An Open Letter to the NeverTrumpers from a Sympathizer

 

I am not here to condemn the NeverTrumpers. I share their instincts. Donald Trump is — I will not put a fine point on it — a swine. I followed him in the tabloids haphazardly in the mid-1990s when I was a visiting professor at Yale and took coffee each morning at a Lesbian-operated place in New Haven where the tabloids were always lying around. He was then and is now a man who revels in adultery. I was not surprised about his conversation with Billy Bush. I would even bet that he had similar conversations on the links with Hillary Clinton’s husband. He is seventy years old, and he is still engaged in the kind of banter typical of eighth-grade male hot dogs. Put simply, like Charming Billy, he never really grew up. But, unlike the Big Dawg, he has almost no impulse control. If you attack him for anything, you will set him off, and you will get schoolboy taunts in return. The man is desperately insecure.

He is also no conservative. He has no understanding of the road that we are on fiscally. As a businessman, he borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, and his lawyers arranged things so that, when his enterprises went bankrupt, someone else was left holding the bag. If he becomes President, that someone else is apt to be you and I.

He has no knowledge of foreign affairs, no sense of the fragility of the international order. He has instincts, not ideas. He is understandably annoyed that our allies contribute little to the common defense. But he does not appreciate the degree to which our well-being in the long run is tied up with our alliances. In office, if unrestrained, he could do great damage. He could take us back to the isolationism of the 1920s and the 1930s. Plenty of people on both the left and the right already long for that. The generation that now commands the stage has no memory of World War II and its origins, much less the Cold War.

But, I would suggest to the NeverTrumpers, you should hold your nose and vote for the slimeball anyway. I offer you two reasons: Hillary Clinton & the Democratic Party.

The second may be the more important. For, let’s face it. The lady is not well. Her doctors are lying to us. And she is not apt to last more than eighteen months — which means that, if she is elected, we are apt to have Tim Kaine, an admirer of liberation theology, for our president.

More to the point, however, whether she lives on and on or not, hers will be Barack Obama’s third term. Obamacare will be fully institutionalized and any reforms that are made will put us further on the slippery slope to a single-payer system. Think about it: you can have medical care as good as that which the federal government provides to veterans. To be sure, Trump has blathered nonsense about this at one time or another. But he is running for President today as an opponent of Obamacare.

That is not, however, the most important matter at stake. The real issue is whether in the future we will have open discussion of political issues and free elections. Think about what we have now — a federal bureaucracy that is fiercely partisan. An IRS that tries to regulate speech by denying on a partisan basis tax-exempt status to conservative organizations. A Department of State that hides the fact that its head is not observing the rules to which everyone else is held concerning security of communications and that colludes with a Presidential campaign to prevent the release of embarrassing information. A Department of Justice that ought to be renamed as the Department of Injustice, which does its level best to suppress investigations that might embarrass the likely nominee of the Democratic Party. An assistant attorney general that gives a “heads up” to that lady’s campaign. An Attorney General who meets on the sly with her husband shortly before the decision is made whether she is to be indicted. A federal department that promotes racial strife and hostility to the police in the interests of solidifying for the Democrats the African-American vote.

Think about what else we have now — a press corps that colludes with a campaign, allowing figures in the Clinton campaign to edit what they publish. Television reporters who send the questions apt to be asked at the presidential debates to one campaign. A media that is totally in the tank for one party, downplaying or suppressing news that might make trouble for that party, inventing false stories about the candidates nominated by the other party, managing the news, manipulating the public, promoting in the party not favored the nomination of a clown, protecting the utterly corrupt nominee of the other party from scrutiny.

Let’s add to this the fact that the Democratic Party is intent on opening our borders and on signing up illegal aliens to vote. If you do not believe me, read what Wikileaks has revealed about the intentions of Tony Podesta. Barack Obama promised to “fundamentally change America.” He called his administration “The New Foundation.” Well, all that you have to do to achieve this is to alter the population.

