Gay Patriot Header Image

A Constitutional Conservative Case for Backing Trump in November

Although I’ve only been a lurker and occasional commenter at GayPatriot over the past two and a half years (between working full-time, earning another degree, and making a move, I haven’t felt like I had much time for blogging), I still check in regularly to see what’s going on and what people are talking about.  From comments V the K, ColoradoPatriot and the other contributors have made here, I gather I’m in the minority among the blog contributors–but in sync with many readers and commenters–in my willingness to support Trump in this election.

Trump was definitely not my first choice:  I would have originally put him somewhere near the middle of the pack of 17 declared candidates, and, among the final four candidates, I would definitely have preferred Cruz.  As someone who considers himself a constitutional conservative, I would have preferred a nominee with a clear record of supporting such principles, but now that Trump is the Republican nominee, I am willing to back him.

My willingness does not come from blind party loyalty, but instead, from a clear understanding of my priorities and what is at stake in this election.  While I am more than conversant with Trump’s faults, as I will explain below, even some of his faults provide good reasons for backing him rather than voting in a way that would–directly or indirectly–lead to a victory for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

Although I could begin by outlining my points of agreement with Trump and then detailing and responding to various points of concern, others have done so already elsewhere, and for the sake of my particular argument, at this point, it is more useful to say a few words about my philosophy of voting.  While many people hew to an idealistic vision of voting whereby you are supposed to vote for the person who shares most of your views or principles, anyone who has been voting very long quickly realizes that such a vision rarely squares with reality.  So what to do?  One can vote, as the saying usually goes, for “the lesser of two evils,” which is how many of the people I know think about voting in presidential races, or one can approach it in some other way.  Some people say they vote for issues rather than parties or candidates, others say they vote for the person and not the party, and still others have other approaches.

Many people’s views on voting evolve over their lifetimes.  During Bill Clinton’s first term, it became evident to me that voting on character was in many respects more important than voting on issues because I’d rather vote for a person of character who will try to do what he says he will do, than for a slippery, dishonest snake who will lie and “triangulate” and poll-test all of his positions just for the sake of holding on to power.  I reasoned that even when I disagree with the person of character, I can act on that disagreement to oppose policies or proposals that I disagree with.

But what happens when all of the candidates seem to have objectionable characters in some respect or another, and no candidate adequately represents your views on the issues?  One response is to throw up your hands and say you won’t be part of the process, and many say they are going to do that this year.  My response is to say that in such a situation, one has to vote strategically in order to best achieve one’s objectives.

Anyone who has ever taken a class in strategy or game theory will have come across topics such as decision trees, Nash equilibriums, and games such as the prisoner’s dilemma.  Without going into too much detail, what one learns from studying such matters is that often the best strategic choice is not necessarily the choice that appears to be in one’s best interest at first glance.  Sometimes the best strategic choice involves taking risks that one wouldn’t ordinarily decide to choose.

In this election, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that in a contest between Trump, Clinton, and a variety of third-party candidates, voting for Trump offers the best strategic choice for advancing constitutional conservative principles.  I say that while fully recognizing that Trump is more of an opportunist than he is a conservative.

But let’s examine the situation.  We know that Hillary Clinton is no constitutional conservative.  We also know that Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton, an opportunist willing to “triangulate” for the sake of power.  Hillary is a committed leftist who is proud to think of Republicans as “enemies.”  That’s not hyperbole, but Hillary’s own words from one of the debates.  She views herself as a “progressive…who can get things done.”

During her time in the Senate, Hillary had tried to craft an image as a somewhat “moderate” Democrat, but that didn’t help her against the leftist Obama in 2008, who not only appealed more to their party’s leftist base, but, as a relative unknown, had none of Hillary’s baggage and the added bonus of more melanin.  When she became Secretary of State, however, she quickly reverted to the kinds of behaviors that had earned her so much distrust during her husband’s time as president.  And with the Clinton Foundation, she and her husband had found a new way to enrich themselves through their so-called “public service.”

