And So It Starts: The Trumpbots Vs. The NeverTrumpers

What was predictable two months ago has become somewhat unpredictable.  As late as October 17th, Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight gave Hillary Clinton an 88.1% chance of winning the presidency.  Today, those odds still favor Clinton at 65.5%- still decent odds- but a 23% drop in two short weeks.  Events have changed the dynamics whether it was revelations of Clinton e-mails ending up on Anthony Weiner’s laptop or the slow drip of Wikileaks revelations.  What was once a slam dunk for Clinton has turned into talk of a narrow electoral vote victory, or even an electoral tie at 269-269.  Polls out of several states are within the margin of error and really too close to call.

Given the baggage that Clinton carries and will likely carry into the White House should she win makes this race all the more saddening for us who are NeverTrump.  Had this been Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, this race would likely have been over at this point and we would be talking about a trifecta- a Republican House, Senate and White House.  Instead, we are likely talking about a weakened GOP advantage in the House, the loss of the Senate and a Clinton back in the White House.

That is what the Trumpbots just cannot seem to understand.  And two recent articles- one by D.C. McAllister on the Pajamas Media website, and one by Mytheos Holt reprinted on Realclearpolitics-  illustrate their misunderstanding.  One article calls those of us in the NeverTrump contingent as “morally lazy” while the other calls us “ungrateful bastards.”  It seems strange that an article in support of an immoral candidate calling his opposition “morally lazy” is an oxymoron of the highest order.  So, I will take this article first.

In the article, she makes an appeal to “put your rigid moralism aside” and vote for Trump for the good of the country.  In it, she hypothesizes that by opposing Trump against Clinton, we are doing damage to the country.  What McAllister fails to see is that Trump also represents doing damage to the country.  Both candidates are equally unpalatable.  This is nothing more than the “lesser of two evils” theory being bandied about dressed in moralistic terms.  But as I and others have stated in the past, evil is evil and it is not a choice between the lesser of two evils; it is a rejection of evil!

Citing work by a moral philosopher as it relates to torture, McAllister writes:

When you have someone like Hillary Clinton, who is an existential threat to the integrity of our political and legal system, the stakes are high. Is your “moral purity”—or the perception of it—really so precious that you would give a corrupt individual, whose bent on turning the Justice Department into an Orwellian ministry, even more power?

Left out of that discussion is the fact that Trump also is a threat to the integrity of our political and legal system.  This is a man who stood before the American public and vowed that he would change the libel laws making it easier for public figures to sue those who disagree with them.  Ms. McAllister needs to reconsider her definition of “Orwellian.”

But, the article has an undercurrent running through it: that the NeverTrump movement is an unwilling dupe of the Left which will allow Clinton to win the presidency.  If anything, the NeverTrump movement is trying to save not only the Republican Party and conservatism, but the country from the likes of what basically amounts to Mussolini-lite in the form of Donald Trump.  If anything, the NeverTrump movement is more morally grounded than those who support Trump.  It is not even a question of style over substance since there is no substance to Trump.

If anything, it is arguments like these that only entrench the belief that Trumpbots are the real dupes since they fell for a charlatan and fake conservative where the evidence is on the side of the NeverTrump crowd.  If the best argument they can proffer is that Trump is the lesser of two evils, then they lost that argument in the first sentence.  We would have dearly loved for someone to vote for, not someone to vote against.

The second article is by some dude from the Claremont Institute named Mytheos Holt who refers to us in the NeverTrump contingent as “ungrateful bastards” since that is the only term that comes to his mind.  This article is particularly egregious and illustrates that no matter who wins on Tuesday, the Trumpbots are not going away.  They fail to realize that it is not the NeverTrump people who did their candidate in; it was their own political messiah who may have propelled Clinton into the White House.