To this, I can add something else. Freedom of speech is under attack. Forty-four Senators, all of them Democrats, voted not long ago for an amendment to the Constitution that would hem in the First Amendment. Ostensibly aimed at corporate speech, this would open the doors to the regulation of all speech. The Democratic members of the Federal Election Commission have pressed for regulating the internet — for treating blogposts as political contributions and restricting them. Members of the Civil Rights Commission have argued that freedom of speech and religious freedom must give way to social justice. There is an almost universal move on our college campuses to shut down dissent — among students, who must be afforded “safe spaces,” and, of course, in the classroom as well. There, academic freedom is a dead letter; and, in practice, despite the courts, in our public universities, the First Amendment does not apply.

We entered on a slippery slope some time ago when the legislatures passed and courts accepted laws against so-called “hate crimes” — that punished not only the deed but added further penalties for the thought. Now we are told that “hate speech” cannot be tolerated — which sounds fine until one realizes that what they have in mind rules out any discussion of subjects such as the propriety of same-sex marriage, sluttishness, and abortion; of the damage done African-American communities by irresponsible behavior on the part of fathers; and of the manner in which Islam, insofar as it is a religion of holy law, may be incompatible with liberal democracy. If you do not think that a discussion of these matters is off limits, you are, as the Democratic nominee put it not long ago, “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” You are “deplorable and irredeemable.” You are, as she said this week, “negative, dark, and divisive with a dangerous vision.” It is a short distance from demonization to suppression. And, let’s face it, the suppression has begun — in our newspapers, on television, on our campuses, on Facebook, on Reddit, in Google searches.

One more point. The courts are now partisan. Thanks to Barack Obama’s appointees, in many parts of the country, the circuit courts have ruled out expecting people to present picture IDs when they vote. Elsewhere — for example, in Michigan — the circuit courts have ruled out eliminating straight-line party voting. All of this is aimed at partisan advantage — at making voter fraud easy and at encouraging straight-line voting on the part of those not literate in English. Who knows what the courts will do if the Democrats can get a commanding majority on the Supreme Court? We have already had all sorts of madness shoved down our throats by those who legislate from the bench. If you think that it has gone about as far as it goes, you do not know today’s Democratic Party. I doubt very much whether the Democrats will really try to shove through a constitutional amendment in effect revoking the protections extended to speech and religion in the First Amendment. That would be too controversial. They will do it, as they have done many other things, through the courts. Can we tolerate “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic” speech — speech that is “deplorable and irredeemable,” that is “negative, dark, and divisive with a dangerous vision?” Surely, surely not. And this would be easy. If we can punish the “hate” in “hate crimes,” why not punish it or outlaw it in speech? All that you have to do is to “reinterpret” the First Amendment.

We live, moreover, in a world of rampant prosecutorial indiscretion — where a Clinton, guilty of something that would have put anyone else in jail, gets off without an indictment and a Bob McDonnell, who has done nothing illegal, is prosecuted to the hilt. We live in a world in which colleges and universities are pressed to use kangaroo-court procedures in adjudicating the love-life of randy undergraduates and in which only the man can be held responsible for the tomfoolery that both are engaged in.

Need I go on? If Trump is elected President, this is apt to end. The man has been burned. This campaign has been an education for him. If Hillary is elected President, this will not only go on. It will deepen. That is a certainty.

As for Hillary herself, what should I say. She worked for the investigation that nailed Richard Nixon, and she was fired for lying. She put her cronies from Arkansas in charge of the White House Travel Office, driving out nonpartisan folks who had been serving everyone well for thirty years, and to cover her indecent behavior, she sicced the FBI on these hapless folks. At her behest, the head of the office was tried for malfeasance and, of course, ruined financially — though he was found not guilty. Think about what she did: she destroyed the lives of ordinary, innocent folk for her own convenience.

I will not go on about what she did to the women foolish enough to fall prey to the allure of her husband — though that, too, says much about her willingness to damage others for her own convenience.

She is also inept. In her husband’s administration, she pushed single-payer and nearly brought Charming Billy down. In the Obama administration, she pushed an intervention in Libya that soon turned quite sour. And when the ambassador who had begged for more security lost his life, she deflected responsibility from herself by blaming it all on a hapless Egyptian Copt who had made a short film that nobody had hitherto noticed, and she and her colleagues in the Obama administration saw to his imprisonment.

