You’re being played.
Since the sole constitutional conservative in the presidential race suspended his campaign, an impressive chorus of Now What? caterwauling has erupted from the red side of the aisle, especially over the only “Republican” still standing. The typical argument goes something like:
- We have to “unite” behind Donald Trump.
- We have to vote for Il Duce –NY in order to stop Ms. What Difference Does It Make?
- I don’t like Trump either, but I’m going to hold my nose and pull the lever for Mr. Let’s Make a Deal.
- Anything’s better than Hillary. Even Hillary Lite.
Well, here’s a little newsflash: That’s nonsense.
Here are five reasons why the fatalistic hand-wringing surrounding the “lesser of two evils” argument related to the two presumptive presidential nominees is a false dichotomy that can and should be rejected:
- It assumes that a vote for Donald Trump is somehow better than a vote for Hillary Clinton.
- It assumes that a Trumpidian presidency would be better than a Clintonian one.
- It assumes a closed loop. That an Either/Or proposition is the sole option available.
- It assumes that a vote for The Nominee – and only the nominee – is the only vote that counts.
- It overlooks Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the 12th Amendment.
Regarding assumption #1, there is precious little in Trump’s track record to support this notion. In fact, a pretty good argument can be made that a vote for a career kleptocrat in order to keep another career kleptocrat out of the White House is still a vote for a career kleptocrat. Hello?
Flicker – Creative Commons License
Assumption #2 is likewise detached from reality. Given the level of vitriol, pugnacity, galactic incoherence, and sheer ignorance evident in Trump’s campaign, a Trump administration may be worse than a Clintonian one. (Perish the thought!) We know Hillary is a disaster. And have the ammo to fight her. But in all likelihood, Donald pseudo “Republican” Trump would be a disaster, too. Only with orange hair.
Furthermore, a Trump presidency could be far more dangerous, long-term, than a Clinton one. Why? Because Il Duce-NY is a “deal maker” with no discernible core values beyond promoting himself. (Repeat for Branch Trumpidians: Because Il Duce-NY is a “deal maker” with no discernible core values beyond promoting himself.) Because when Clinton’s policies fail, folks will blame Democrats. When Trump’s policies fail – because they’re pretty much the same thing – they’ll blame the faux Republican “free market” businessman and career capitalist.
Those policies will be rejected, as will their advocate(s). That’ll leave us with the Socialism is Our Only Hope chorus emanating from the Amen Corner at nose bleed volume. Bonus points: You may have just paved the way for a dictator.
Assumption #3 is highly dubious, too. To cite just one case, see Petition to Deny Trump the Nomination at the Convention. Published in Red State on May 7, the petition proclaims: “CharacterMatters: If You’re Really #NeverHillary, Then You Must Be #NeverTrump.”
It urges readers to “Copy, Paste, Print, Sign and Send to the Republican National Committee. Share with everyone you know, online and offline, and have them do the same.”
It’s a pretty damning indictment. You may want to take a gander before you vote “the lesser of two evils.”
Regarding Assumption #4: Did we suddenly go Politburo? Velcome to ze gulag, komrade? Because in a constitutional republic, every vote counts.
While we’re on the subject, kindly keep in mind that Trump beat 16 GOP rivals by running on emotion. Not facts. Feelings. He may do it against Shrillary. America cannot survive another four years of Obamanian politics and policies a la Shrillary, but can it survive four years of fly-by-night, govern-by-emotion a la The Donald? (What’re the odds of Joe Hoof-in-Mouth Biden and/or Sen. Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren diving in if Shrillary’s indicted?)
In an incisive May 1 article, My Apology to Trump Supporters, author Diane Reynolds briefly reviews what you’re voting for if you vote Trump: Scandals, flip-flops, policy lapses and other significant “presidential disqualifications.” The list doesn’t even touch “big government, progressive, liberal, democrat past, or his financial support of liberal democrat policies and politicians, or the corruption this self-proclaimed establishment insider contributed to.”
So tell me again how a vote for a New York carnival barker is preferable to a vote for a New York carnival barker?
