I Thought This Deserved a Post of Its Own

 

In the thread for our recent Harvard Lunch Club Podcast — the Rigged Podcast — we reverted again, with the inevitability of Groundhog Day, to the eternal Trump versus #NeverTrump argument. I thought it worthwhile to recapitulate the discussion. Apologies to those who have reached the stage of nausea in this issue. In the podcast my partner Todd Feinburg and I discuss the recent Victor Davis Hanson article advocating a vote for Trump for conservatives. We both think that it is a no-brainer and we both think that, even had we not been for Trump since long ago (say we had supported Rubio) we would have recognized that bruised egos aside there was really only one choice … which is essentially what VDH had to say (though he said it very well indeed).

In response, member rebark makes the following observation:

I always find it remarkable how foreign and mystifying the ideas of Never Trump people are to the HLC hosts. The utter bafflement with which they confront the fact that people looked at the same facts that they did and reached a different conclusion.

My first inclination is to blame my own side for failing to explain itself well, but there has been so much ink spilled on the subject that I can’t help but wonder whether there is a certain willful blindness to their approach. For the tired old argument of “just admit you’re for Hillary” to be trotted out requires an astonishing level of misunderstanding.

To put it simply: I do not see a lesser evil. I doubt that there is an iota of difference between us in terms of how negatively we perceive Hillary – she will be terrible for the country and terrible for conservatism. Trump might implement the occasional conservative policy, but he will destroy what little reputation conservatism has. I believe he would do at best a mediocre job as President that would be spun into such a disaster by the media that his election would pave the way for even worse Leftist ideologues down the road. I can’t tell you which is worse, and so I can only tell you that I don’t want to have supported either.

I hope they have some good conversations at tomorrow’s Ricochet debate watching event.

Member Eugene Kriegsmann weighs in with:

Michael, in response to your question to Rebark [what did he think of the VDH article?] I went over to NR and read Dr. Hanson’s post. There is little new in it. He had held this position since the majority of NR editors and writers put together their anti-Trump screed. Hanson’s argument really comes down to what I have read over and over on this site, that Trump is bad, but Hillary is worse. Hillary will do terrible damage to the country.

That well may be true. There is, however, another possibility, that Hillary will be essentially spayed politically by a Republican dominated congress, and that, given her apparently fragile health and the incredible demands of the office, that she will likely not even make it through one term, much less two.

On the other hand, we have Trump whose commitment to our country is so minimal that he would destroy not just his own chances of achieving office, but those of every other Republican running this year. How do we trust such a person with the most powerful office in the world and with the future of this country?

The problem for me is, I don’t see any difference between them. I could never vote for Hillary, nor could I give Trump a vote that would confirm all he wants to believe about himself, that he actually should be President of the United States. It is a choice that I simply refuse to make. I think I will write in Pence for President.

And, forgive me for taking the last word, I said this:

Rebark and Eugene, I have only this to say. Make a choice! Whatever you can say about how difficult it is to evaluate whether Hillary’s Presidency or Trump’s Presidency will be worse, it is blatantly obvious that they will be different. Very different! So forget the past. Forget the agony of what could have been. Think through the problem as it confronts you today. What are the odds from your perspective of different possible futures with Trump and with Hillary? Evaluate the distributions, apply risk analysis, do the algebra and reach a conclusion and vote. Don’t whine about how it’s hard to decide. Don’t withhold your vote because you are angry at what happened in February. The future lies ahead. You have only two options (eh?). Pick one.

Is this not, my Ricochetti friends, the bottom line?

See you in NYC tonight!

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 129 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    A-Squared:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    A-Squared:

    What if you don’t care because you think they are equally bad?

    It does not matter, one has to be better than the other in some way. To say they are equally bad, in perfect balance, is not being realistic. If you want Trump to lose, you want CLinton to win. Period. There is no other option. If you want them both to lose, you are not being rational.

    You know my view. I think Clinton causes more harm short term and Trump causes more harm long term. You tell me the right discount rate and I will tell you which one I think is worse on a present value basis.

    I’m still not voting for Clinton, so by not voting for Clinton I am helping Trump.

    If you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Clinton to lose, you want Trump to win. There is no third option.

    This has nothing to do with how you vote, it is about what you want to happen. Clinton or Trump, one will win, one will lose. Which do you want to have happen?

     

    • #91
  2. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    A-Squared:

     

    You know my view. I think Clinton causes more harm short term and Trump causes more harm long term. You tell me the right discount rate and I will tell you which one I think is worse on a present value basis.