As Secretary of State — in conjunction with the Clinton Global Initiative and what Doug Band calls “Bill Clinton, Inc.” — she ran a shakedown operation aimed at enriching her family and illegally raising money from foreign donors to pay for her Presidential campaign in waiting. To get around the Freedom of Information Act, she did all of her business by email on a server kept in her home that the world’s intelligence agencies could and did hack. In short, she is both corrupt and irresponsible.

Is Donald Trump unfit to be President? I fear so. Is Hillary Clinton unfit to be President? As Nancy Pelosi would say, “Are you kidding? Are you kidding?”

So we must choose. I suggest that we swallow our pride and pick the lesser evil.

Is it not obvious when you think through everything which of the two is the lesser evil? Both will do damage. Both will do serious damage. Neither is admirable. But Donald Trump is apt to do less damage.

I realize that what I have said is not reassuring. But we should not succumb to wishful thinking.

Nonetheless, for all of his failings, Trump will do some very good things. And, in his way, he has already done some good — by forcing Americans to think about issues that we are forbidden to discuss.

We are in for a bad four years. But there is nonetheless bad and there is worse. Unpleasant though it may be, it is better to pick bad. I will not tell you that a vote for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or Egg McMuffin is a vote for Hillary. That it is not. But it might allow her to squeak into office — and, if she wins, there will be hell to pay.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 259 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    The King Prawn:

    This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option. (emphasis mine.)

    So if you had been in Germany in the early 1930s, and the meaningful electoral choices had been (a)the Nazis, and (b) the monarchists, wishing to restore Kaiser Bill, then would you have refrained from voting (or voted for a party with no chance) in order to retain your moral purity?

    • #91
  2. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    If I can offer a gloss on the OP, the race is between a totalitarian (Clinton) and an authoritarian (Trump) and the latter is less damaging. I get and generally agree with that logic, at least as generally applied.

    The problem is that this particular authoritarian has no semblance of maturity, is nearly as dishonest as the totalitarian, and is wrong on a great many fundamental issues (trade, alliances, federalism, etc.).

    Couple that with the fact that Hillary Clinton is going to come into office as a severely damaged totalitarian — who is likely to be even less successful in her 1st term than Obama has been in his second — and I’m just not seeing a compelling case for him.

    And while I know folks disagree, I don’t think this is the last election that matters.

    • #92
  3. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    Paul A. Rahe:You left out the First Amendment. This election is not ultimately about foreign policy, trade, and immigration (though it touches on all three). It is about the fix being put in permanently, and you underestimate Hillary’s malice and that of her party. If you deviate from their doctrine — on, say, same-sex marriage or the status of Islam — you are deplorable and irredeemable. She did not exaggerate the number of racists, sexists, homophobes, and Islamophobes. It was not a mere overstatement. She considers you to be one of them because you deviate from the now-established doctrine.

    I disagree.  Trump poses a direct threat to the first amendment as well – he just supports speech people on the right like better. But how many times has he threatened newspapers who say bad things about him? He spoke in opposition to Citizens United! I don’t trust him to protect the first amendment anymore than Hillary, so on that issue, it’s a draw. And forget all the names I’ve been called by the Trump supporters I know – a lot worse than deplorable.

    Trump reminds me of Obama – he is incredibly inexperienced, his promises to fundamentally transform the political arena are a lot of hot air (which I guess is comforting, because I doubt he’d follow through with the worst of them), and he’s got a hard core of supporters who’ve fallen for the cult of personality.

    • #93
  4. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    HVTs:

    The King Prawn:Professor, does your calculation change when viewed through a moral rather than political lense?

    Are you asking if Hillary’s sins are ‘less immoral’?

    Since we are talking about holding public office—the highest in the land—I can’t see how venality and abusing the trust placed in you when previously serving in a high public office could possibly weigh less in comparison to personal piggery and private transgressions.

