Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
My Rational Case for Conservatives to Vote for Trump
Donald Trump was near the bottom of my candidate choices during the primaries. I was among those who thought that his intemperate remarks would spell the end of his campaign, but they did not. That his campaign consisted of a few slogans rather than policies disturbed me. As someone who follows the Kremlin’s perfidy closely, Trump’s offhand praise of Putin was more than disturbing and elicited warnings from me. As a committed small-government conservative, I worry that Trump’s instincts do not mirror my own. In a word, I am an unlikely Trump voter, but come November I will pull the Trump lever without hesitation. I consider my reasons rational and want to share them with Ricochet.
First, there is no doubt that a Clinton regime will nominate Supreme Court justices who meet the demands of her extreme left-wing base. With a Supreme Court dominated by proponents of a living constitution, the protections of the Bill of Rights and the final check on an out-of-control executive will be lost — and lost for decades.
Second, although Trump is a high variance candidate, we know that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, a known liar and, through the email scandal and the Clinton Foundation’s wheeling and dealing, she places personal interests above national interests. If Putin has her emails, we could have a President subject to Kremlin blackmail. Trump may have blemishes in his background, but none compare to Hillary. Were she anyone other than a Clinton, she would be under criminal indictment.
Third, Trump’s foreign policy cannot be worse than Hillary’s failed years as Secretary of State. He has stated clearly that his foreign policy will be dictated by the national interest, not by the Obama-Clinton “citizen of the world” approach.
Fourth, Trump is correct in promising to solve the free-rider problem with America’s allies. If NATO countries are not willing to contribute their fair share to the common transatlantic alliance, they should suffer the consequences. Hopefully, Trump will allow for a designated transition period to give NATO members time to contribute their share.
Fifth, Trump has tapped into mainstream America’s disenchantment with Washington’s domination by special interests. The American people understand our national politics are broken and that both sides of the aisle are complicit. The people understand the problem is not a lack of cooperation but of corruption. A Clinton administration would mean even more of a broken Washington. Trump will have to battle the odds, including many in his own party, to make the basic changes in Washington that the working people of America want.
Sixth, economists of virtually all persuasions, including myself, favor free trade. Thus my initial reaction to Trump’s attack on trade (much of which had the wrong target such as exchange rates) was negative. However, one needs only to read the business-page headlines (such as China’s deplorable treatment of Apple and the banning of American chicken) to see that Trump’s call for fair trade is not without merit. We do perhaps need better negotiators to achieve fair trade, and Trump might actually improve free trade in the end.
Seventh, if a nation does not have control of its borders, it is no longer a nation. Nations must determine who they wish to enter the country for work and eventual citizenship. Most wealthy countries, like the US and those in Europe, need immigrants for their labor force and economic growth, but the choice of whom to admit should be determined by sensible rules, such as admitting very large numbers of highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs. Who gets into the United States should not be determined by unguarded borders, human traffickers, and family relations. America’s high school dropouts understand what Washington does not. Open borders drive down their earnings. We know that Hillary would not pursue a “rational” approach. Trump has promised he will.
Eighth, Trump has street-fighter instincts that the Republicans’ last two presidential candidates lacked. John McCain refused to go after Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and Mitt Romney insisted on playing the role of gentleman candidate. The Democrats can only be beaten by a candidate who is able to outpunch them. It is important that Trump’s attacks not be sui generis, but should focus on specific weaknesses, like Hillary’s sullied history and her failure as Secretary of State.
Ninth, Trump has launched an effective campaign against political correctness and has provided the Republican Party with a model for dealing with media bias. Instead of tip-toeing around political correctness and a biased media, Trump has shown how to attack dead on. His success in this area could neutralize the Democratic Party’s ability to control the language and semantics of political campaigns for years to come.
My reservations about Trump include:
First, he has not demonstrated an ability to run a viable general-election campaign. To do so, he must focus on the opposition and not on fellow Republicans.
Second, I do not know the depth of his anti-government, strict constitutionalist convictions.
Third, he must demonstrate that he is willing to do the study and work which is required to be a viable national candidate.
But my Trump reservations are minor relative to the alternative. Rational voters have no choice but to look at the alternative. On this, Trump wins hands down.
This essay reflects the views of the author and is not reflective of the views of the Hoover Institution or the University of Houston.
Published in General
Brent: Do you really think someone on the editorial staff reads every word as it’s posted? My understanding is that redactions are generally in response to flags, because they have to rely on members as a first line of defense in identifying problematic posts.
Arahant: No, just that I might be the first to have flagged it. Trust me, they don’t like me better. I’ve been banned once and am probably on “double secret probation” right now.
Do you bother to read the comments here or just cast emotional aspersions?
If you will scroll back through the thread you will see that it was flagged 12 hours ago and ignored.
Additionally, if you will take the time to read you will that James of England immediately offered a recommendation. He is a moderator and while he does not have the ability/authority to redact comments he has a direct line to the editorial staff that does.
Before you get on a high horse and accuse me of being untoward do some due diligence counselor.
Well, Brent said he flagged it last night.
Apparently. I must have missed it. I shall now commit seppuku to expunge my shame.
In light of the speculation, some relevant facts:
And as an aside, this place hasn’t really gotten any more “civil” in my absence, has it?
No, arguably worse whenever there is anything involving Trump.
Perfect!