    I’m still not voting for Clinton, so by not voting for Clinton I am helping Trump.

    If you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Clinton to lose, you want Trump to win. There is no third option.

    This has nothing to do with how you vote, it is about what you want to happen. Clinton or Trump, one will win, one will lose. Which do you want to have happen?

    I don’t care. The country loses either way.

    I care about the country, not the color of the jersey of the guy celebrating in the end zone.

    • #92
  3. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    A-Squared:

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    A-Squared:

    You know my view. I think Clinton causes more harm short term and Trump causes more harm long term. You tell me the right discount rate and I will tell you which one I think is worse on a present value basis.

    I’m still not voting for Clinton, so by not voting for Clinton I am helping Trump.

    If you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Clinton to lose, you want Trump to win. There is no third option.

    This has nothing to do with how you vote, it is about what you want to happen. Clinton or Trump, one will win, one will lose. Which do you want to have happen?

    I don’t care. The country loses either way.

    I care about the country, not the color of the jersey of the guy celebrating in the end zone.

    One will be worse than the other. There is no way they will be equally bad. To say that there is no differeince is s total denial of reality. They cannot be perfectly balanced.

    How about you just admit you don’t know who is worse?

    • #93
  4. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    EB:

    Cato Rand: Agreed except for one thing. Who the heck is Castle?

    Constitution Party candidate.

    Thank you.

    • #94
  5. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Bryan G. Stephens: It does not matter, one has to be better than the other in some way. To say they are equally bad, in perfect balance, is not being realistic.

    I acknowledge that one is almost certainly going to turn out to be worse than the other.  This does not mean I can tell who that is going to be in advance.

    An example is polling.  The polls are usually systemically off in one direction or the other.  From election to election we have no idea which direction they will collectively be off by.  Some cycles they favor the democrats and some cycles they favor the republicans.  If one candidate has a small lead, say 1%-2%, that type of lead may be non-existent as all of the polls may be off by 3% in favor of the candidate who is polling ahead.

    However, they could also be off by 3% in the other direction, and that candidate could win by 4%-5%.  There is no way to know which it will turn out to be until after the election is held.  Some might describe such a close race as tied, but they are wrong.  The candidate who is leading in the polls really is more likely to win.

    The question of whether Trump or Clinton will do more damage is like a scenario where the polling is exactly tied.  Candidate A may win by 3%, or candidate B might win by 3%, or anything in between.  Yet just because we know with near certainty that the two candidates will not literally tie does not give me any inkling as to which one will turnout to be ahead.

    I have analyzed the pros and cons of these two candidates thoroughly, and I truly cannot determine who is likely to be worse.  You might come to a different conclusion, but do not tell me that I am not being honest about mine.

    • #95
  6. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Frank Soto: You might come to a different conclusion, but do not tell me that I am not being honest about mine.

    I have no such intention. If you say you have no idea, then that is reasonable.

    All I am saying is that if you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Trump to win, you want Clinton to lose.

    If you have no idea who you want to win, then that is fine. But, NeverTrump does not say that. NeverTrump says it wants Trump to lose. Look at the name.

    • #96
  7. Frank Soto Member
    Frank Soto
    @FrankSoto

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    Frank Soto: You might come to a different conclusion, but do not tell me that I am not being honest about mine.

    I have no such intention. If you say you have no idea, then that is reasonable.

    All I am saying is that if you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Trump to win, you want Clinton to lose.

    If you have no idea who you want to win, then that is fine. But, NeverTrump does not say that. NeverTrump says it wants Trump to lose. Look at the name.

    I will never vote for Trump.  Hence Never Trump.  I will also never vote for Clinton.  On election day, I have no dog in the fight for president.  Neither do most Never Trumpers

    • #97
  8. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Bryan G. Stephens: If you want them both to lose, you are not being rational.

    If you think either one of them is qualified to be President, you are not being rational.

    • #98
  9. A-Squared Inactive
    A-Squared
    @ASquared

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    A-Squared:

    I don’t care. The country loses either way.

    I care about the country, not the color of the jersey of the guy celebrating in the end zone.

    One will be worse than the other. There is no way they will be equally bad. To say that there is no differeince is s total denial of reality. They cannot be perfectly balanced.

    How about you just admit you don’t know who is worse?

    I’ve already said what I think about respective harm. Why don’t you just admit that you can’t handle people disagreeing with you?

    Let me clue you in on something, I don’t care if you like how I vote.

    • #99
  10. Tyler Boliver Inactive
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    Cato Rand:

    Agreed except for one thing. Who the heck is Castle?