    No, I’m talking about the personal moral choice of how one delegates his authority to government. Neither candidate passes the bar of being a moral choice. If there is only a choice of two immoralities, which is a person to pick?

    We keep hearing about how this is a binary election, but the only binary I see is two zeros, no ones.

    • #94
  5. Tom Meyer Member
    Tom Meyer
    @tommeyer

    Paul A. Rahe: You left out the First Amendment.

    I’d find this case more convincing if I thought Trump were significantly less awful (again, I concede she’s worse). This is someone who’s called for a loosening of our libel laws, one of the real legal advantages we enjoy in this country.

    If you like Michael Mann’s suit against Mark Steyn, you’ll love a Trump presidency.

    • #95
  6. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Paul A. Rahe: Our choice is between a narcissist with little or no impulse control and a malicious crook backed by a party intent on doing in the irredeemable deplorables.

    Apparently the point that’s lost on many here … you can distinguish between degrees of harm in terms of likely outcomes.  Running into a ditch at 20 mph is almost always survivable. Running head-on into a tractor trailer at 75 mph almost never is.

    Hillary will take positive steps to ensure you denizens of center-right websites never again have even a chance of electoral victory (this is the purpose of open borders Hillary promises you—not so grapes can be picked!). She will ensure deplorables like you continue being silenced by the official apparatuses of government (think Lois Lerner on steroids) and by the mechanisms of the media-technology culture (you think internet restrictions are beyond the pale for Clinton?).

    And so on, exactly as Professor Rahe cataloged in this post.  This woman despises you and everything you represent, every viewpoint you promote.  She will do everything she can to crush you and your ilk.  You cannot say that about Trump.  In fact, he is going to need your support to help overcome her Left wing loon army.  He’s incentivized to seek your support through compromise.  Hillary will not compromise with you—an irredeemable deplorable—any more than Obama did.  Why do you think “Obama’s third term” is how Hillary describes herself?

    • #96
  7. Karl Nittinger Inactive
    Karl Nittinger
    @KarlNittinger

    The King Prawn:

    Paul A. Rahe:But we should not succumb to wishful thinking.

    Nonetheless, for all of his failings, Trump will do some very good things.

    I wonder how you’ve contradicted yourself so blatantly from one sentence to the next.

    Paul A. Rahe: I suggest that we swallow our pride and pick the lesser evil.

    Two things. First, why do you assign the motive of pride here? Do you see into man’s heart? Second, there are solid arguments against voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Good points…I would like to add that – and I can only speak for myself – it is mistaken for those who continuously try to lecture NeverTrumpers to assume that “Trump is the lesser of two evils” is an unconditionally accepted premise. It is not, at all…again, I am only speaking for myself.

    • #97
  8. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    David Foster:

    The King Prawn:

    This side of the New Jerusalem, we will never have a perfect candidate. But we cannot vote for evil, even if it’s our only option. (emphasis mine.)

    So if you had been in Germany in the early 1930s, and the meaningful electoral choices had been (a)the Nazis, and (b) the monarchists, wishing to restore Kaiser Bill, then would you have refrained from voting (or voted for a party with no chance) in order to retain your moral purity?

    I gotta be honest: there’s no Germany in the 1930s/Nazi parallel that I’ve ever found compelling. They were dealing with a government in transition, a republic in power for a dozen years, hyperinflation, the Great Depression – not a republic that has operated for over 200 years.

    Trump is not Hitler, Hillary is not Stalin, and this is not the Weimar Republic.

    • #98
  9. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    The King Prawn:If there is only a choice of two immoralities, which is a person to pick?

    The one likely to do the least harm/the most good.  It’s just not as complicated as you seem to believe. BTW – when was the last time you voted for someone morally pure?  I must have missed that cycle.

    We keep hearing about how this is a binary election, but the only binary I see is two zeros, no ones.

    I find it hard to believe you cannot distinguish between Clinton and Trump in terms of even one single political outcome that matters to you.  How about open borders?  Are you indifferent between the two regarding the forced demographic transformation that disenfranchises you?

    • #99
  10. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    It comes down to this:  We will never be able to impeach and convict Clinton, no matter what further crimes she may commit.

