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.
Should Never Trump People Get Over It?
Washington State’s Republican Party just defied the stampede toward “unity.” Meeting over the weekend, they awarded 40 of the state’s 41 delegates to Ted Cruz. Washington’s Republicans have refused to be sheep.
The past few days have featured hectoring demands of Never Trump people to “get over it.” These have come not just from the more bullying precincts of Trump fandom, as in “Get on the Trump train or get run over,” but also from party regulars and office holders suggesting that failure to endorse Trump now is a kind of stubborn self-indulgence. “While you sit out, Hillary gets elected” huffed one of my critics, for example.
Yes, if there is a binary choice (not completely clear as of this writing) between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it is possible that voters in swing states who decline to support Trump may be assisting Clinton. This is not a secret. Some Never Trump voters may have to live with that miserable outcome rather than violate their consciences by voting for an authoritarian ignoramus.
The genuflection to party loyalty that has spread like a rash in the past two weeks has more of the quality of a salute than a clear evaluation of the stakes. Some of Trump’s supporters are exulting at recent polls showing a slight Trump lead, while scorning those who advised as recently as a few weeks ago that a Trump nomination could lead the Republican Party to a Goldwater-type debacle. But one of the points the Never Trump people have stressed is that there were too equally painful possible outcomes of a Trump nomination: He loses or he wins.
The Democrats remain the majority party in presidential contests, having won five of the past six popular votes. They begin with an average 247 to 196 Electoral Collage advantage. That said, Hillary Clinton may well be the only major political figure in the country who could possibly lose a general election to Donald Trump. In fact, as two political scientists argue in the set ital New York Times end ital, Bernie Sanders’ support seems to come chiefly not from socialist young people but from “disaffected white men.” If white men turn out in droves for Trump in the general, it might affect the outcome. On the third hand, an analysis by Political Machination suggests that while Trump did bring out some new voters in the primaries, the newly-minted Trump Republicans were too few in the states examined to make up the 2012 Romney deficit.
The Never Trump commitment is not a matter of being excessively fastidious or too good for this world. Recognizing the imperfection of politics and of life is part of being a grown up.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would do damage to the nation. Both have demonstrated low character, an embrace of appalling policies (in some cases, the same policies!), and a capacity for dishonesty that rocks the Richter scale. But he is arguably even more dangerous than she. Both will abuse power and pursue execrable ends, but…
If Hillary Clinton is president, a united Republican Party will oppose her. Assuming Republican control of the House, she will not be able to pass a single piece of liberal legislation. She may attempt – as she has promised on the campaign trail – to rule by executive order in the manner of Obama. If she does, there will be pushback by Republicans. Just this month, a federal judge ruled in favor of the House of Representatives in its suit against Obama’s use of executive orders in the implementation of Obamacare. If she nominates terrible judges to the federal courts, a Republican Senate (assuming Republicans hold the Senate) could decline to confirm. If she attempts to reprise or even exceed the many arrogations of power Obama has attempted, Republicans will block her as best they can. It will be ugly, and Republicans will not always be successful.
If Donald Trump is president, by contrast, there will be no united opposition among Republicans. As we’ve seen in the past few weeks, the urge to bend the knee is very strong. How much more intense will it be if he sits in the Oval Office? Republicans will actively assist President Trump in undermining conservatism. From entitlements to trade to NATO to nuclear proliferation to universal health care to abortion, President Trump will get a free hand. He thus has it within his power to sabotage the whole conservative enterprise.
So remaining Never Trump is not disloyal — it’s the only way to safeguard conservative principles.
Published in General
Thank you, Mona, for continuing to fight the good fight.
I have a question for those of us who are thoroughly disgusted with the Republican party, though. How do you reconcile it with your conscience to vote for down ballot candidates who represent a party that nominated Trump?
Will Trump take back his blame of Bush for 9/11? If not, I’ll never pull a lever for him.
I want a wall. I want controls on Islamicist immigration.
But not that bad.
“The party” did not so much nominate Trump, Lucy. (Technically he isn’t nominated yet.) People voted for him, and not all of them were Republicans. I don’t think it would be fair to punish everyone else.
Mona, to me it’s not about loyalty; it’s about principles. But I make a point of not attacking those who will vote for Trump. We’ve made our points, taken our stands, and throwing rocks in both directions (and I’m not saying you’re doing that) just does more damage.
You mean, like a united Republican Party has opposed President Obama?
Why should we expect Clinton to unite the party after 8 years of Obama have not?
