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.
Giving the Benefit of the Doubt and Voting One’s Conscience
I did not vote for Donald Trump in the primaries. Nor did I vote for my preferred choice in the primaries. By the time the primaries reached Michigan, my preferred choice had dropped out. So had my second choice. So had my third. By the time the primaries came to my state, I had to choose who the best remaining viable candidate was. That was Ted Cruz. Unfortunately, he did not win the nomination.
Now, the primaries were a rough fight and many of the candidates came out bruised up, including Cruz. Trump had insulted his wife and made accusations against his father. Slights of that kind can take time to heal. At the convention, Senator Cruz said, “Vote your conscience.” I agreed with that and intended to do so.
Back in late 1992, the numbers looked good for President Bush to win re-election. I didn’t think that my vote would matter much, and there was a party that aligned with my values better than Mr. Read-my-Lips. This third party was hoping to reach the threshold to have permanent ballot status, and to get it they needed at least 5% of the votes at the top of the ticket. No, I certainly did not vote for Perot. I worked for EDS at the time, the company he had founded, and I knew far too much about H. Ross Perot to vote for him, although some of my friends who were similarly employed were going for him. No, I was in the party of the white, male computer professional, the one that has since degenerated into the party of brain damage and fat guys in thongs. I walked out of the polls hopeful that we would get automatic ballot access status, but figuring Bush would get his second term, since it was obvious what Clinton was and what Perot was when he reactivated his campaign. I was surprised and very unhappy at the result.
Now, my one vote in Michigan would not have made a difference to the result had I voted for GHWB. But I still learned a lesson. When there is a choice between the clueless and the venal winning, and all others had no chance of winning, go with the clueless. I have never since voted for a third party (or even a second party, if you know what I mean.) It is a matter of conscience over strict observance, of the spirit of the principles I hold over the letter. The principles say, “I will only vote for freedom.” But sometimes, the spirit of that means I vote for “compassionate conservatism” over “We need to stop global warming!” It’s not that I vote for the lesser of two evils. I vote against the greater of two evils.
In this election season, we have an ugly, ugly choice. We have Trump, who is a populist who will probably be “business-as-usual” in Washington, so a more popular version of GHWB. I doubt he will do half of what he says he will, since a lot of things start in Congress. Sure, he sounds like a tin-pot dictator who has no clue what the Constitution is, but that doesn’t mean he will be one. Also, he does have a very long track record of being pro-America. And then we have Hillary Clinton, who has a very long track record of being an international socialist trying to shove European values and ideas down our throats. Her track record also includes lying and obstruction and corruption, including what looks to any normal person like accepting bribes for favors while Secretary of State. She was fired for lying from the Watergate Investigation, for goodness sake, and she has not improved since. If she gets elected, we have another four to eight years of scandals, including the new ones she and Bill will engender. One of these two individuals will be the next President of the United States, the CEO of the Federal Government. Gary “Duuuude!” Johnson will not be. Jill Stein will not be. As I said, the spirit of my principles is to vote against the greater evil, and I really believe that to be Hillary Clinton. I shall vote my conscience and darken the oval for Trump.
Now, some of you may think you are in a safe state where your vote doesn’t matter. A voter in Maryland votes for Clinton, knowing Maryland will go that way anyway and figures it’s a vote for the apocalypse? Alright. A voter in Texas thinks there is no way Texas will go for Clinton so votes for Johnson or Stein? Alright. But even were I in a safe state, I don’t feel that I could take the chance. Nor do I feel I can take the chance of not marking any oval for President. I have to vote against the greater evil.
Ted Cruz seems to have made the same calculus that I have and come up with similar conclusions. In his statement, Cruz wrote,
These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people. If Clinton wins, we know—with 100% certainty—that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country. My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.
He is not voting for Donald Trump. He is voting against Hillary Clinton. Cruz is facing a choice about his principles, and he has chosen the spirit over the letter, somewhat as William F. Buckley said to choose the most conservative candidate who is viable.