    There will be people jumping over each other from both sides of the aisle to impeach and convict Trump if he sneezes without covering his mouth.

    Advantage Trump.

    • #100
  11. Chad McCune Inactive
    Chad McCune
    @ChadMcCune

    Paul A. Rahe:

    When you have to choose between bad and worse, you should choose bad. My argument is consistent and coherent.

    Should not the most basic, rudimentary question for a presidential candidate be: Is this person fit for the office of the presidency? If one cannot answer in the affirmative for either major party candidate, why is it “pride” or “moral preening” (as I’ve read elsewhere) that prevents one from voting for either?

    One has to believe the apocalyptic, “Flight 93” scenario in order for your argument to persuade—i.e., in order to convincingly prove that one should abandon the simple test of fitness for the office, it must truly be the end of the road. However, if one doesn’t think this is “Flight 93”—that grotesque analogy used by Michael Anton—one should vote his conscience, based on reason. It’s not “pride” that dictates that decision, and it cheapens these conversations to level those accusations.

    • #101
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    HVTs: I find it hard to believe you cannot distinguish between Clinton and Trump in terms of even one single political outcome that matters to you. How about open borders? Are you indifferent between the two regarding the forced demographic transformation that disenfranchises you

    Trump cannot be taken at his word that he would do anything for open borders.  He’s a loon.  He cannot be trusted.  I’m voting for him because he will be completely ineffective, and likely impeached at the drop of a hat.  Pence for President.  I don’t know anything about Pence, but he is not commanding a huge corrupt graft machine like Hillary.

    • #102
  13. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    HVTs: I find it hard to believe you cannot distinguish between Clinton and Trump in terms of even one single political outcome that matters to you.

    Then you wholly misunderstand my point and are likely to continue to do so even with further explanation. I can easily distinguish between the two just as surely as I can read the labels cyanide and hemlock on the bottles of poison.

    HVTs: The one likely to do the least harm/the most good.

    Forgive the hyperbolic analogy, but if a gun were to my head and I was forced to choose between raping two women, I would not fetch about to determine which one would be damaged the least by my raping her. I would say my final prayers and prepare to meet my maker.

    As a sovereign citizen I will not delegate my authority to either of these two. I will have neither act in my name or with my approval. One or the other will surely be president barring divine intervention, but it will not be because I affirmatively made it happen.

    • #103
  14. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Chad McCune: If one cannot answer in the affirmative for either major party candidate, why is it “pride” or “moral preening” (as I’ve read elsewhere) that prevents one from voting for either?

    Because pride and preening are what prevent you from accepting that—no matter how much you wish it weren’t so—one or the other will be your next President.

    • #104
  15. PHenry Inactive
    PHenry
    @PHenry

    I find it very hard to understand how anyone who considers themselves conservative and or Republican can’t see that the most important things in this election are stop Hillary from being president and stop the Democrat party from moving any further in their quest to fundamentally transform America from how it was founded.  Their corruption and undermining of the constitution is an existential threat in a way that no Republican at this point could equal.

    No matter who the opposition candidate is, no matter how morally, ideologically, or intellectually questionable he is, we must prevent the status quo from continuing.  Its a bitter pill, but the disease is fatal.

    If Trump wins, we will have a heavy load to bear keeping him from doing damage.  If Hillary wins, we will be powerless and the damage is inevitable.

     

    • #105
  16. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    The King Prawn: As a sovereign citizen I will not delegate my authority to either of these two. I will have neither act in my name or with my approval. One or the other will surely be president barring divine intervention, but it will not be because I affirmatively made it happen.

    This is moral preening, in case others still wonder what that means.  The Left’s strength is due in large part to the fact they very, very rarely do this.  They see the ball and keep their eye on it, while the center-right puffs up its chest and signals virtue.

    • #106
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    HVTs:

    JLocked: Percival said he would vote for the man but not give him free reign to play risk with our Military. That is a statement we should all agree upon no matter which bozo gets the undeserved chance to be Commander in Chief.

