The False Choice of Trump vs Hillary

   In life, oversimplification is a coping mechanism used to resist the overwhelming complexity that can pervade modern life.  In today’s world of multiple devices, multiple venues of social connectivity, multiple choices of products and services, it is almost reflexive to look for ways to simplify choices as a coping mechanism. Most often, this occurs without serious deleterious effects because the actions and consequences that result from these oversimplified choice are relatively minor.

   The consequences of presidential election, however, are far from minor.

   We are continually bombarded now with a pernicious false choice: Either vote for Trump or you are supporting Hillary. That is like saying either buy the Cheverolet or you’re buying a Dodge. These are not the only choices.

   You can opt to buy a Ford instead. Or to buy nothing at all.

   There are myriad reasons not to vote for Trump, and since his ability to defeat Hillary even with everyone’s support is debatable, it does not logically follow that not voting for Him is helping to elect Hillary. It is entirely likely that she will defeat him even *with* the support of conservatives who have the courage and fortitude to hold their noses, set aside all conservative principles ( such as honesty, truly free markets, limited government, etc), and cast a vote for the Great Pumpkin.

   Let’s strip away some of that oversimplification, and look at a few of the reasons *not* to vote for this man:

1. He isn’t a conservative.

     Trump has spent over 40 years voting Democrat, supporting Democrats and supporting democrat ideals like gun control, planned parenthood – just to name the first two on a long list. His supposed conversion to conservatism was oh so conveniently coincidental with his announcement of his primary candidacy. Remember that Reagan’s conversion came over the course of years, decades before becoming president, and he spent those decades publicly espousing and explaining the principles and ideas of conservatism, at great personal cost.

   With Reagan, you can look back at his writings and replay his television appearances and radio broadcasts, and trace the path of his evolution into conservatism. In comparison, Trump seems to have simply awakened one day and decided to run for President and be a conservative. The stark contrast between the two is that one arrived at conservatism through a steady evolution of ideas and principles, while the other simply put on a label, without having or understanding any of the underlying principles that are the foundation of conservatism.

2. He is not the anti-establishment candidate.

    One of Trump’s most pernicious acts of electoral dishonesty is his blatant populist pandering. And, one of his most egregious acts of deceptive populism is to pretend he is fighting against the establishment, while his opponents with a record of fighting the establishment (not to name the obvious name) are falsely labeled as being a part of the establishment. Remember, Trump has been supporting the GOPe in the congress and the senate right along with the Democrats for many long years. Recall McConnell primary fight against Bevin, a tea party challenger and actual conservative. Then remember that Trump donated heavily – to McConnell.  Also remember the heavy donations Trump made to McConnell’s anti-tea party PAC. These are not the actions of a conservative, let alone someone who is anti-establishment, no matter how you try to spin it away. Saying that he has to make these donations in order to get politicians to  help him with his business projects begs some obvious questions:

   Isn’t that the same as bribing politicians in exchange for their influence?

   Doesn’t that conflict with the claim that Trump is a free market supporter, when he engages in what is actually crony capitalism?

   If he thinks that is just how you get things done, doesn’t that make him more likely to become the politician on the receiving end of those donations? And how will he wield his influence in exchange?

3. Now that the GOPe is supporting him openly, doesn’t rallying behind Trump send a signal to the GOPe that the right will blindly vote for whatever candidate they put up against the democrat, no matter how bad that candidate is?

   At some point we have to stop back and send a clear message to the leaders of the republican party. No more McCains, no more Romneys, no more crap sandwich candidates that you push to the forefront because they will go along to get along. When we keep voting for one truly awful candidate after another, election after election, it sends a message. That message says that they can keep putting up the party guy who’s turn it is to run for president, and the right will vote for them in lockstep the way the left votes blindly Democrat. The taint of Rovian influence is there, but that is for another day…

   We must stop at some point and send a different message to the GOPe. They need to understand that yes, they can keep pushing their guy to the front – but if they expect to get our votes, that candidate must at least *understand* conservative principles and the constitution, rather than be just another democrat in republican clothing. Politicians are at their worst when they believe they can count on voters to pull the lever reflexively.

4. As a final thought – if you would not trust a man to sell you a car, how could you possibly trust him to sit at the helm of one of the most powerful nations on the planet?

   As Steve Deace said, we now are coming down to a presidential election between Hillary Clinton and one of her biggest donors……