Yes, they should get over it. End of story.
Mona,
Into every life a little [CoC] must fall. It’s falling on us pretty good right now. Be strong Mona.
https://youtu.be/A8JJH7ZL_Fk
There that wasn’t so good was it.
Regards,
Jim
The party didn’t nominate Trump. Voters did.
The party’s blame lies in upholding a staggered primaries system that gives some voters more options and more significance than others.
Perhaps voting down-ballot just isn’t as straightforward as it used to be. If a better individual runs under a 3rd-party banner, vote for him. Whether or not he is a Republican, a well-principled candidate will vote with Republicans when the party is right and vote against Republicans when the party is wrong.
This is my question. If the Republican party hasn’t really opposed Obama, why expect them to oppose Hillary?
We all agree we’re in a terrible position but there’s a simple litmus test: if you ever made the argument that somone had to pull the lever for McCain or Romney because the alternative was worse you should be voting for Trump.
Otherwise you have to consider these facts:
We know Hillary doesn’t care about national security.
We know she doesn’t care about the Rule of Law.
We know she doesn’t care about Constitutional rights.
We know she punishes those she perceives as her enemies.
We know that at best she has remained married to a sexual predator and defended him in public by slandering his victims.
We know that Trump has no track record in office.
We believe we can’t trust any promises since he has yet to pick a particular position on any topic and stick with it.
We know that Trump’s behavior does not coincide with any President’s except maybe Andrew Jackson and that’s not comforting.
You have to pick Trump, Hillary, an outside candidate (which helps Hillary) or abstaining from voting (which also helps Hillary).
I can’t tell you what to do outside of making sure you vote for down ballot candidates who will stop the madness – and good luck with that.
But be under no illusions about what any actions you take in regards to a presidential vote mean.
In the meantime pray to whatever higher power you believe in and get ready for at least four rocky years.
Not easy to vote for a man like Trump, but lets not make too many predictions or be too clever. If we could see clearly he wouldn’t be the candidate. Bush wouldn’t have run, the money would have gone elsewhere, and certainly wouldn’t have piled on Rubio and the establishment wouldn’t have continued with their mindless anti Cruz narrative. I saw Trump as a threat out of the box because I’ve seen that sort in Latin America when things become dysfunctional, corrupt and the mood swings. I thought Rubio had taken himself out of the running with the gang of eight and was pleasantly surprised he did so well. I think McCain et all knew they were destroying him just like they helped destroy Cruz. Who knows they’re not very bright. Too many advisers being too clever with too much money. Hillary has the Democrat party, the media, hollywood, boardrooms, unions, the educational establishment, the bureaucracy and they’ve been messing with the senior military and she is as left wing as Obama. Folks these people are the real deal. Think Kirkpatrick and the difference between authoritarians and totalitarians. Trump may name adults to his cabinet and will have liberal interests and constitutional interests battling him. My concern is that he’ll make deals and we’ll look at them and look from pig to farmer and not see a difference. Still at worst he’ll be authoritarian and inept.
So Mona, does this mean you don’t like Trump? Gee, who’da thunk it.
If you fear a dictator, Trump is the safest candidate in living memory.
If Trump puts a foot wrong, there is a large contingent of Republicans who will be only too happy to turf him. Most Democrats won’t require even that much reason.
People who fear for the republic, your best hope is to energetically work for Tea Party types in the senate, house and local races while quietly praying for a Trump presidency.
Maybe. But one could make a case for just the opposite scenario:
1) Hillary would face very little resistance to do what she wants, as she will have the Democrat machine, the Washington establishment and the media backing her up. And a bickering fractured Republican opposition will be no more effective against her than they’ve been against Obama.
2) Trump, on the other hand would face united resistance from pretty much everyone, democrats and antagonistic republicans combined. There could potentially be real gridlock as Washington suddenly magically rediscovers the idea of separation of powers.
Mona,
There are several HUGE flaws in your argument. The assumption of Republicans holding anything is implausible.
One has to start off assuming a massacre of 2008 proportions.
Then one adds in worse coattails than McCain.
Then one realizes that Trump may be bringing a lot of Democrat voters to vote for him and then vote Democrat downticket.
We could take huge hits in the red states and go down to 150 house seats.
Even if Trump wins, the Dems could take both houses.
I am going to assume you mean that there will be ineffective Republican opposition to Trump’s leftist tendencies and that Trump and the Dems and the Gang of Eight types will screw us. Still not as bad as Hillary.