So what would a Hillary Clinton presidency look like?  This excellent piece written a few months back by the always worthwhile Daniel Greenfield offers a persuasive preview:

The national debt will go up. So will your taxes. Hillary Clinton is promising a trillion dollar tax hike. And that’s during her campaign. Imagine how much she will really raise taxes once she’s actually in office.

Two Supreme Court justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy will likely leave office on her watch. That’s in addition to Scalia’s empty seat which she will fill resulting in an ideological switch for the court. Additionally, Kennedy, for all his flaws, was a swing vote. Hillary’s appointee won’t be swinging anywhere. The Supreme Court will once again become a reliable left-wing bastion.

Even if the Democrats never manage to retake Congress, they will control two out of three branches of government. And with an activist Supreme Court and the White House, the left will have near absolute power to redefine every aspect of society on their own terms without facing any real challenges.

And they will use it. Your life changed fundamentally under Obama. The process will only accelerate.

You will have less free speech. You will pay more for everything. Your children and grandchildren will be taught to hate you twice as hard. Local democracy will continue being eroded. Your community, your school, your town, your city and your state will be run out of D.C. You will live under the shadow of being arrested for violating some regulation that you never even heard of before.

Every day you will notice basic aspects of life that you took for granted just vanishing while a carefully selected multicultural audience cheers on television.

Hillary Clinton had a man sent to jail for uploading a video about Mohammed. What do you think she’ll do to even more vocal critics of Islam? How long will it be until a new Supreme Court decides that a Mohammed cartoon is “shouting fire in a crowded theater” and not protected by the Constitution?

I wish I could say Greenfield is exaggerating, but I know that he is not.   As Glenn Reynolds always says, read the whole thing.

And I haven’t even touched on the reckless dishonesty and unquestionable corruption of the Clintons.    As Fred Barnes noted in a recent piece, “Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt person ever to get this close to becoming president of the United States.”  Barnes notes:

Is there any public figure who lies as routinely as Clinton? Not in my lifetime in Washington. Not Richard Nixon. Not LBJ. Not Donald Trump. Not even Bill Clinton. She skillfully, though probably unconsciously, spreads out her lies to lessen the impact. But when you pack them together, as Rep. Trey Gowdy did while questioning FBI director James Comey at a House hearing, they’re shocking.

And in that case, he is just talking about the e-mail scandal.  The Clinton Foundation is another story completely, and an even more appalling one on its face.

The Clintons are so unscrupulous in their quest to gain and hold on to power while enriching themselves that they could teach a graduate-level course on political corruption and political machines that might shock the denizens of Tammany Hall.

For those reasons and many more, my political position this year has always been one of “Never Hillary.”  Hillary Clinton must not become president.  If she does at this point in time, the damage she will be able to do to the country will be irreversible.

So then, why Donald Trump?  Honestly the main reason, the most basic reason, is that Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.

I’m more than sufficiently aware of the case people make against Trump: he’s a narcissist, he’s dishonest, he’s impetuous, he’s unscrupulous, he’s not a “true conservative,” and, last but not least, he displays authoritarian tendencies in many of the things he says.

Of those, the most significant complaint is that he may have authoritarian tendencies, and that may appear to be the most challenging concern to reconcile with my claim that I consider myself a constitutional conservative.  How can one vote for a candidate who may be tempted to act like an authoritarian after taking office?

For me, the answer to that question is one of faith, not in Trump, but in the genius of our constitutional system.  Ever since it became evident that Trump would be the nominee, my thinking about this issue has remained the same:  Trump may try for unconstitutional power grabs, but Congress and the courts can and will block him along the way.

What makes me so sure?  Well, for one thing, Trump is running as a Republican.  Rick Manning, a contributor at The Hill knows what that means.  A few days ago, Hillary had the chutzpah (to use Manning’s apt description) to suggest that Trump would use the IRS to target political enemies, as if Obama hadn’t done exactly that (and worse) already.  Manning’s assessment of that argument is exactly on target:

No matter the explanation, the truth is that the Democrats in Congress won’t accept a GOP president using the federal government to abuse the left and the Republicans will join them. So, Hillary Clinton fans, fear not. A Trump presidency will be constrained by the very Congress that fecklessly tried to confront Obama, because Democrats will suddenly rediscover moral outrage should their supporters end up on the wrong end of an audit.

