I published a short article today in the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Why I Just Quit the Republican Party," which detailed the reasons for my wanting nothing to do with its presidential nominee, Donald Trump.
Not surprisingly, I received an earful in response – several hundred notes within hours, running about 3-to-1 against my views. Trump enthusiasts are nothing if not voluble and vehement.
 A sample of the responses, mostly negative. |
Focusing on the negative responses, I note with interest that hardly a soul defended Trump from my five-part indictment. In almost every case, the answer to me was Hillary, Hillary, and Billary. Some critics accused me of effectively supporting her (the logic of which baffles me), many raised the imminent Supreme Court appointments, and nearly every one asserted that Trump is the lesser of two evils.
To which I reply:
- #NeverTrumpNorHillary. I have repeatedly used this hashtag over the past month. Can I be more clear that I do not support Hillary Clinton?
- I am reconciled to the inevitability of a terrible president being elected this November and am looking beyond this problem. That means focusing on Congress, the governorships, and the state legislatures, as well as building a strong conservative movement.
- Concern about Supreme Court justices should translate into giving money to and working for maintenance of the Republican majority in the Senate, rather than counting on a mercurial Trump (who has suggested that his very liberal sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, would make a "phenomenal" judge).
- Trump's ignorant, wild-man comments put the country at risk. Just today, for example, he undermined 67 years of the NATO alliance by stating "If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, ... Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, 'Congratulations, you will be defending yourself'."
For these reasons, the prospect of Hillary does not scare me into voting for Trump. (July 21, 2016)
July 23, 2016 update: Jonah Goldberg eloquently explains what it's like for we who are anti-Trump conservatives at this trying time:
conservatism has become shot-through with a kind of vindictiveness that reflects poorly on everyone, friend and foe alike.
I hate that after 20 years of fighting what I believe to be the good fight, so many can't muster the will or generosity to consider that I'm doing what I think is right. I hate what I've learned about my side. I hate thinking the worst of people I once respected — sometimes unfairly and sometimes with adamantine certitude.
I hate watching TV and seeing people slowly bend to the alleged new necessities. Every few minutes another e-mailer or Twitter follower claims that my only option is to board the bandwagon, get with the program, or see the writing on the wall — as if such hectoring is an argument rooted in some kind of principle other than the fascistic glorification of the mob and a new right-wing version of The Right Side of History. The party barge is leaving the dock for Wales and one must jump aboard or be painted the party pooper or the traitor.
I hate discovering that so many people are disappointed in me for not playing my part in a racket. Every day, if not every hour, I am told that my true motives are in reality desires, goals, and ambitions that have never once entered my mind.
I want Hillary Clinton to be president of the United States as much as I want to be a patient of a narcoleptic proctologist ("Oh, I'm sorry, did I leave that in there all that time?"). I want the Supreme Court to be handed to the Left as much as I want a lap dance from Chris Christie.
I hate that after 20 years of fighting what I believe to be the good fight, so many can't muster the will or generosity to consider that I'm doing what I think is right. I'm entirely open to the argument that my analysis and judgment is wrong. But I am resentful, furious and, most of all, contemptuous of the lazy and self-justifying assumption that my motives are malign.
I have nothing but sympathy for those who feel they must vote against Hillary Clinton. But I have scorn for those who think that requires lying about Trump. If you're a true-believer in Trump, that's fine. I think you're making the same mistake that the Left's 2008 true believers made about Obama. There are no saviors in politics. But when millions of people think there can be, those of us in the Remnant of doubt get treated like heretics.
July 25, 2016 update: In the course of responding to the many critics of my "leaving the GOP" article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I have better formulated my reasons for not voting for Trump. Here it is:
With Hillary Clinton we know what we get and we know it is rotten; I recently watched the Clinton Cash documentary and was newly appalled at the depth of her & Bill's corruption. The drip-drip of revelations about her corruption in the State Department make clear how this has continued until just recently. I have never supported and will not vote for her. That said, we also know pretty well what's in store should she win the White House; no major surprises ahead; more or less a third Obama term.
With Trump, it's more complex, as we have no idea what's in store. Optimists could be right and Trump permits himself to be contained by wise heads. He finally understands that policy making differs from siting on a television set and giving opinions. In this scenario, John Bolton runs foreign affairs, Rudy Giuliani judicial matters, Newt Gingrich oversees domestic policy, Mike Pence heads Congressional relations, and laudable conservatives fill Supreme Court vacancies.
But pessimists could be right and the arrogant, authoritarian figure that we already know runs rough-shod over his advisors and his cabinet, ignores the Constitution, disregards institutions, laws, and treaties, hints at violence against adversaries, tries to control judges, intimidates journalists, and threatens to wreck NATO and trade agreements. He routinely denigrates American politicians while praising Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin. He not only lies but he does so under oath.
What time-bombs do Trump's unreleased tax returns hide? What about the long list of scandals and the approximately 3,500 lawsuits he's been engaged in?
