There are a lot of people that claim that the only way to save our country is to prevent a President Hillary Clinton by voting for Donald Trump. While I personally think that Republicans lost the election the moment the Republican Party nominated Trump, it seems fair to consider their argument. A couple of recent articles on the subject caught my eye.
The first was printed in the Wall Street Journal by Yale Computer Science Professor David Gelernter:
Trump and the Emasculated Voter
Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.
I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.
And our favorite uncle, Unca Darrell, says basically the same thing:
Unca Darrell will vote for . . .
. . . one of the worst human beings and presidential candidates in American history, Donald John Trump. Here’s why:
The short answer is Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton. She’s even worse.
More important than stopping her, however, is to fight back against the swarm of cultural, economic, political, and civilizational locusts she brings with her. They’re called progressives. And they are already well advanced on their hellish project of fundamentally transforming our sweet Republic.
Mrs. Clinton may already have won the election. Her campaign, the media (a branch of her campaign, for the most part), and the loutish Mr. Trump have cooperated (he, unintentionally) to swing the election to her.
It may also be too late in a more profound sense. Even if she can be defeated, the progressive project is so well advanced, its advocates so deeply entrenched in government, academia, and the media, that a Trump victory would neither stop nor reverse the decline. It’s not even clear that he would, if he could, though “Make American Great Again” is a rough approximation of what is needed.
How can a well-educated, reasonably sane man such as I vote for Mr. Trump?
So, how can a well-educated, reasonably sane man vote for Trump? Hey, this isn’t OfftheKuff.com, we don’t take credit for other people’s work. Go read them and find out!
Sorry, they didn’t convince me
I’ve made it clear that I’m not voting for Trump and why. Even Unca Darrell admits that Trump isn’t going to change anything. I say take the opportunity to vote for a third party candidate that is at least sane and honest, be it Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, or one of the many official write-in candidates such as Evan McMullin. You can’t start a revolution by voting for the status quo.
Lastly, if you hinge your argument for Trump on the Supreme Court, you might want to read this:
Constitutional Originalists Against Trump
Why do they oppose Trump? Here’s what they have to say:
Trump’s long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution’s basic features—including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law.
But what about the Supreme Court?
We also understand the argument that Trump will nominate qualified judicial candidates who will themselves be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so. More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part.