And that is the reality of Washington: Republican presidents and politicians are held to a different standard than their Democratic counterparts, because when Democrats abuse their office using their pen and phone, it is met with either a cheer and the media buries complaints.

Most of us remember how effective the Democrats and their allies in the press were at weakening George W. Bush during his second term — completely in contrast to the fecklessness of the Republican leadership who continually caves in response to President Stompy Foot’s demands.  What happened with the Democrats under Bush, could just as easily happen again under a President Donald Trump.

As another Kurt, Kurt Schlichter, put it so memorably the other day: “…the election of a tacky jerk like Donald Trump is the only thing that could ever motivate the ‘elite’ to rediscover checks and balances upon executive power.” Once again, read the whole thing.  (Hat Tip: commenter RobertArvanitis at Bookworm.)

Of related interest is another worthwhile post at Bookworm responding to the hysterical screeds that started appearing Friday after Trump’s convention speech entitled “Dear Elites — no, Trump is not a fascist, but Hillary probably is.”  There are many great points made there, but this little nugget alone is almost enough for a prima facie case: “Another Trump promise is to respect the Second Amendment, keeping guns in the hands of private citizens. Remember: The single biggest barrier to total state control is an armed citizenry.”

So to reiterate what is one of my central points: the fact that the press and the left are in full panic mode attacking Trump as some sort of Mussolini while promoting the hopelessly corrupt Hillary Clinton as a “reasonable” alternative should tell us all we need to know.  The press and the left will do anything to provide cover for Hillary Clinton.  Anything.  And they are ready and willing to hold Trump accountable for even the slightest infraction.  As I see it, that is a feature and not a bug of a potential Trump administration.

I would maintain, with Bookworm, and with a commenter named Bruce Abbott at Instapundit that Hillary is much more like Mussolini, whereas Trump is a different kind of Italian politician entirely:

“We appear in line to get our own version of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi, the media tycoon/buffoon who headed four Italian governments. Italy seems to have survived Berlusconi reasonably well, which is more than one can say for their fate under Benito Mussolini, a version-in-drag of which is heading the ticket of the Democratic party.”

Now while I recognize that many find the idea of voting for Trump distasteful because they don’t care for his style or approach or they are not convinced he is a conservative, they insist that they’re going to “send a message” to the party by sitting the election out or voting for Gary Johnson or another third-party candidate instead.

I know several of those people on Facebook, and they are constantly on the defensive saying, “don’t tell me that a vote for a third-party candidate means I’m voting for Hillary.  I am voting for a candidate I believe in.”

And, in reply, I’m constantly tempted to say, good for you, but then don’t complain when Hillary’s America seems more and more like the world Greenfield described in the article linked and quoted above, or like the vision of a corrupt, criminal government outlined in Dinesh D’Souza’s new movie of the same name.

Earlier in this post, I talked about the idea of voting strategically, and in the context of national elections, for a constitutional conservative, voting strategically means understanding how our system works well enough to be able to achieve results which align with one’s principles.  One of the reasons why third parties rarely catch on in the U.S. is that presidents are not elected directly by the people, but through the electoral college, and winning in the electoral college requires winning a majority of electoral votes.  The nature of the electoral college, therefore, is one reason why third party candidates rarely do anything more than split the vote in years where they have a strong showing.

Although there have been cases — most notably in 1968 — where third party candidates have won states, or while a few third party candidates have captured electoral votes through other means (such as proportional assignment of electors), most states assign electors on a winner-take-all basis, which means that strong third party candidates only insure that the winners of states with strong third party showings will award electors to the candidate who receives a plurality of votes rather than a majority.  In states where Democrats hold a registration advantage over Republicans that means that in a year where a strong third party candidate depresses the Republican turnout, in most cases the Democrat will receive enough votes to win a plurality and capture the state’s electoral votes.  This is not a theory, it is a mathematical fact.