Brent Bozell takes it even further in his blistering April 26 column published by Breitbart. One particular paragraph is worth reiterating, vis-à-vis the Supreme Court appointee argument. Bozell notes:
When it comes time to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, and President Trump names his radically pro-abortion sister, as he’s suggested he would, or some other radically pro-abortion pro- Planned Parenthood jurist, as we know he will, will you accept that you helped him do that?
Yes, friends, history is replete with examples of those who stood their ground and refused to “help him do that.” Or be forced to choose “between the lesser of two evils.” These stalwarts didn’t cower. Cave. Knuckle under or otherwise jettison their core values and convictions for 30 pieces of political expedience.
They had backbone – and often stood alone, at least initially. They didn’t take their bats and go home. They stayed in the game and refused to play ball with a broken bat.
They changed history.
Examples? How about William Wilberforce. Oskar Schindler. Corrie ten Boom. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Joshua Chamberlain. Martin Luther. William Tyndale. Martin Niemoller. Rosa Parks. Martin Luther King, Jr. Lincoln. Reagan. The Pilgrims. The Founding Fathers. A carpenter from Nazareth. The list goes on…
In A Christian Letter to Nominee Trump, Matt Barber deftly lays out another argument why no one with half a conscience or a shred of human decency should vote for Il Trumpo. (Husbands and fathers of daughters, take note.)
Meanwhile, conservative legend Thomas Sowell puts Assumption #5 – and most of the rest – to bed with a compelling argument based on the Constitution. (Remember that quaint little document?)
In an insightful, thoughtful piece published on May 6, Sowell warns, “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican Party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world, with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements.”
Let that sink in for moment. (That’s okay. I’ll wait.)
Sowell wraps up that column, A Third Party Candidate Could Save America, by expressing his fears about a Trump presidency and reveals what he sees as a possible solution: a third party conservative run to deadlock the electoral college:
What the Republican establishment once feared most – that Trump would lose the nomination and run on a third party – now seems to be a danger that has passed. But a far larger danger to something far more important, American society, is that Trump could be elected president of the United States.
Those who talk about “the will of the people” need to know that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton represents the will of the people. Polls repeatedly show these two with the highest negative reactions of any of the candidates in either party. A majority of the people polled have negative reactions to each. …
What was once feared most by the Republican establishment – a third-party candidate for president – may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.
If a third-party candidate could divide the vote enough to prevent anyone from getting an electoral college majority, that would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where any semblance of sanity could produce a better president than these two.
You see, you do NOT have to vote Trump “to stop Clinton.” That’s nonsense. Bogus. Unimaginative at best. Craven at worst. Other viable options exist.
That being said, there IS a “throw away” vote in this election. It’s the vote that willingly dumps core values and convictions in exchange for a vacuous fraudster, pathological liar and serial philanderer who’s only marginally more qualified for the White House than a potted plant. Indeed, the only “wasted” vote in this context is a vote for Trump.
To be clear: I am not saying “take your bat and go home.” Far from it. I’m saying the exact opposite: Stay in the game. Remain true to your principles. Have the guts to be consistent. The force that can halt the inexorable expansion of progressive liberalism in this country isn’t Il Duce-NY. It’s consistent, courageous constitutional conservatism.
Make no mistake: A vote for the “lesser of two evils” is still a vote for evil. (Can you hear Patrick Henry: “Give me the lesser of two evils or give me death”? Or John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to vote the lesser of two evils”?) How bad does a “Republican” candidate need to be before you finally get a bellyful and say No? When are you going to Stand. Your. Ground, like a rock?
So here’s a thought. If you self-identify as a “constitutional conservative” and are drinking the “Gotta vote for Donald to stop Hillary” Kool Aid, put down the cup. Refuse to be forced into a false dichotomy. Whether that means voting write-in or voting third party, now is not the time to go gently into the night, humming the second bar of “Lesser of Two Evils.”
My response to the Suck It Up Cupcake, Just Get on the Trump Train crowd: No. And I’m not alone: 99 Top Republicans Who Refuse to Back Trump.
Buck up, peeps. Show some spine. You do not have to stand in the batter’s box whiffing away with a broken bat. If you’re a constitutional conservative, the choice is clear: Vote your conscience or vote Il Duce-NY. You cannot do both. So do the most courageous thing you may ever do: Refuse to be played. And Get. Another. Bat.