The Germans have a word for this…
Okay, but we are talking about the same GOP, the Nebraska chapter of which just reprimanded people calling for a third-party candidate (slapping Ben Sasse down) and refused to condemn degrading remarks towards women and minorities. Why would I ever want to vote for anyone associated with that organization again?
Yes.
Yep, that’s about the size of it.
Barring some entirely unforeseen event, come noon on January 20, 2017 either Trump or Clinton is going to be president, is going to be Commander-in-Chief.
Conservatives who sit this out on principle will be enabling a Clinton presidency.
In the hair on fire rants of some of the #NeverTrump crowd one can detect the sour odor of a bruised ego “You didn’t listen to me! You didn’t listen to ME!!!!, Why won’t you listen to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!” coupled with the foul reek of overweening sanctimony “I have my principles which forbid me to soil my hands voting for that narcissistic vulgarian Trump, unlike the unwashed unlettered herd who refuse to accept my enlightened tutelage.”
If you seriously think Trump would be worse for the country than Clinton, then make like PJ O’Rourke. Declare for Clinton and own it.
I’m amused to hear the ‘party loyalty’ song sung by people who support Mr. Trump more or less openly calling to burn down the party.
Talk of principle is possibly even more amusing coming from his supporters.
Aside from these much-needed laughs, there is the sorry matter that conservatism has been proved to be useless politically. It cannot produce GOP nominees, nor can it veto contenders for the nomination. It’s more of a sect than any kind of political association & it only represents a rather small constituency.
Whether this constituency can scuttle Mr. Trump is not clear to me. It’s not impossible, but it neither seems necessary–the Dems can do the job, I believe–nor likely. It seems like most of the GOP electorate is going to show up as easily in 2016 as it did in 2012.
However the elections turns out, it’s already time to start thinking again about this Ricochet motto: Conservative conversation & community.
The community aspect is strained by people turning ideas into weapons: The learning part is apparently all about teaching lessons these days & people can hardly talk politics without a desire to punish people with whom they disagree.
But then there is this other matter about the site being all about conservatism. What’s the future of conservatism? Is Ricochet supposed to be counter-cultural from now on–trying to withstand the new style of partisanship? Is it going to be a strong, but disregarded minority opinion?
It should be pointed out that, while the first sentence is true, the second is not necessarily so. The actual allocation of delegates will be determined by the primary vote, which is tomorrow. We shall see what that looks like.
I can just smell the unity here. I was just on the Huffington Post comment section. The lefties, by comparison, are at each other’s throats. Trump’s gonna win, because we’re uniting, and they aren’t.
Same answer. But you have to make your own choices.
Are these the same conservative principles that always raise the debt ceiling, funded Obamacare’s implementation, funded planned parenthood, have yet to impeach the IRS commissioner (though Speaker Ryan is working with the HFC on that)?
Or is it the conservative principles that call Obama lawless then grant him Trade Promotion Authority for a trade agreement nobody in Congress read?
Is it the conservative principles that fund our universities through the department of education for safe spaces, segregation, and the demise of the 1st Amendment?
Which conservative principles the majority of Republicans have fought for this century are we safeguarding?
Well, you’ve certainly lost your self-control.
As for the ‘he will be forced to deal with the GOP in the House & Senate,’ there’s probably a post in trying to figure out what that might mean.
As for the evils of the Clintons–there’s probably a post in trying to figure out a ‘stick with the devil you know’ argument you don’t think is crazy & try to prove it’s nevertheless wrong.
I don’t have a problem with anyone that doesn’t want to vote for Trump or does want to vote for Trump. I deployed the better part of 9 years to help ensure we could all vote our conscience, patriotism, and values.
That said this constant drum banging about how a card carrying Republican or member of center right is not going to vote for Trump to safeguard conservative principles rings very hollow.
Where were al these new unyielding principles the past 16 years while we more than doubled the debt we will saddle onto the backs of the children that escaped planned parenthood while Republicans fully funded it?
It’s not clear to me whether we anti-Trump people should get over it and support the guy, but it is clear that we should be more humble.
Conservatism has had a bad century–most of the time, you could have found as many complaints & complained with as much right as you can now.
But at this point the conservatives who are opposing Mr. Trump are in a minority, aren’t they? Not only within the GOP coalition but within conservatism. While I think conservatives who oppose Mr. Trump have got to figure out how come they lost their party, I’m not for abandoning conservatism or the conservatives.
The Repubs are typically better than the available alternatives.