While the electoral college is part of the explanation for why third parties rarely catch on in this country, the structure of the government is another.   Our constitutional republic is based on the idea of the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances.  We have three, co-equal branches of government: the executive, the legislative and the judicial.  This point may seem obvious, but it is just another way of emphasizing that the United States is not a parliamentary democracy.  In a parliamentary system, there is much greater room for multiple parties because the process of forming a government often depends on negotiating among many competing interests.   Small parties organized strongly around one principle or another can have a much greater impact on policy if they can help a plurality party form a government.

In the U.S., one implication of this reality is that if third parties are to have any impact and to increase their influence in national elections, the best way of doing that would be to establish a significant presence in the legislative branch to begin with.  Once people see that a third party is viable and influential in the legislative process, they are more likely to take a chance on voting for a third party candidate in a national election.  Until that happens, though, voting for a third party candidate in a national election will only split the vote by reducing the number of votes that the major party candidates receive.

What all of this means is that unless someone can show me how and where Gary Johnson or another third-party candidate has a chance of winning enough states to block a Clinton victory in the electoral college — and not just capturing “protest” votes — a third-party vote is effectively equivalent to a plea of “nolo contendere”: in other words, saying, “I endorse the outcome of the election in my state.”  In specific terms, if you live in a state that is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton, therefore, you are effectively endorsing her victory in your state by refusing to vote for the candidate with the best chance of defeating her.

Earlier I talked about the concept of strategic voting and I referenced “the prisoner’s dilemma.”  This excerpt from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides the context and an explanation of the implications of the game for the players:

Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. “You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I’ll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I’ll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.”

The “dilemma” faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest. More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually. A closely related view is that the prisoner’s dilemma game and its multi-player generalizations model familiar situations in which it is difficult to get rational, selfish agents to cooperate for their common good.

That game is relevant because the solution to the game depends on the two prisoners both choosing the second most appealing option (both remaining silent) rather than the most appealing option (one confessing and having all charges dropped) based on their expectation of what the other prisoner may choose to do.

You may be thinking: but I’m not guilty, I didn’t do anything wrong, I don’t deserve to have to choose between two unsavory options.  Perhaps that is so, but you are going to have to live with the consequences in either case.  And as long as you have to live with the consequences, the best choice means acting in a way that will try to minimize the damage, or settling for the candidate who will do the least harm to you and your interests.

Voting for a third party candidate might be your way of “virtue signaling” by indicating that you have reservations about Trump, but if enough people cast such votes and Hillary wins, I hope you are ready for the consequences, because they won’t be pretty.  As a friend of mine remarked a few weeks back, saying “Never Trump” is just another way of saying “I’m ready for Hillary.”

Conversely, saying “Never Hillary” is another way of saying “I’m ready for Trump.”  As noted above, he is far from my first choice, but am I ready?  The more I think about it, yes I am.  As I’ve explained, I have every confidence that Congress, the press, and the courts can and will check any authoritarian impulses at every turn, just as I have every confidence that the Democrats, the press, and the many leftists already ensconced in the judicial branch will do everything they can to enable and provide cover for Hillary’s abuses of power.   They will be shameless about it, too, just as they have been during the Obama era.

In the video below, Bill Whittle effectively explains that the Democrats have become more shameless in their corruption and lawlessness not because they think we are stupid nor because they think we don’t know, but because they expect we are too cowardly to do anything to stop it.

YouTube Preview Image

But we can stop it.  We can defeat Hillary by electing Trump and start working to reverse the tide of leftist abuses that have mounted every day during the Obama administration.

Will it be easy? No.  Will it be fun?  No.  Will the left throw everything they can at anyone who tries to interrupt the progress of the “long march” through the institutions?  Absolutely.

Saying you don’t like Hillary but don’t have the will to vote for Trump is tantamount to being a conscientious objector during a war.  Conscientious objectors don’t win wars and never have.  Join the fight or get out of the way.  And if you agree with me that Hillary’s brand of corrupt statism must be stopped, then stop giving ammunition to the Democrats who, I can guarantee, like Hillary, see you as the enemy and intend to use every corrupt means at their disposal to gain and hold power over you.

Share

19 Comments

  1. “You are not our equals. [. . .] We will eat your children.”