    Regardless of who becomes President, how exactly are you going to limit the CinC’s authority in a manner not already available via the Constitution (in which the limits are quite limited)?

    In terms of Trump’s advocating killing the families of terrorists, it’s quite simple. The military officers involved will point out to him that that would be a war crime, that any order to commit a war crime is an illegal order, and then tell him, with all due respect, to go get stuffed. I rather think that they would enjoy doing so to someone who referred to sleeping around and not getting an STD to his “personal Vietnam.” They wouldn’t post a video to YouTube of themselves doing so: that would be both a breach of protocol and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.

    Be pretty funny, though.

    • #107
  18. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    HVTs:

    The King Prawn: As a sovereign citizen I will not delegate my authority to either of these two. I will have neither act in my name or with my approval. One or the other will surely be president barring divine intervention, but it will not be because I affirmatively made it happen.

    This is moral preening, in case others still wonder what that means. The Left’s strength is due in large part to the fact they very, very rarely do this. They see the ball and keep their eye on it, while the center-right puffs up its chest and signals virtue.

    So the options are moral preening or situational ethics? Horse manure. To refuse to be forced to act immorally is not preening. It’s simply called morality. And I’ve had just about enough of the damned immoral preening.

    • #108
  19. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: And while I know folks disagree, I don’t think this is the last election that matters.

    Well said.  Hyperbole and trying to predict the future are beyond me. Thomas Sowell said Obama would put us on the point of no return,  so I guess we are in the bonus years.

    • #109
  20. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    HVTs:

    The King Prawn: As a sovereign citizen I will not delegate my authority to either of these two. I will have neither act in my name or with my approval. One or the other will surely be president barring divine intervention, but it will not be because I affirmatively made it happen.

    This is moral preening, in case others still wonder what that means. The Left’s strength is due in large part to the fact they very, very rarely do this. They see the ball and keep their eye on it, while the center-right puffs up its chest and signals virtue.

    You’re joking.  Spend ten minutes on DailyKos and tell me that the Left never engages in moral preening.

    But King Prawn’s comment is not an example of “moral preening.” It’s an honest assessment of how incredibly bad these two choices are.  You don’t have to agree with it, but that doesn’t mean he’s moralizing, virtue signaling, or anything else.  It is possible to be intellectually honest this cycle and conclude that Trump and Clinton are dead tied for how awful they would be as president.

    • #110
  21. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    The King Prawn: Then you wholly misunderstand my point and are likely to continue to do so even with further explanation. I can easily distinguish between the two just as surely as I can read the labels cyanide and hemlock on the bottles of poison.

    Perhaps. But I’ll give it a shot anyway if that’s okay with you?

    So, let’s see . . . unless you think some other outcome is possible (which you have not argued—for good reason) either hemlock or cyanide is your fate.  I guess I’m to understand that your point is you’re about to die anyway, therefore the choice of poison is rather beside the point?  Okay, got it.  With death so near, why are you here trying to convince people to follow your path?  Why not just sign-off quietly to oblivion?  It rather suggests you think influencing people matters, and thus you actually don’t plan on dying anytime soon.  I wish you Godspeed in that latter hope.

    • #111
  22. Karl Nittinger Inactive
    Karl Nittinger
    @KarlNittinger

    Tom Meyer, Ed.: And while I know folks disagree, I don’t think this is the last election that matters.

    I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment.

    • #112
  23. The King Prawn Inactive
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    The Whether Man: It is possible to be intellectually honest this cycle and conclude that Trump and Clinton are dead tied for how awful they would be as president.

    This. The only binary I see is fit and unfit. In that case the result is 0/0, not 0/1. Compared to each other their is clearly a bad and a worse choice. Compared to an actual standard (or even a minimalistic bare bones standard of “not dangerous to the nation”) both fail spectacularly.

    • #113
  24. Chad McCune Inactive
    Chad McCune
    @ChadMcCune

    HVTs:

    Chad McCune: If one cannot answer in the affirmative for either major party candidate, why is it “pride” or “moral preening” (as I’ve read elsewhere) that prevents one from voting for either?