    A man so important to the election people forget how to spell his name.

    • #100
  11. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Bryan G. Stephens: I don’t want validation, I want admission from the NeverTrumps they would rather Clinton win than Trump. What is amazing is the posturing NeverTrumps go to, to deny the simple fact.

    I want a unicorn that farts rainbows.  But I won’t get one because it doesn’t exist.

    I will not vote for Hillary or Trump.  Not my party, not my candidate.  The Democrats are crooks, and this year the GOP has proven to be nutjobs, so I left.  I want nothing to do with each candidate.

    I wish both would step aside and let Kaine and Pence run.  This would be a no-brainer decision; Pence all the way.

    • #101
  12. Mister D Inactive
    Mister D
    @MisterD

    You lie. We have more than two choices. So many people are choosing someone they don’t like because they believe these lies. If ever there was a time to break the false dichotomy, it is now.

    Mr. Stopa, you seem to like Mr. Trump. That’s fine. Go vote for him. But there are many of us who dislike him and not simply because he is crude. We believe is dishonest, corrupt, willfully ignorant, arrogant, thin-skinned, unreliable, and enamored of power. This is based on the man’s own words and deeds over the course of this campaign. Do you think that saying “but you have to!”  is enough to dissuade us of these convictions. We have options. We will take them.

    • #102
  13. livingthehighlife Inactive
    livingthehighlife
    @livingthehighlife

    Johnny has one cookie.  He can either give it to his friend Mary or his friend Sam.

    Johnny decides not to give his cookie to either.  How many cookies does Mary and Sam have?

     

    • #103
  14. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    Bryan G. Stephens: How about you just admit you don’t know who is worse?

    Why is this so important to you?

    • #104
  15. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Trinity Waters:

    The Question:

    Cato Rand:

    Frank Soto:

    Xennady:The conservative movement that existed is dead, dead, dead.

    It was destroyed by the feckless ineptitude of the Republican party, which has compiled a record of failure now going back decades.

    This is utterly wrong.

    I think we have to allow some time for the Trump supporters to sit back and reflect on what they’ve done. In time, most will come to accept that they got conned by a skilled conman. Moreover in time the obsession with Trump will fade from memory and the interests that conse

    From your lips to God’s ears.

    Q, Cato and Frank, Trump is not something any group of citizens has done. He is entirely an energetic response to the last few decades of GOP inaction, of their refusal to exercise their constitution prerogatives to maintain a law-abiding government. Despite having complete control of spending, Obama’s wish list and lawless actions have been actively supported by the GOP Congress. Nobody has been conned except those who listen to the unstoppable narrative of the elite Uniparty.

    I don’t think that’s what he’s a response to. His opposition’s on immigration and trade are his main selling points, as is his rhetoric. To say it is a terrapins to weak republicans is, I think, wrong. It may be a rejection of conservatism by a huge bloc of voters who feel disenfranchised but who agree with essentially liberal (protectionist) policies.

    • #105
  16. EB Thatcher
    EB
    @EB

    Bryan G. Stephens: I want admission from the NeverTrumps they would rather Clinton win than Trump.

    Why is this so important to you?

    • #106
  17. RyanM Inactive
    RyanM
    @RyanM

    Bryan G. Stephens: All I am saying is that if you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Trump to win, you want Clinton to lose.

    That is simply false… that sort of argument would fail you out of a logic class, unless you were asked to display the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

    • #107
  18. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    livingthehighlife:Johnny has one cookie. He can either give it to his friend Mary or his friend Sam.

    Johnny decides not to give his cookie to either. How many cookies does Mary and Sam have?

    Obviously Mary has it because you didn’t give it to Sam….. (in jest)

    • #108
  19. Could Be Anyone Inactive
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    EB:

    Bryan G. Stephens: I want admission from the NeverTrumps they would rather Clinton win than Trump.

    Why is this so important to you?

    Because this is about retribution. He wants an admission of guilt. He wants vindication and victory for inequities he feels have not been resolved since the primaries. Unfortunately for him the rules of Logic are against him on this one and he will not get what he wants.

    • #109
  20. Michael Stopa Member
    Michael Stopa
    @MichaelStopa

    Eugene Kriegsmann:I have been out putting 50+ miles on my racing bike this morning. Had to take advantage of a brief period of dry in what looks like a long wet fall and winter coming up. Anyway, by the time I got home there were more than 50 comments, many of which say all that needs to be said. I would just like to say, Michael, I have enormous respect for you. You are unquestionably a man of integrity and principles. I think on this issue we will remain forever on opposite sides, but I imagine that in the vast realm of political thought that this will very likely be our only area of disagreement. I would love to join you at the meet up in Manhattan, but 3000 miles is a bit further than I care to go for a beer. If you ever get out to the Pacific Northwest, I would be more than happy to buy you a drink and discuss this issue in person.