    Ah, good times.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 24, 2016 @ 6:50 pm - July 24, 2016

  2. Thanks for the very thoughtful and compelling analysis.

    Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds comments: “Trump is a symptom of the political class’s toxicity. Naturally, they’d rather we think he’s the toxin.”

    A reader responds to Glenn’s observation: “What Our Betters on both sides of the aisle don’t realize is that Trump isn’t the leader of the Disgusted Americans, he’s their flag.”

    OK, I thoroughly get it. Trump Derangement Syndrome has too many cause and effect indicators to write it off as mere indigestion. But that does not mitigate the reality of Hillary and the continued degradation of the Constitutional republic.

    Comment by Heliotrope — July 24, 2016 @ 7:52 pm - July 24, 2016

  3. If conservatism is dead as the Trump-supporters claim, then does a conservative voter have any stake in this election? If conservatism is dead, what’s the point of having conservatives on the Supreme Court? To prop up a dying philosophy?

    Comment by V the K — July 24, 2016 @ 7:57 pm - July 24, 2016

  4. Its not that we are too cowardly, its that the establishment cuckservatives want the sleazy power & money as well. An aid to Mexican pres Fox was a fan of the US lack of corruption, only to be appalled by conservatives wanting immigrants so they could throw off the shackles of Hamilton Jacksonian restrictions to change to the client-patron nobility.

    Fredo Arias-King aide to Vicente Fox

    “Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar”

    Comment by Steve — July 24, 2016 @ 8:27 pm - July 24, 2016

  5. Aristotle stated that tyrants seek to expand their power by tampering with their populations in three ways: making or keeping them ignorant; dividing them and encouraging conflict between them; and impoverishing them. Some studies claim that the current immigration policy is achieving these three objectives in the United States.

    Patronage, gratitude, servility, reciprocity, and acquiescence in corruption and under-performance will, in their minds, gradually replace the Jeffersonian yeoman.

    Comment by Steve — July 24, 2016 @ 8:38 pm - July 24, 2016

  6. “Patronage, gratitude, servility, reciprocity, and acquiescence in corruption and under-performance will, in their minds, gradually replace the Jeffersonian yeoman.” Sorry to say, but I believe that has already occurred, irreversibly.

    Comment by Ike — July 24, 2016 @ 9:05 pm - July 24, 2016

  7. VtK, I have never heard any Trump supporters claim that conservatism is dead. I’ve heard plenty of liberal reporters claim it, but not Trump supporters.

    Trump was not my first choice. He was not my second choice. He was not my third choice. He was not at the bottom of the list, but everyone on the list, INCLUDING KASICH would have been preferable to another Clinton presidency.

    I have detested that woman since she was first lady, the first such woman to politicize the position. “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.” Nobody elected you then, Hillary.

    My hope is America does not elect you now.

    But with the DNC machine now leaked, and the collusion of the press is confirmed, we will need to convince every person who is aghast at the march of the leftist minority to claim a majority status they did not earn to vote in November for the only candidate capable of defeating her.

    Comment by Craig Smith — July 24, 2016 @ 9:06 pm - July 24, 2016

  8. V the K: Part of my thinking about third parties in the legislature that I left out of this post (because it was already too long) was that a Trump victory would actually provide an opening for conservatives to begin a new national party dedicated to conservative principles. If Trump were president, such a party could seek to replace Republicans in conservative districts and states and they could help to hold the Trump administration accountable in Washington and to help shape policy debates. Over time, the party might gain more of a national following.

    From my perspective, conservatism isn’t dead, but the Republican party establishment has killed the party through its feckless opposition to Obama and through its willingness to undermine both conservative principles and the rule of law for political gain, in the manner that Steve describes in his comment about Vincente Fox above (8:27 p.m. on July 24).

    By contrast, if Hillary wins, the Republican Party may self-destruct, much like the Whig Party did, as competing factions place blame for the party’s failure. The trouble with that scenario is that even if a new conservative party arises in its stead, Hillary and the Democrats will take advantage of the chaos to further consolidate their hold on power. The Democrats’ aim, in my estimation, is effectively the establishment of a one-party state.

