First off, let me apologize for the above graphic. I was sure that someone would have already used the Trump as Janus meme by now. Guess I was wrong. I'm no savant with photoshop, so you get that mess above.
sorry :-(
Anyway, I decided to put my thoughts on this online last night and then I look at National Review this morning, and it seems that Jonah Goldberg sort of beat me to it. In his article he mentions that he was rushing it to publication because Hugh Hewitt was rushing out a similar idea as well.
Do I get to claim the great minds think alike bit here? Nah. I am simply kicking myself in the ass for not staying up late get this online when I first thought of it. You'd be amazed how many times I don't put something online because I've seen some big important writer has already broached the subject.
Anyway . . . here we go:
The heaviest harangue leveled at us #NeverTrump-ers is that we're enabling a Clinton Presidency and that would be so much worse for the country. It is true that Clinton as President would be an unmitigated disaster. Despite her relative hawkishness for a Democrat (something others in her party are not pleased with), she fully embraces all the quailites of the nanny-state, over-reaching intrusive mega-government principles that most of us conservative/libertarian types abhor.
But if President, Clinton would be opposed by a determined Republican held House and Senate that has already done a decent job of holding back President Obama from implementing his far-left radical agenda for the last eight years. It wouldn't be a walk in the park, but assuming we could get that weasel McConnell out of the Senate leadership role, conservatives might be able to hold Clinton at bay while still making some progress on our own growth and personal liberty agendas.
A President Trump would be a whole other deal. Because we have already seen how anyone and everyone, with one or two notable exceptions, are completely willing to ignore their conscience (that's assuming they actually have one) and their stated conservative principles to back Trump.
Invoking what I now refer to as the cowardly spineless Rush Limbaugh doctrine, conservative pundits and politicians will blindly follow a President Trump down any road because to oppose him would give aid and comfort to the enemy, as these idiots like to say. Their thinking is that if we, conservatives, push back against Trump, we're giving talking points and ammunition to the Democrats that will be used against us in future elections and debates on policy, etc.
Aren't you glad these Vichy cowards weren't running the military in WWII? eesh!
We have already seen supposedly hard line conservatives rolling over on every liberal agenda item Trump has proposed so far -- fund Planned Parenthood? Fabulous. Curtail 2nd Amendment rights? About time for some common sense on gun control conservative pundits say. Massive increasing of welfare spending? Oh yes, let's show our compassion. And on and on.
I didn't actually watch that first debate. I was trying to put a pointed stick in my eye because I thought it might be better. But in reading the reviews, commentary, and partial transcripts, I was taken aback by how many times Trump said he agreed with Clinton's position on this or that but thought he would go even farther on that particular policy. Am I the only one who noticed that? I'm not surprised Trump agrees with Clinton on anything frankly, he's been a supporter of Hillary ever since Bill was in the White House. We've all said it time and time again -- Donald Trump is a life long progressive liberal. Why would he change now?
And this notion that once he's in the White House, Mike Pence and other advisors would be able to reign him in is preposterous. They can't control him now. Once Trump gets that nitrous injection of power from realizing he's the leader of the free world? You think anyone will be able to tell him what to do?! And as a man that is more poll driven than Bill Clinton on his worst days, what do you think will happen when Trump's home town paper, the New York Times, starts publishing one editorial after another calling for him to address some agenda that fits perfectly with a liberal New Yorker's sensibility but is anathema to conservatives? He'll suck up to the paper for the overwhelming adulation he'll get from them and the ubiquitous left-wing media that controls every television network (save one), every movie channel and Hollywood.
Next to money, fame and adulation are Trump's drugs of choice. He's addicted to the attention of celebrity. And as Obama has proven over eight years -- the President can be the world's biggest celebrity.
And once he starts getting that relentless adulation from the press, what will stop him from implementing any and all liberal policy agendas the left covets? Congress? Who in there would dare stand against him? With only a minority of support among Republican voters, Trump got the support of everyone in Congress save a couple of hold outs against notable conservatives like Rubio and Cruz. With Trump hate-tweeting at 3:00am at any one who dared speak out against his brilliant agenda, which congressman would dare risk re-election by opposing him?
I'm not sure there is any policy that a President Trump would push that a frightened and cowed conservative media would dare to object to. And that's the danger of a President Trump. I don't say this lightly, but Trump as President would destroy conservatism in this county. His face as the face of conservatism would haunt generations of conservatives and those in the pundit class would be effectively neutered by their refusal to oppose him when they had the chance. Talk about aid and comfort to the enemy -- how would any conservative pundit push back against any liberal politician in the future when that politician could point to Ingraham's or Hannity's or Levin's or Limbaugh's or Coulter's (and I hate to use that hag's name here, but she gets a lot of attention, so . . .) or anyone else's slinking subjugation to a President Trump's liberal policies?
A Trump Presidency would be worse by orders of magnitude than a Clinton Presidency. I won't vote for Hillary because I'm a true Republican voter. But I won't vote for this stunning ass-clown either. I cannot. That's why I'm not voting for either this election cycle. I'll vote the down ballot races. I'll vote the local referenda. But I won't put my imprimatur on whoever becomes President. You have to draw a line at some point.
This is my line.
Still defiantly #NeverTrump.
1 comment:
Personally, I don't think that is the way it would fall, but you might be right. We can agree that Trump would make a disaster of a President, but I don't think Republicans will treat him markedly differently than they would treat HRC. I am not supporting Trump nor am I embracing the generally ineffectual nature of Republicans, none of which I would call 'conservative'. However, IF I were a Republican Pol put into the position of backing Trump or handing HRC the victory, I would support Trump to get elected. I would not support his liberal activism once he is in the chair though, and think of it from that angle for a minute. What is a better campaign in 2 or 4 years:
1) We are so ineffectual we let a liberal narcissist take our nominee for POTUS and made us once more fully ineffectual for 2 or 4 more years.
2) We got a people's choice man who was wrong for the job, now you see that, but we controlled his excesses and liberal nature and have learned our own lessons. Now we are prepared to put up a much more fitting nominee.
To me, the second is a much better spring board and let's face it, the only guaranteed thing every politician will do is put himself into the position to make more campaign money for their next election. Political deeds don't mean anything anymore, good or bad. Only breaking PC or other mob rules means anything in elections today.
That is coming from a Libertarian who could not care less if Republicans do better or worse in this election or the next.
Post a Comment