    Thanks Eugene. Wish you could have been here. It was a lot of fun! -M

    • #110
  21. Michael Stopa Member
    Michael Stopa
    @MichaelStopa

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake:

    Michael Stopa: Think through the problem as it confronts you today. What are the odds from your perspective of different possible futures with Trump and with Hillary? Evaluate the distributions, apply risk analysis, do the algebra and reach a conclusion and vote.

    But somehow, do not evaluate the likelihood that one’s vote will actually be decisive between the two leads in one’s own state, correct?

    Because I have done the math. And the math in my state gives me vanishingly little reason to believe my vote would be decisive between the two lead candidates. Knowing that, it makes more sense to use my vote for other purposes.

    I have been open to reconsidering if the the best available data showed a close race in my state, but it hasn’t. If God zapped my state tomorrow and suddenly my state became a tossup, I would still be open to reconsidering, but I can predict with a fair amount of confidence that God is unlikely to zap my state in that particular way between now and election day.

    I agree that if you are convinced that your vote has no decisive significance at all, then any fleeting fancy or other is as valid a reason to vote for a candidate as any other. The vote has no value. It make you feel better not to vote for someone. Fine.

    I guess I should amend this to: *if* your vote has the potential to matter, then make a choice.

    • #111
  22. Xennady Member
    Xennady
    @

    Frank Soto:

    Xennady:Ponder the ruins of Detroit, the American youth who are apparently unwilling to work or learn, the collapse of marriage, the offshoring of the US economy, the collapse of the Rule of the Law, the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Americans from large parts of California, the failure of the US to win multiple wars in the ME- is that enough?

    I have more.

    You live in the most prosperous country at it’s most prosperous time. Calling it “ruins” will lead most people to stop taking you seriously.

    The United States presently appears prosperous because the present regime is able to send out reams of checks, enabling its supporters to live off their mailbox.

    This cannot continue.

    Once it ends…

    • #112
  23. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    RyanM:

    Bryan G. Stephens: All I am saying is that if you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Trump to win, you want Clinton to lose.

    That is simply false… that sort of argument would fail you out of a logic class, unless you were asked to display the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

    Setting aside the highly unlikely chance a coin will land on its edge and stay, it will come up heads or tails. Trump or Clinton will win. Period. There is no third option. That passes every test of logic I know about.

    If your goal is for Trump to lose, then your goal includes a Clinton win, since that happens automatically with a Trump loss.

    Please explain to me how that defies logic, or is a false dichotomy.

    • #113
  24. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Could Be Anyone:

    EB:

    Bryan G. Stephens: I want admission from the NeverTrumps they would rather Clinton win than Trump.

    Why is this so important to you?

    Because this is about retribution. He wants an admission of guilt. He wants vindication and victory for inequities he feels have not been resolved since the primaries. Unfortunately for him the rules of Logic are against him on this one and he will not get what he wants.

    No, it is about fighting denial. The Rules of logic are not against me on this. Trump or Clinton will win. Do you deny that simple fact? A Trump loss results in a Clinton win. There is no other option. Ergo, if your goal is a Trump loss, your goal also is a Clinton win.

    The tag as not been #NeverTrumpNeverClinton, it has been #NeverTrump. It is in the name, and this has been about Trump, not Clinton from day one. #NeverTrump wants Trump to lose. That is OK. I can respect that choice. It just means that be default, you want Clinton to win.

    Jumping through moral twists do avoid this simple fact just floors me. I am not the one passing a moral judgement on it. I don’t care who you want to win or lose. All I want is for people to be honest about it.

    (And some NeverTrump are)

    • #114
  25. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    No, it is about fighting denial. The Rules of logic are not against me on this. Trump or Clinton will win. Do you deny that simple fact? A Trump loss results in a Clinton win. There is no other option. Ergo, if your goal is a Trump loss, your goal also is a Clinton win.

    The tag as not been #NeverTrumpNeverClinton, it has been #NeverTrump. It is in the name, and this has been about Trump, not Clinton from day one. #NeverTrump wants Trump to lose. That is OK. I can respect that choice. It just means that be default, you want Clinton to win.