In this second scenario, Trump acts like an American version of - take your pick - Caesar, Erdoğan, Mussolini, or Perón. The ever-growing power of the presidency makes these analogies not far fetched. The Washington Post explains:
scholars of the presidency say that Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors have added so many powers to the White House toolbox that a President Trump could fulfill many of his promises legally — and virtually unchecked by a Congress that has proven incapable of mustering much pushback for decades.
Further, I worry that Trump is as much a liberal as Hillary Clinton. Charles Krauthammer notes that Trump
until yesterday was himself a liberal. Who donated money to those very same Democrats to whom the GOP establishment is said to have caved, including Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, and Hillary Clinton.
Trump has expressed sympathy for a single-payer system of socialized medicine, far to the left of Obamacare. Trump lists health care as one of the federal government's three main responsibilities (after national security); Republicans adamantly oppose federal intervention in health care. He also lists education, which Republicans believe should instead be left to the states.
As for Planned Parenthood, the very same conservatives who railed against the Republican establishment for failing to defund it now rally around a candidate who sings the praises of its good works (save for the provision of abortion).
More fundamentally, Trump has no affinity whatsoever for the central thrust of modern conservatism — a return to less and smaller government.
 Happy times: Donald, Hillary, and Bill. |
 Where's Hillary? |
As for the Supreme Court, the ultimate argument of Trump supporters, George Will has shown that Trump's ignorance, disdain, and instincts all point to poor court nominations. Given that Trump has shown himself to be at heart a liberal, his Supreme Court nominees could be a disaster, even worse than Clinton's.
I hear it said that the United States will not survive Hillary but that strikes me as alarmist. I don't see how another four years of Democrats in charge is worse than the past eight. On the bright side, I expect the conservative movement of which I am a part, will better survive the wilderness than the temptations and destruction of Trump.
His Iran and Israel policies are a morass of contradictions that tell us little about his future policies. Plus, as a self-described deal-maker, one can easily imagine Trump turning on Israel after his efforts at brokering a deal with the Palestinians fails.
Then there is the disturbing presence of the extreme right, now called the alt-right, in Trump's campaign. Yair Rosenberg notes in Tablet that the pro-Trump campaign is "disproportionately produced by racists ... and it is impossible to support the candidate without amplifying these bigoted boosters and their influence." Therefore, he concludes, and I agree, a vote for Trump means "the mainstreaming of anti-Jewish and anti-minority bigotry into the American government and the country's political discourse."
Trump's election would deeply damage the conservative movement, perhaps even destroying it. As Peter Wehner argues, "After four years of a Trump presidency, the Republican Party would be twisted beyond recognition, and in a way that would trouble any authentic conservative."
Given what we know of Trump's character and views, I am deeply pessimistic. Therefore, I cannot support or vote for him. Those supporting Trump are taking a huge risk, a leap into the unknown, one I cannot join them in.
These are judgment calls; differences on the Right are not over goals or even strategy but tactics: Is Trump a good or bad bet? Will he do more damage than Hillary or less? Not confident of the answer, wishing them both (as in the Iraq-Iran War) to lose, I am abstaining, not voting for either wretched candidate, but considering voting for a third party, for a write-in, or just for other offices. As for the argument that my not voting for Trump equals a vote for Hillary, that assumes that Republicans my vote, which they do not, especially since I left the party in May 2016.
All this said, I marginally prefer Trump being elected: I take consolation in Mike Pence as vice president, for when Trump misbehave, Pence being his replacement would make it that much easier for the Congress to impeach Trump.
I hope that those of you on the other side of this tactical divide can accept this difference without accusations and without it harming our relations.
Sep. 24, 2019 update: I referred above to Trump's 3,500 lawsuits. Helpfully, former federal prosecutor James D. Zirin has written a book on them, Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits. From the publisher's blurb:
Unlike all previous presidents who held distinguished positions in government or the military prior to entering office, Donald Trump's political worldview was molded in the courtroom. He sees law not as a system of rules to be obeyed and ethical ideals to be respected, but as a weapon to be used against his adversaries or a hurdle to be sidestepped when it gets in his way. He has weaponized the justice system throughout his career, and he has continued to use these backhanded tactics as Plaintiff in Chief.
In this book, distinguished New York attorney James D. Zirin presents Trump's lengthy litigation history as an indication of his character and morality, and his findings are chilling: if you partner with Donald Trump, you will probably wind up litigating with him. If you enroll in his university or buy one of his apartments, chances are you will want your money back. If you are a woman and you get too close to him, you may need to watch your back. If you try to sue him, he's likely to defame you. If you make a deal with him, you had better get it in writing. If you are a lawyer, an architect, or even his dentist, you'd better get paid up front. If you venture an opinion that publicly criticizes him, you may be sued for libel.
A window into the president's dark legal history, Plaintiff in Chief is as informative as it is disturbing.