    Comment by Kurt — July 24, 2016 @ 9:15 pm - July 24, 2016

  9. “Conservatism” is not static because the forces of change are not static. Every viable organism has worked out a balancing force between continuity and change. Equilibrium is usually not permanent and requires a continued attention to the tension between continuity and change.

    I see no musings of “conservatism is dead” arising from the folks who have settled on backing Trump over Hillary. No one I know thinks this contest involves electing the Pope.

    Comment by Heliotrope — July 24, 2016 @ 9:49 pm - July 24, 2016

  10. I find the argument lacking. We don’t need another rehash of how terrible Clinton is, because everyone knows that already. This type of column has been written in every single election, and on the basis of these, conservatives held there noses and voted for sub-par candidates like Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, etc.

    Trump is not a sub-par conservative, he’s not a conservative. That’s not a purity test, or a ‘he’s not going far enough’ test. He is a Liberal. Every terrible thing that Hillary Clinton will do as president, is exactly what Trump will do. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton will govern as an extremist liberal, every liberal in office has ended up that way for years. If Clinton does that, it’s expected, if Trump does that, then every liberal policy he backs is tagged ‘bipartisan’, and every squish conservative will lean even further left to avoid being an ‘extremist’.

    Conservatives don’t really have a horse in this race, so it’s a good time to let the GOP Die and replace it with something else.

    Comment by Karen — July 25, 2016 @ 2:26 am - July 25, 2016

  11. Since the convention, the comments of Trump-supporters at NRO, twitchy, Hot Air, WZ and such have taken a distinct turn toward, “We have defeated conservatism. It’s our party now. The Trump-Establishment alliance will destroy any who oppose them.” Mostly driven by the Ted Cruz “betrayal.” There is a frightening ‘Personality Cult’ aspect to Trumpism that is really off-putting. I didn’t care for it Obama’s Personality Cult, and I don’t care for Trump’s either.

    FWIW, Reagan never endorsed Ford. And Ford was a total dick.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/no-reagan-did-not-endorse-ford-heres-why

    Comment by V the K — July 25, 2016 @ 7:13 am - July 25, 2016

  12. “Hillary is a guaranteed disaster, and Trump is admittedly a gamble, but in a desperate situation a gamble is the best choice.”

    Yep.

    Comment by alanstorm — July 25, 2016 @ 7:46 am - July 25, 2016

  13. Yeah, it is true that many of the generally conservative sites have divided along the lines of pro-Trump and anti-Trump.

    When I tap into Breitbart and Conservative Tree House I know that many of the commenters will be Trump fans. When I open up NRO, Hot Air, the Blaze, The Right Scoop I know that the slant will be against Trump if not fully against Trump.

    Civil Wars are always internecine in nature.

    The “personality cult” aspect of Trump is much the same as the one that grew up around Palin. Some segment of the population is “mad as hell” and they are buoyed up by someone finally speaking out about what has been eating at them.

    The good, the bad and the ugly may share the same core concerns and find themselves odd-coupled into sharing something in common.

    In the past 50 years or so, the Republicans have talked about the “big tent” while increasing the litmus tests for entry. Meanwhile, the DemonizingRats have carefully cultivated the disaffected and pandered to them without shame while selling them on the notion that they are marginalized losers who have been exploited by the Republicans.

    The fact is that the DemonizingRats have gotten the edge on the popular vote by spewing their vitriol and selling their la la land hogwash. They have successfully divided We the People into packs of anvil choruses pounding out their grievance tribulations.

    Compare Trump to Hitler, Napoleon, or whoever you like. Counter revolutions are often led by a charismatic who doesn’t have the cleanest of laundry.

    If Ted Cruz is the focus of many NeverTrumpists, I can only say that I am sorry that he could not find a way to be more appealing in this whole Prom King process of courting the voters in the Primaries.

    Shall we run through the whole 17 and do post-mortums? To what avail?

    The “‘Personality Cult’ aspect of Trumpism” is not monolithic and it would be foolish to try to paint it as such. Of course Trump is the Personality at the center of the cult. But there are wide and various reasons why people support him. Please don’t lump all the supporters together into one category of mental aberration. And not all supports have the same level of certainty or fervor.

