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.
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
My anecdotal data from talking politics with the military guys I work with every day reflects the accuracy of that poll, @tomdmeyer. The only surprise is how well Johnson does among the officers.
While what you say may well be true, the left does not fold up and shut up and go along with Republicans when they are in the minority. They keep the fight going, they make the case, and they eventually seem to win.
I would not blame Republicans for trying and failing nearly as much as I blame them for not putting up any fight whatsoever, then hiding behind ‘but we don’t run all three branches, so we can’t be expected to do anything!’
If there was only 1 Republican left in congress, I would expect him to stand up and defend the principles of conservatism. That is why we sent him there in the first place.
As a Massachusetts resident, voting for Trump (were I so inclined) would be an equally useless gesture.
Voting for McMullin has two advantages:
It ain’t much, but it’s the best offer I’ve received.
Yeah, I did – that’s where we started. I talked about foreign policy, trade, immigration – you countered with the first amendment, I deflected. Now we’ve circled back around again. We disagree, because we see the candidates differently and weigh the issues involved differently. So be it.
Really? Judging from pro-Trump arguments, I think it’s just as likely that any given Republican was elected because they didn’t have a D by their name.
And if we only send Republicans to Congress because they aren’t Democrats instead of because we think they’ll fight for our principles, why would you expect them to fight for our principles?
And by extension if the only reason to vote Trump is because he’s not a registered Democrat (and not, as most of us agree, because he cares about conservative principles), why would expect him to fight for our principles?
The duopoly choice in this presidential election is unacceptable. Sadly, I believe state of the Union shan’t begin to get better until the citizenry learns the hard, consequential results of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Hillary will speed up the decay toward revolution, while Donald will delay so the fight between total collectivism and liberty gets push to 2020.
I suggest Johnson and Weld team to begin reconstruction toward liberty.
Paul,
Isn’t that like General McClellan telling Lincoln that although he already had a 2 to 1 advantage if he had a 4 to 1 then he could whip them? OK OK, hopefully after November 8 even with this unreal Republican as President it will suffice.
Regards,
Jim
My pastor argues the same about Trump except he sees support from those who would hasten the crash rather than delay it.
I think so — if there is anyone who has a proven history of saying to the little people, “Sorry, I know you want money from me, but I just don’t have it. What are you going to do, sue?” that man is Trump.
And as it will be sometime within the next four years that entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 100% of federal revenue instead of only 95+%, he may end up being the guy in place to make that call.
Do you expect Hillary to be more conservative than Trump?
Of course, I would prefer a more ideologically pure candidate, but I don’t have one on the ballot, thus, I vote not Democrat.
But then if the machine is a laptop …
It’s not about purity. The problem isn’t that he’s only 20% conservative or 58.3% conservative — the problem is that he is 0% conservative. Purity is not a factor at 0%.
Compare the tone and language of the NeverTrumpers in the comments here with the tone and language of those who – like Dr. Rahe – find voting for Trump distasteful but necessary, and tell me who’s prideful and preening.
Ah, but you are assessing the consequences of two candidates relative to each other in a single election for a single office for a single term. It is so much more.
We have two candidates. Each candidate, at the moment, leads their party. Each candidate advocates a nation of men over laws.
One party has consistently offered that vision. The other party, for the most part, opposed it.
If Trump wins, he and his supporters will have control of that other party. That gives us two parties engaged in a political battle over which men rule.
Those of us who want a nation of laws and not of men will no longer be participants but observers. We will have no vehicle.
This is not some wild doomsday scenario. This is not Trump being evil. This is not opinion. This is a change in attitude. Times are changing. Perceptions of the relationship between citizen and government are different now.
And yet we continue to insist that the world falls neatly into a left-right continuum and that elections are binary choices along that continuum.
And because of that we continually work against effecting our own ideas.
If you have an issue with my comment, then say it. Otherwise, put the broad brush down. It’s not helpful.
I have the luxury (and at times the regret) of living in deep blue California, where a super majority of Dems control Sacramento and all 55 electoral votes are destined to go to Hillary. I’m afraid if I lived in a toss-up state like Arizona or Florida, I would be compelled to vote for Trump chiefly because Hillary is a free-range criminal that together with her husband-of-convenience and her duplicitous accomplices have corrupted (with Obama’s compliance) the Executive Branch and in particular the State Dept., the DoJ and even some elements of the FBI while Obama was busy corrupting the IRS, the EPA, the FEC and other agencies and departments.
That said, Hillary’s domestic agenda may be reined in by a Republican-controlled House and much of the promises she’s made to her more radical followers (and former Bernie supporters) may be Dead On Arrival when presented to Congress. On the other hand, Trump may quickly seek out Democrat support if a Republican House or Senate blocks any initiative of his to further expand the federal government or expand the federal debt.
My larger concern is foreign policy and the growing threat of Russian, Chinese and Iranian expansionism. Both candidates are weak on this front. Hillary is both incompetent and corrupt on actual statecraft as practiced but she speaks more intelligently about the importance of alliances and at least blunting Russian ambitions.