    One of the two will win, but it does not follow that this outcome is wanted or desired by people who are NeverTrump. You can apply your logic to the likely outcome, but not to people’s feelings about it. You have no ability to tell other people what they want or hope for and insist you’re more right about their feelings then they are. For a lot of us, it just doesn’t matter who wins – there’s no outcome we want, so we’ll see what happens and deal with it then.

    I do think that because #nevertrump began as a movement within the Republican Party, the #neverclinton is implied, though of course there are exceptions that think no Trump is more important than no Clinton.

    • #115
  26. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    The Whether Man:One of the two will win, but it does not follow that this outcome is wanted or desired by people who are NeverTrump. You can apply your logic to the likely outcome, but not to people’s feelings about it. You have no ability to tell other people what they want or hope for and insist you’re more right about their feelings then they are. For a lot of us, it just doesn’t matter who wins – there’s no outcome we want, so we’ll see what happens and deal with it then.

    I do think that because #nevertrump began as a movement within the Republican Party, the #neverclinton is implied, though of course there are exceptions that think no Trump is more important than no Clinton.

    For the first time in my life, there is no “winning” in this election.  Enthusiastic support is rare in any case, but this year there’s not even a candidate who’ll “be ok” or “not so bad.”  We all knew 3 years ago that the democrats were going to nominate the intolerable Hillary, so it was up to the republicans to salvage something out of this.  As a party we (it) failed.  In my mind, this election was lost when Donald Trump clinched the nomination.

    • #116
  27. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Ball Diamond Ball:Mathematically, it is a half a vote the wrong way. That is, if the margin is one, it takes two abstentions to equal one defection.

    That’s correct if the margin is in her favor, but not true if the margin is in his.

    Again, the two are different.

    • #117
  28. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Member
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake
    @Midge

    Bryan G. Stephens:

    RyanM:

    Bryan G. Stephens: All I am saying is that if you want Trump to lose, you want Clinton to win. If you want Trump to win, you want Clinton to lose.

    That is simply false… that sort of argument would fail you out of a logic class, unless you were asked to display the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

    Setting aside the highly unlikely chance a coin will land on its edge and stay, it will come up heads or tails. Trump or Clinton will win. Period.

    Trump or Clinton will win, but we must also take into account what our actions are likely to do about it.

    I do not envy voters in swing states this year. I believe swing-state voters are being reasonable when they feel more moral pressure than voters in solid states do to cast a decisive (between the two leads) rather than an expressive vote. That said, even in swing states, the odds of one vote being decisive are pretty low. That the coin falls one way or another does not mean we have much say in how it falls.

    One could argue that a pundit’s words influence an election more than his own vote does. That is a matter to take up with the pundits, to the extent you actually believe they have enough influence to be pernicious. But most ordinary Ricochet members are not pundits, and many members on the NoTrump or even NeverTrump side aren’t interested in convincing others to not vote for Trump – they understand why others may vote Trump, they just aren’t going to do it themselves.

    To use myself as an example – the only political influence I have in this election doesn’t even have anything to do with votes: it is simply to moderate to try to get the circular firing squad on the right on one particular website to fire off marginally fewer rounds. I am content with this, content with acknowledging how little influence I have on which way the H-T (Hillary-Trump) coin will fall. My political involvement, such as it is, is focused on other things.

    • #118
  29. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    In case you didn’t see it, Richard Epstein summed up my analysis very pithily on “The Libertarian” podcast:  “If you lose on ‘the button’ issue, it doesn’t matter if you’re right about welfare reform.”

    • #119
  30. Trinity Waters Member
    Trinity Waters
    @

    RyanM:

    Q, Cato and Frank, Trump is not something any group of citizens has done. He is entirely an energetic response to the last few decades of GOP inaction, of their refusal to exercise their constitution prerogatives to maintain a law-abiding government. Despite having complete control of spending, Obama’s wish list and lawless actions have been actively supported by the GOP Congress. Nobody has been conned except those who listen to the unstoppable narrative of the elite Uniparty.

    I don’t think that’s what he’s a response to. His opposition’s on immigration and trade are his main selling points, as is his rhetoric. To say it is a terrapins to weak republicans is, I think, wrong. It may be a rejection of conservatism by a huge bloc of voters who feel disenfranchised but who agree with essentially liberal (protectionist) policies.

    At last, an honest an friendly expression of disagreement!  Maybe the truth is a mixture of both our viewpoints, Ryan.  The waters are severely muddied by the mixture and conflation of Republican and conservative, and that of base voters and party leadership.  All I know for sure is that I lay in bed shuddering at the thought of that dragon HRC being in political power again.

    • #120
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.