Do I Choose the Tactical Enemy or Ideological Terrorist?

hillary trump


No, seriously.

I’m not #Nevertrump out of spite, or antipathy. I don’t stand my ground out of inflexibility, or stubbornness but rather consistency. It is my pragmatism and hope for the future that makes this man-boy an impossible compromise.


I have spent my entire adult life fighting against false stereotypes about the Republican Party and the conservative movement that drove it. So have you. Leftists have labeled every possible demographic, so as to pit conservatives against each of them when we reject such division on pure and intellectual grounds.


According to them, we are mostly white; hate gays, love money, disparage women; we’re uncaring about the poor and elderly and only tolerate Hispanics because they’re allegedly cheaper to hire. We apparently are sick of blacks, immigrants (especially Muslims), and care about the Constitution only when it suits our needs. Sadly, they may be right about that last point.


In short, we have fought the image of being old, white, racist, nominal Christians for decades. Our answer: the most diverse field of candidates in a generation ran for president last year, including an accomplished woman, and an Indian-, African-, and two Cuban-Americans ranging from 45 to 71 years old. I use the hyphens only for the sake of irony.


After fielding the most dynamic, conservative and articulate crop of candidates we’ve had in a century, we ended up with the antithesis of everything we are – a lifelong Democrat who has single-handedly legitimized every single epithet the Left has painted us with.




It could take decades to rid us of the effects from his candidacy. And the Party soldiers are by in large falling in lockstep with this suicide mission, leaving the rest of us in shock of what’s become of a party we’ve made more conservative, consistent and attractive today than any time in the last 100 years.


There is a mantra making its way through conservative circles that trump is “not great, but Hillary is worse.” The proverbial “better of two evils” mentality has never seen a greater fan base on the Right. It’s confusing. Affectionate terms have emerged, like “Killary” and “Hitlery,” without regard to facts or simple common sense. To make matters worse, we make ourselves to be fools by blaming her for Benghazi, when we already blamed Barack Obama four years ago. We look stupid to the rest of America by ignoring the xenophobic, misogynist, childish, emotionally stunted behavior of a man who helped her get to where she is, because we despise her policies. It’s duplicitous for us to oppose Clinton while accepting her less-civil “friend.”


After all, it was only eight years ago when trump, who bandied about running for the GOP nomination then once said Hillary Clinton “would make a great president.” In the same interview, the man who will be our nominee called her, “talented,” and said “she has a husband that I also like very much.” Four years later, in an interview with Greta van Susteren, he bragged again about knowing them “very well,” praised her work ethic, saying “Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman… She’s given an agenda, and I think she does a good job.”


Of course he liked them. That’s why he gave tens of thousands of dollars to them and their “charity” when it mattered little to his business interests to do so. He so fancied the golden couple that he invited them to his wedding. But, today, he calls her “crooked,” and “scandalous.” Neither of them accept any principled limits on what the state may rightfully do to the individual, but trump does it with anger and incivility. Worse, he causes us to become like him, or at least look like him.


So that brings me to what I think of Clinton.


Of course she’d be a terrible choice as president. She is no more qualified to lead this country than he is. I do believe she was responsible for the PR mess in Benghazi and not seeking stronger protection for our embassy. But she didn’t have her finger on the trigger, and when it comes to who is to blame for not defending American interests and protecting our Muslim-friendly screed, that ship sailed with Romney and Obama during the 2012 election.


I agree, Hillary Clinton is not safe for American interests and her policies would put us at a disadvantage economically and in national security. She is an enemy of conservatism, and a lifelong advocate of socialist principles. She would wage war against everything we hold dear. So, people ask me how I could stand against a guy we can’t trust when he’ll be running against a socialist we know? Because, I would rather deal with a tactical enemy than an ideological terrorist.


I use that term intentionally for its meaning, rather than its connotation. Donald trump (I refuse to capitalize his last name, of which he’s disproportionately proud) uses disturbance and confusion to generate interest. He buys free airtime and familiarity by employing his gifts for self-adulation and braggadocio. He snuffs out opposition by wearing out his adversaries – literally suffocating our intellectual arguments against him with his constant sucking the air out of the room.


If that’s not the strategy of an ideological terrorist, what is?


He doesn’t wage battle in the war of ideas, but rather explodes the debate with angry rhetoric and gasp-worthy insults. He makes overtures to the worst of our human nature, until many find themselves agreeing with him, but only because he says what they know they shouldn’t. With Clinton, we’d have a known enemy to build our message, and take aim at the failures of her policy. With trump, how could we brand our message other than what mood he wakes up with that day? He certainly has no linear thought or ideological center to align with. This isn’t just a political problem, but a life and death problem.


If Benghazi showed us anything it was that incompetence and lack of leadership have real world consequences – real people die when real leaders fail to make right decisions. What makes anyone think trump would not have his own set of scandals after a term?




The greatest threat in the world has not come from a single man or woman who believes in socialist principles. It comes from a people given over to its primitive instinct – the impulses of an unbridled, angry people more interested in drama than civility. Friedrich Hayek once said the road to serfdom is paved by a blind pursuit of unified nationhood and central planning in the name of national greatness. This is what he’s rebranding us to be.


After all our complaining in the conservative movement, and of the GOP at large, many are giving in and supporting the epitome of everything they claim to hate. They are trying to put out the fire with a bomb – like a terrorist, but without the coordination.


We are changing as a people – for the worst – and he is not just the symptom, he is egging it on.


These frustrated people could stay silent in November, oppose both sides of the socialist coin, galvanize with the rest of us, and fight for the next four years, but instead they’re embracing a mentally unstable, liberal psychopath, who has literally walked hand in hand, and financed for decades the very people they despise. Where is the sense in this? Because they somehow think Hillary is worse than her benefactor and “friend.” Now, we’ll bear his name on the character of our conservative movement for the rest of our lives.




Supporting trump is not choosing the “better of two evils.” It’s choosing to support an unhinged, admitted financier of evil. Many leaders calling us to “accept the will of the voters” (millions of whom were not even Republican) will not be around in 10-20 years to clean up this mess. This may be their party today, but it will be ours tomorrow.


Please, fellow Americans, let’s rid us of this failed experiment and step aside until the smoke clears. Like the GOP recovered from the Nixon years to become the Party of Reagan, let’s focus on winning the war rather than fighting a lost battle to our death. Don’t be a cliché, be an adult. #Nevertrump to the end.