Trump on the other hand, is abysmally ignorant about history, foreign policy, geopolitics and national security and by his own admission says he has no time to read books. He’s further boasted that he’s smarter than “the generals” (because he attended a military academy) and ready to fire them, wants to be Vladimir Putin’s friend because Putin said nice things about him (perhaps Putin can offer him Russian citizenship like Steven Seagal).
I anticipate that after the Inauguration that Russia in particular will test the new American president by moving on Kiev and possibly the Baltic States while the Chinese may also do something provocative like moving on Taiwan.
One would hope that a President Trump would take the advice of the military brass and seasoned national security advisors and respond to stop provocative moves by both regimes and stop harping how the Japanese and others in APAC and the Baltic States are getting a free ride from the US for their defense. But I think there is a high probability that Trump may let Russia expand its territory thus putting additional pressure on Poland and other former Soviet client states. I hope I am wrong about all of this but I haven’t heard any rhetoric from Trump that the Russians should think twice about any adventurous moves in Eastern Europe. To hear him articulate that once would be refreshing.
I suspect that regardless of who wins we’ll see what it looks like when a dog chasing a car finally catches it.
I offered to vote-pair with someone in a state more up-for-grabs than my own who was contemplating voting Trump, but still hesitant. Although this friend might be better served by vote-pairing with a McMuffiner ;-P
This is correct. Hillary will be blocked by the house. When blocked by the house, Trump will seek vengeance.
As a result I cannot tell which of these degenerates will be worse in the White House.
I’m just saying if you vote simply to keep Democrats out, you lose even when you “win,” and the elected politicians get to play a game of chicken as to how Democrat-lite they get to be before you’ll vote against them.
In Trump’s case, the answer is apparently “so Democrat-lite he’s still spouting Code Pink talking points is still acceptable.”
So Democrat-lite they forgot to remove the trans-fat?
Our alliance with Stalin ended the moment we won WWII (effectively) and served to negate the justification for the start of the war, Poland’s independence. We bargained with the Devil to seemingly make our lives easier, but it created massive long term problems. Having been born in a country that was on the wrong end of that alliance I can say I have rather mixed emotions about it. I understand why America and England did it, but the biggest price for it was conveniently paid by others who were not consulted. Who is left to pay the price for this alliance with Trump other than us? It may not be immoral to choose the bad over the worse, but is it not also moral to actually seek for the good always rather than settling? And how can the good be bad unless we succumb to relativism?
Amy,
You know very well on every material issue Hillary will be a hundred times worse for conservatives. If you personally can’t stand Trump fine but the primaries are over and we are down to it now. You are talking about condemning this country to four or probably eight years of an incredibly corrupt destructive left-wing Administration. After the last eight years of Obama we are hanging by a thread. The race is neck and neck.
If you aren’t in a state that’s up in the air then you could make a contribution to the Trump campaign.
Regards,
Jim
I’m not in such a state, and I won’t be voting for Trump.
But the one silver lining in the F5-tornado-spawning-storm that would be the Trump presidency is the possibility of real entitlement reform because he has a proven track record of screwing over the little people. If there is anyone who, when faced with the choice between cuts in welfare for old and/or sick people and cutting defense spending, would screw over the widows and sick kids, Trump is the man.*
And sure, you can call that damning with faint praise, but it’s the most praise I can offer.
*Particularly given that there’s already been a lawsuit on whether citizens can force the government to give them the Social Security to which they are “entitled,” and the Supreme Court ruled that government promises to “entitlements” are not enforceable.
Amy,
Gosh, you don’t seem to be making noises consistent with a conservative point of view. I’m shocked yes shocked! Being that I am the epitome of a cruel conservative I would sentence you to 20 lashes with the overcooked vegetable of your choice. (vegetable is not a reference to anyone in particular and should not be counted as an ad hominem attack.)
Hah!
Regards,
Jim
Frank,
Have you made your contribution yet?
Regards,
Jim
True beyond mere shallow affirmation. This election is a just a cheap and badly written Roman à clef for a more serious collapse.
I’d add that a major problem with the analogy is that we didn’t put Stalin in power in order to stop Hitler. Stalin was already there.
I’m not following …
I’m dead serious about this. Our entitlement system is going to collapse sooner than later, and staving off that collapse will require a) a serious bipartisan cadre willing to defy both Republican and Democratic bases by both raising taxes and cutting benefits through legislation (i.e. a miracle) or a president willing to use his authority to stop sending out checks so he can use the money elsewhere while telling Congress, the Supreme Court, and the electorate to kiss his [donkey].
Now, I’d prefer a proper legislative solution, but we’re not going to get one. I’d prefer a decent human being for president, but we’re not going to get one. So I can at least look at one of the two terrible humans running for president and say, “well, this guy has a lifetime history of telling people to kiss his [donkey] while he refuses to pay them to keep himself in style, so he might do that here.”
And it’s one argument for Trump that doesn’t depend on “but Hillary!”