    Reagan took on Carter’s “general malaise,” an economy on high interest rates steroids, gas lines, meat shortages, really fouled up diplomacy, the Iran hostage Crisis, stumble-bum Oval Office nostrums about wearing sweaters and a populace that couldn’t get a glimpse of a bright future. But, Reagan was thought of by many as a scripted pretender who would start World War III within 15 minutes of getting his hands on the nuclear codes. A failed and further failing Carter was safer than a Class B actor who thought he was playing a role.

    There is a whole lot of the 1980 “not Reagan” stuff that is coming back to life in 2016. Now, please don’t paste me with implying that Trump is the second coming of Reagan. Hopefully, the Cruz people are still open to admitting that Cruz was not the second coming of Reagan either.

    Color me dejected or foolish or a cultist, but I am so NeverHillary that I would have supported even Jeb! and his whole country club band of retreads and good old boys.

    Hannity and Rush have taken the path of NeverHillary over the tempest in a teapots storming about would have, could have should have.

    Carl Sandburg quipped about two hobos planning breakfast: “If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.”

    Well, we have Trump and Hillary. Which shall it be?

    Comment by Heliotrope — July 25, 2016 @ 8:50 am - July 25, 2016

  14. Reagan’s non-endorsement of Ford was handled in a completely different manner than Cruz’s statement. Reagan didn’t utter the words “I endorse,” but he ended the speech talking about coming together for “victory” in November. Ted Cruz could have used identical language and it wouldn’t have been an issue.

    Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2016 @ 9:24 am - July 25, 2016

  15. Reagan was thought of by many as a scripted pretender who would start World War III within 15 minutes of getting his hands on the nuclear codes.

    Including Gerald R. Ford, who ran primary ads with the tag line, “Governor Reagan couldn’t start a war. President Reagan could.”

    Most Trump supporters are not personality cultist, but there is definitely a strain of that. When the party line is that a man should be destroyed for displaying insufficient loyalty… that’s personality cult stuff.

    Comment by V the K — July 25, 2016 @ 9:41 am - July 25, 2016

  16. Kurt:

    You have made some valid points, but Trump does not have the capability of acting rationally as President. He is too dangerous at the helm of the nuclear button, and he would often not follow treaties due to his own whims.

    Comment by davinci38 — July 25, 2016 @ 1:40 pm - July 25, 2016

  17. He is too dangerous at the helm of the nuclear button, and he would often not follow treaties due to his own whims.

    Sounds like SnObama and Cankles to me.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — July 25, 2016 @ 3:33 pm - July 25, 2016

  18. Trump is certainly preferable to Clinton. We’re not voting for a POTUS, we’re voting Cabinet secretaries, EPA Amdminstrators, IRS chiefs, and the rest of the lot. And the SCOTUS appointments.

    If people fear an authoritarian Trump then maybe (desperate hope) it will occur to them that centralized power really does have risk.

    I’ve said that Trump is a high-risk choice and I believe that – he has potential to do a lot of damage (and damage control is difficult as it is) but HRC is certain to do damage.

    I second Helio’s comment in #2.

    The most frustrating (but illuminating) aspect of this campaign has been the willful ignorance and conceit of the #NeverTrumpers at NRO, etc. Even after it became apparent that the base was done with unlimited immigration, suicidal trade deals, and missionary wars, the primary candidates and the commentariat kept at it – insulting the voters (Trumpkins) that, living in the real world, weren’t buying it anymore.

    I know one thing – the lame duck Congress and POTUS will be dangerous.

    Comment by KCRob — July 25, 2016 @ 6:36 pm - July 25, 2016

  19. davinci38: I see Peter Hughes has already responded in part to your objection. I would also add that you sound like you are echoing the ad Ford ran against Reagan in 1976 (see VtheK’s comment above yours). Of course, that was also one of the lines used by the Democrats against Reagan again in 1980, and although it didn’t happen, it didn’t prevent them from talking endlessly about the risk that Reagan would start a nuclear war all through his presidency.

    Comment by Kurt — July 25, 2016 @ 9:03 pm - July 25, 2016

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.