Georgia Republican Party, but against other, some long held pillars and principles of the Republican Party.

As the 2022 election cycle began, it became clear that Trump was going to try to exact his revenge on Republicans, like Brian Kemp, Geoff Duncan, Chris Carr, and Brad Raffensperger, who Trump and his supporters believed had failed him. Trump even recruited opposition to Insurance Commissioner John King since he had been appointed by Kemp. Of that group of incumbents, Duncan, who was already being talked about at as the leading candidate to succeed the term-limited Brian Kemp as the potential next Governor of Georgia, was the only one not to stand for re-election.

As Duncan rode out his term on the sidelines, the rest faced tough primaries, but all prevailed in the end, especially Kemp who received over 70% of the GOP vote over the Trump-backed David Perdue. It seems clear that if Duncan had stayed in, he would right now be the leading contender to succeed Brian Kemp as Governor with even higher office a possibility.

I have not had a conversation with Duncan in a couple of years. The last time I texted him, my text went unanswered, but by his continued crusade, one thing is clear, his tenure as a Republican elected official is over. While a career at CNN may be all he wants now, that will likely only continue as long as he can be a thorn in the Republicans’ side and that will mean he will have to tear down what he worked all those years in the Georgia House and as Lt. Governor to build. If his goal is to profit off that…being the overzealous opposition to Donald Trump, then it’s hard not to put him in the same camp as the grifters who profited off false claims of “stolen elections” and ballot harvesting “mules”.

The worst case for Duncan isn’t Armageddon, but Donald Trump simply having only four more years. Even the most ardent Trump critic in the GOP has to admit that, even if you don’t like the guy personally, he did some things to advance the conservative movement, even if one needed to cringe every time he opened his mouth. I will assume Duncan will have a speaking part at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago so he can make the case that open borders, weak foreign policy, free health care for illegal immigrants, voting rights for incarcerated felons, and every other left-winged bit of lunacy Harris has claimed to back is preferable to Trump, because personality is more important than policy.

In 1998, the late author Tom Wolfe published his novel A Man in Full, a satire chronicling the downfall of the fictional Charlie Coker, an Atlanta businessman, estate mogul, and former Georgia Tech football star (Duncan played baseball at Tech). While the phrase “a man in full” seems to indicate someone who is larger than life, Wolfe turns the phrase in that while Coker may have viewed himself as “larger than life” to build himself into a success, it is that very overly confident self-assurance that prevents him from seeing and stopping his own downfall.

Whether it is because of hubris or vengeance or other reasons I won’t speculate on, Duncan has become that term which is so loosely thrown around in GOP circles to the point that it has become almost meaningless, but is the only term that fits. As he continues to describe himself as a “Republican,” his actions show he is one in name only…hence, a RINO.

More than that, as it seemed only a few short years ago the sky was the limit for this once GOP star, he may even be better characterized simply as a man in full.

Epilogue: In May, Scot Turner posted his own thoughts about his former House colleague, Geoff Duncan. I highly recommend reading it too.

3 Replies to “With Harris Endorsement, Duncan Becomes a Man in Full”

  1. I’m surprised you don’t support allowing felons to vote. That way your boy tRump could at least vote for himself.

  2. I have to preface this with my personal journey from a Young Republican decades ago to a nonpartisan, if not anti-partisan today. I worked on both of Newt Gingrich’s failed campaigns against Jack Flynt in what was then Georgia’s 6th District. I had started a career and family and moved out of the district when Dixiecrat Flynt retired before Newt’s successful 3rd run. I welcomed Georgia’s conversion to a red state but really became disillusioned with party politics when witnessing my local county politicians transition from corrupt Democrats to corrupt Republicans. That is what I considered a RINO, though I don’t think that acronym had been coined yet.

    If flinging the term as a pejorative to someone who considers country over party then if I were that person I would gratefully accept the intended gibe as a compliment. It is especially rich when the RINO term is flung by Trump himself given his history.

    To me when Tom Wolfe used the phrase “a man in full,” he was referring to a person who embodies completeness, strength, and authenticity in all aspects of life. The phrase suggests someone who has achieved a state of maturity, self-awareness, and fulfillment, both personally and professionally. If I was Mr. Duncan I would also gratefully accept that appellation.

  3. “Even the most ardent Trump critic in the GOP has to admit that, even if you don’t like the guy personally, he did some things to advance the conservative movement…”

    OK, I can’t leave this one alone and unlike J.D. Vance 8 years ago I am going to resist breaking Godwin’s Law even though it directly mirrors a conversation I once had with a former SS-Junker School instructor and apologist. While as I mentioned earlier that I consider myself nonpartisan I have always considered myself a conservative and as Pye often says a “small l” libertarian.

    While it’s true many people have told me (sorry, couldn’t resist), former President Trump advanced certain aspects of the conservative agenda, it’s crucial to critically evaluate the nature and lasting impact of those so called advancements. Most of his policies and actions were controversial and divisive, often overshadowing for me any perceived gains for the conservative movement.

    The notion that Trump significantly advanced conservatism overlooks the damage his administration inflicted on traditional conservative values such as fiscal responsibility, respect for democratic norms, and the rule of law. His inconsistent stance on fiscal policy, characterized by significant deficit spending while we had economic expansion, contradicted longstanding conservative principles of fiscal prudence.

    Trump’s approach to governance was marked by unprecedented attacks on democratic institutions, including attempts to undermine the credibility of the electoral process itself. This is fundamentally at odds with conservative principles of upholding constitutional norms and the integrity of democratic institutions.

    Trump’s foreign policy decisions, while appealing to some conservatives in their assertiveness, often lacked strategic coherence (Putin anyone?) and alienated key allies (NATO), undermining America’s global leadership and the international order, a pillar of traditional conservative foreign policy. In assessing Trump’s impact on the conservative movement, it’s also essential to consider the long-term consequences of his rhetoric and actions. His inflammatory rhetoric and disregard for political norms have contributed to widening societal divisions and polarization, which run counter to the conservative goal of fostering unity and social stability.

    I apoligize for belaboring this but to me it’s critical for the GOP to reflect on whether the costs of Trump’s presidency, both to conservative values and to national unity, outweigh any perceived gains. Moving forward, true conservatism should strive to reclaim its principles of fiscal discipline, respect for institutions, and unity, while learning from the mistakes of recent years.

Comments are closed.