So, those of you who are castigating Senator Cruz for abandoning his principles, I would enjoin you to take another look at that idea and give the man the benefit of the doubt. He has had to overcome a lot of personal animus against Donald Trump to endorse him. He has had to be a bigger man that Trump. He has had to put aside what other people might think of him, such as your own accusations, to adhere to the spirit of his principles. Be as big as Cruz has shown himself to be. Put aside your animosity and try to see through his eyes.
Published in Politics
Nor is there a good case for Trump.
Or at least no one has bothered to make one despite our repeated requests.
I suppose, but the case has to be made. My biggest problem with public NeverTrumpers is that most of them don’t feel the need to make it (i.e. vis-a-vis Hillary).
I understand that many commenters on this website have taken the effort to make their case.
That’s unfair. Lot’s of people have made the case for Trump, particularly in comparison with Hillary. That it does not convince you is not the same as not making it.
Define “good.” What would make it acceptable? Besides that he was, say, Scott Walker instead of Trump.
While you clearly believe it would have been best for Cruz not to endorse, the point of the post is that there is no reason to assume it was necessarily self-serving, cynical, or unprincipled. You’re just disappointed that he did it.
And his objection evidenced the rest of Carter’s insult.
“Who would I rather smite?” is easy to answer. Trump is a clown. Hillary is dangerous. I, too, dearly wish to see Hillary dashed off to political inconsequence post haste. Too bad this question is a poor guide to making an election choice.
You misunderstand. When I say no one has made the case for Trump, I mean no one has made the case for Trump as opposed to against Hillary.
We’ve heard the case against Hillary, and while some of us may not agree with the, “This is our last chance!” interpretation, most of us agree with the facts of the case.
But we’ve been saying for months that if you want to change our minds you need to make a case for Trump, but no matter how many times we say this, we just get more of the same in response.
He has been an executive who was responsible for creating thousands of jobs. Actually, I don’t know what thread it was in today, but someone else made a list. That was included, as were several more things, including that he prefers business over government.
If you find that list, you might say that you could find a hundred people more qualified. I’m sure we could find a thousand, but they are not:
Regretfully I too will be voting for Stabbed rather than for Shot.
I can’t make much of a case for Trump myself without comparison to Hillary.
If I wanted to and could, though, I’ve just been told, quite adamantly by @jamielockett with the help of @rachellu that, whatever you do, don’t try to talk up Trump, because it will just annoy a NeverTrumper.
Based upon their posts and comments, I just don’t think Jamie and Rachel have any kind of open mind on it, whatever their protestations, at least not with regard to Trump himself. If there is some opening, an anti-NeverTrumper needs their help to find it, e.g. “here’s where I specifically could be persuaded.”
Perhaps you have been more clear about your openness to a pro-Trump argument.
Then you misread Rachel’s post and my comments. Rachel, and by agreeing with her I, are not saying that you should not try to convince us only that the arguments thus far used are not particularly effective at convincing us.
The response I received was “Those are our best arguments! You’re basically saying it’s impossible to convince you”. To that I say: they may have been what swayed you but they are not the best arguments for convincing someone like Rachel or I. If you have no other arguments then maybe you should all stop haranguing NeverTrump conservatives.
As for me being closed minded: I pointed out two arguments in the comments of that thread. One that very nearly convinced me in the past and one that I am still open to persuasion on. What really needs to happen though is that he candidate himself needs to change – maybe his supporters would be better served extorting their influence over the candidate with their votes, donations and volunteerism rather than the continued barrage trained on NeverTrump.
And this thread still has nothing to do with Trump…unless someone is arguing he, too, needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.
At times ugly choices are the only choices.
Was this an unprincipled choice? Did Cruz sell his vote too cheaply? I do not know.
There are no easy choices in this day and age.
Arahant made it pretty clear that he’s not an ardent supporter of Donald Trump. I think you are correct that “vote for Trump because he’s not Hillary” is not going to move enough people. However, that really is the best argument for Trump, and so he probably will lose.
I’ll give Ted the benefit of the doubt. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But my experience of “tactical voting” runs counter to your 1992 experience. I once voted for someone I did not like to keep someone even worse out of office. Didn’t work and left a bad taste.
Trump is less awful than Hillary, but that’s not enough. I’ll probably vote McMullin as my preference of the 5.
That’s alright by me. I do understand, as I said. No blame from me for your doing so.