And why are we “ungrateful bastards?”  He claims reformers within the GOP lost the stomach to fight for those lost on the economic fringes, of those left behind by capitalism.  When we start talking about those left behind by capitalism, aren’t we talking the language of Bernie Sanders and the Left?  We are “ungrateful bastards” because Trump addressed the plight of inner city minorities by suggesting tax credits for child care and he earnestly appealed to inner city blacks more than any candidate “since Jack Kemp.”  It seems strange that the author would use Trump’s name in the same sentence with Kemp.  As for earnest, is there anything to suggest that anything Trump ever said is “earnest?”  He is certainly not “earnest” in his biggest selling point- being a successful businessman- since he will not release his tax returns using a bogus excuse, and his running to bankruptcy court to break contracts paying vendors pennies on the dollar, and his misuse of eminent domain, and the list goes on.  The term “earnest” and Donald Trump do not belong in the same sentence.

We are ungrateful bastards because there are some who are fed up with a dysfunctional government.  He argues that Trump’s entire campaign is centered around bipartisanship and the ability to make deals.  Really?  There lies an important reason NOT to vote for Trump.  For example, does anyone really believe any of his mythical Supreme Court suggestions will actually be confirmed?  After surveying the scene, he will make a deal and nominate someone that could be confirmed in exchange for giving into the Left on some other legislation.  In order to gain X, he will, for example, deal away funding for Planned Parenthood since, in his words, they do a good and important job.  Trump’s deal making acumen should have any true conservative wary of voting for him.

We are ungrateful bastards because we view with suspicion his “Contract With the American Voter” which he espoused in his teleprompted speech in Gettysburg.  In fact, that is painful to watch as he seemed to not even believe his own words at time.  Do we really expect him to fully enact that agenda?  Even still, where was this “contract” months ago?  And as for contracts…well we know how Donald Trump- the artist of the deal- treats contracts.

He saves his venom for libertarians who abandoned Trump.  These are the people who said to de-emphasize the social issues and focus on fiscal matters.  The writer complains that Trump rendered the anti-gays within the GOP neutered (based on a Peter Thiel speech at the RNC convention) and destroyed the neoconservatives and their “fondness for war.”  He cites the fact that Trump is friendly with “whistle blower” sites like Wikileaks which are, when all is said and done, thieves, not whistle blowers.  But then, this is a man who relies on cable news outlets to form his international and national security agenda.

Mytheos Holt of “American Greatness” closes his article with a rhetorical flourish against the NeverTrump contingent:

All the causes mentioned are still ideas worthy of debate and possibly endorsement when discussing the GOP’s future, Trump victory or no. But the people who have been boosting them, if not their chosen candidates (nearly all of whom have backed Trump), have clearly exposed themselves as dainty, backbiting, prissy little cowards who wouldn’t know the courage of their convictions if it tap danced naked in front of them wearing a MAGA hat.

Once again, we have an alleged conservative lecturing us on morals in support of an immoral candidate.  The article was originally written on a website called “American Greatness” which seeks to “reform” conservatism in a Trumpian mold.

What we in the NeverTrump movement realize is that conservatism in no way embraces the vision Donald Trump embraces.  True conservatism rejects the banal banter of a fake conservative who wants to expand the welfare state in the name of helping those “left behind by capitalism” and free trade agreements.  True conservatism rejects authoritarian rulers be they in the form of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump.  True conservatism stands on principle and a respect for our Constitution and does not accept a leader devoid of principle or who quite likely has never read the Constitution.

What the Trumpbots do not realize is that this is not a binary choice between two equally bad candidates.  While they argue that we should come down from our high moral horse, they illustrate vividly their immorality- something they project upon us.  These people and those who think like them are not going away whether Trump wins or loses on Tuesday.  Although they are not all deplorable- or even 50% of them as Clinton claimed- given the veracity of these articles, they may just be irredeemable.

Donald Trump has achieved what Barack Obama, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern have failed to do: destroy the Republican Party and give conservatism a big black eye.  He has relegated the White House off limits to the GOP possibly for a generation.  Trump and all his supporters are the most effective Trojan horse for the Left in America.  Given their feral affection for Trump, it is doubtful they even realize the damage they have done.  If anyone is responsible for a Clinton presidency, it is they.  As for me, I will likely vote the down ballot races and on moral principle refuse to vote for either evil.