    Because pride and preening are what prevent you from accepting that—no matter how much you wish it weren’t so—one or the other will be your next President.

    If your telling me that I’m prideful and preening isn’t itself prideful and preening, I’m not sure what is.

    Let me be straightforward: Barring a miracle, either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be president. I will not vote for either. Not out of pride, not out of fit of pique, not because I want to lord my superior moral reasoning over others. I will not vote for either because they are both unfit for the office of the presidency, as Professor Rahe said.

    You and Rahe and millions of others have become convinced it’s fine to vote for an unfit person to be president. That’s your prerogative; I disagree, but we can disagree amicably. Maybe just try to realize that it’s not out of pride that one doesn’t vote for Donald Trump.

    • #114
  25. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    The Whether Man: It is possible to be intellectually honest this cycle and conclude that Trump and Clinton are dead tied for how awful they would be as president.

    Yes, that’s possible.  What’s not possible is to draw that conclusion and simultaneously claim you are politically “center-right”, let alone “conservative.”  You are “center.” It’s entirely your prerogative to be “center” … let’s just keep our labels straight.

    • #115
  26. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    Quinn the Eskimo:The only reason to vote for Trump is to watch him betray the conservatives who are justifying him. Trump treats conservatives with contempt and they have spent most of the campaign season showing why they are worthy of that contempt.

    At this point, Trump’s conservative credentials (or, rather lack of them) are no longer relevant.  The president will be either Trump or Clinton.  One chooses between them or does not cast a vote that might matter in determining the winner of the election.

    I understand it may be important to some to bolster vote totals of a third party candidate for some future strategic purpose, but the only votes that matter in determining who will do damage (one hopes the least damage) to our country in the next four years are votes for Trump or Clinton.

    • #116
  27. HVTs Inactive
    HVTs
    @HVTs

    Chad McCune: You and Rahe and millions of others have become convinced it’s fine to vote for an unfit person to be president.

    That’s absurd.  I don’t have to like the fact I have a terrible choice to recognize the choice is there and will be made regardless of my feelings about it.

    • #117
  28. David Carroll Thatcher
    David Carroll
    @DavidCarroll

    The Whether Man:I disagree. Trump poses a direct threat to the first amendment as well – he just supports speech people on the right like better. But how many times has he threatened newspapers who say bad things about him? He spoke in opposition to Citizens United! I don’t trust him to protect the first amendment anymore than Hillary, so on that issue, it’s a draw. And forget all the names I’ve been called by the Trump supporters I know – a lot worse than deplorable.

    Trump reminds me of Obama – he is incredibly inexperienced, his promises to fundamentally transform the political arena are a lot of hot air (which I guess is comforting, because I doubt he’d follow through with the worst of them), and he’s got a hard core of supporters who’ve fallen for the cult of personality.

    It is easy to criticize Trump. The question is who would be worse, Trump or Hillary?  If you think Hillary is not as bad as Donald, that is your choice, but merely criticizing Trump does not further the argument without explaining why Hillary is not as bad as he is.

    • #118
  29. The Whether Man Inactive
    The Whether Man
    @TheWhetherMan

    HVTs:

    The Whether Man: It is possible to be intellectually honest this cycle and conclude that Trump and Clinton are dead tied for how awful they would be as president.

    Yes, that’s possible. What’s not possible is to draw that conclusion and simultaneously claim you are politically “center-right”, let alone “conservative.” You are “center.” It’s entirely your prerogative to be “center” … let’s just keep our labels straight.

    You don’t actually get to decide where I stand on the political spectrum.

    That said, saying two center-left candidates are equally bad does not disqualify anyone from claiming to be conservative or center-right.

    • #119
  30. Paul A. Rahe Member
    Paul A. Rahe
    @PaulARahe

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:

    Quake Voter:Why conclude such a fine, hard piece which combines scholarship and political common sense and achieves a tough elegance with the “Egg McMuffin” dig?

    Sure, it’s somewhat funny and has some visual bite, but it really should be left for hack writers like me.

    I second this. It’s cheap.

    Would irreverent not be the better word?

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