What?! Oh well, there’s the problem. Editors should be awake 24/7 to catch any and all CoC violations immediately as they occur. Or else something something distraction and excess commentary.
/sarc off
Painter Jean, respectfully and humbly submitted, this is not a claim that requires conjecture- she was the Secretary of State. There is no “think” or “might” involved when it comes to assessing her foreign policy, er, acumen. She was an unmitigated disaster.
Oh, I agree she was disastrous. I don’t know how much of that was inevitable given Obama in the White House being the ultimate driver of foreign policy, but I agree. But I think Trump has the potential to be worse.
I think in most (all?) things he has the potential to be worse and potential to be better.
I think in most (all?) things he has the potential to be worse and potential to be better.
Given the statements he has made, past and current, my money’s on him being worse.
Nobody could be worse.
Nobody could be worse.
You don’t know that. A failure of imagination, as someone else put it. I can easily imagine Trump being worse.
However, possibility is not probability.
Right. I mean, I could imagine Hildabeast becoming likable and personable, instead of a cackling robot, but let’s get real folks.
You’re right, we can imagine a lot of things.
Let me see what Ty Woods has to say about it.
I would respectfully suggest that if you don’t think Ricochet is more civil – even when its members are banging heads over Trump – then you haven’t read any Comments threads in any on-line newspapers or political blogs lately! Tempers may get the better of people around here from time-to-time, but we all (or almost all) recognize that we want what’s best for our country, and that what’s best will generally be found on the Conservative side of the political spectrum rather than on the “Progressive” side. Along with counting to 10 slowly before commenting (or responding), I think that’s a good thing for everyone to keep in mind.
Let’s not outsmart ourselves once again.
(edit) And by the way, there is nothing wrong with my imagination.
Right. Just try arguing with people on Facebook and see how “civil” that can be.
Let’s not outsmart ourselves once again.
I hear you. But I’m simply not persuaded by the argument that Trump might be better than the awful Hillary. Based on what I see of Trump both past and present, I don’t think he’s going to be better. That’s my considered assessment. Both Hillary and Trump are unfit for the office, though in different ways (though they are both liars). I’m not going to cast my vote for either of them.
Ninth, Trump has already released his highly regarded list of Supreme court nominees.
Tenth, Trump is right, contrary to Politifact, about the rising crime rate and the destructive nature of the black lives movement on black lives.
Eleventh, Trump is right about the ongoing decline in prospects for members of minority communities. Many members of those communities know this as well.
Twelfth, Trump’s emphasis on industrial decline and the contemporary progressive rejection of US natural resource development plays well in the swing states. His recommendations in this area may cement both a general election victory and put some of those 95,000,000 US unemployed back to work.
Thirteenth, number twelve also resounds among American unionized workers but not their bosses. Actually wanting to build something in the US may attract votes from unexpected places.
Fourteenth, most of what I am reading right now reflects the MSM anti-Trump spin machine. Many but not all of the current polls have laughable internals, when they even consent to release those internals. Both the left and much of the right’s commentary reads like concern trolling right now. Maybe Trump should call LeBron James.
Ricochet: Still 100% Less Awful Than FB (and HuffPo…and Infowars)!
Feel free to borrow, Rob.
The sad truth is that no “spin machine” is necessary with the presumptive nominee. To spin the news is to relate the facts in such a way as to elicit a desired response. Just putting a camera and a microphone in front of Trump is all that is needed to show him in a bad light. Spinmeisters can certainly drive down a candidate’s poll numbers, but I doubt that alone would generate that 70% unfavorable result.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our media stars, but in our candidate.
Ninth, Trump has already released his highly regarded list of Supreme court nominees.
Almost instantly followed by the caveat that he might not choose them.
Eleventh, Trump is right about the ongoing decline in prospects for members of minority communities. Many members of those communities know this as well.
Recognizing that is about as piercing a perception as the sky is blue or that water is wet. The question I would raise about all of the points you mention is simple: what, concretely, does he propose to do about them? What does he propose to do about ISIS, for example? Oh, that’s right, we’re not going to get involved in that cesspool, but at the same time we’re going to take their oil. What does that look like? And since he changes his mind on a whim, who could put any trust in what he says he’ll do anyway, on any issue? He’s been a liberal Democrat most of his life. I don’t think he’s changed.
Your post is reasoned and informative. I honestly don’t know how anyone who calls themselves a Republican can vote any other way. Astoundingly, some of the comments on here sound like they are coming from the Democrats. It makes no sense.
You got me there. There’s no picture of HRC where she doesn’t strike me as hideous.
Your post is reasoned and informative. I honestly don’t know how anyone who calls themselves a Republican can vote any other way.
I call myself a conservative. I’m a Republican only so long as the party remains a vehicle for conservatism — small government, adherence to the Constitution, respect for character and virtue. Trump isn’t a conservative and does not display any of the virtues of character and honesty that I require, so he hasn’t earned my vote. Neither has Hillary, for the same reasons. I’m just going to leave that line blank or write someone in. I don’t understand what is so incomprehensible about that. You might not agree, but it is a reasonable response to being presented with two lying crooks for candidates.
Astoundingly, some of the comments on here sound like they are coming from the Democrats. It makes no sense.
Trump sounds like a liberal Democrat, probably because he has been one most of his life. It makes no sense for me, a conservative, to vote for a liberal Democrat. I think that’s reasonable.
Infowars is at least an entertaining spectator sport.