There has been a lot of squawking of late from the pro-Trump crowd that #NeverTrump conservatives need to put aside their doubts and support the Republican nominee.
I am not going to do that, and I thought it worthwhile to enumerate my reasons.
Everybody has their own reasons for voting as they do, but I evaluate candidates along three dimensions: Who is closer to me on domestic policy, who is closer to me on foreign policy, and who, broadly speaking, will “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Here’s how I break down my calculus.
First, on domestic policy. Trump has a lot of issue positions I do not like, protectionism above all. I strongly dislike his aversion to entitlement reform. I think his rhetoric on immigration has been needlessly divisive, insulting to Mexican-American citizens (who are as entitled to respect and courtesy as any American), and actually harms the prospects for a good solution to the problem. Similarly, I think Trump’s flirtation with the alt-right has debilitated the Republican party’s outreach (such as it is) to the African-American community, which for me is a top priority.
Still, I suspect that a Republican congressional majority would be able to keep Trump in line, at least on most issues, and at least for as long as it exists. I do not think Trump is actually conservative, but I also think in a head-to-head battle, Trump would usually lose to House speaker Paul Ryan, so long as Ryan wields the speaker’s gavel. What I worry about is the 2018 midterm elections, and the prospect of Democratic control of Congress. I worry that Trump’s inner liberal—and I think deep down he likes the idea of being “in charge” and thus is attracted to big government—would come out.
All in all, though, Trump would probably be better on domestic policy than Clinton, who would be unabashedly liberal from the start. Still, I expect House Republicans to be able to check her, provided they hold the House. And if they do retain the majority, I doubt very much they would lose it for the duration of her term. The problem, obviously, is the Senate, which is looking endangered—and so is the Supreme Court.
So, on balance, that’s a clean—though not overwhelming—win for Trump on the dimension of domestic policy.
Second is the dimension of foreign policy. Clinton is hardly conservative here, and indeed the foreign policy problems of President Obama’s second term can be linked to his first term, and thus to Clinton.
But what about Trump? There is little reason to think that he would be a better foreign-policy president than Clinton. Take, for instance, his coziness with Vladimir Putin, which emerged this week during NBC’s commander-in-chief forum. Mike Pence—a vice-presidential selection who was supposed to mollify principled conservatives—actually echoed Trump by praising the Russian strongman: “I think it’s inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country.” This is a horrifying statement. Russia’s post-Soviet experiment in democracy has been destroyed by Putin, whose idea of strength is to invade sovereign nations, imprison political rivals, and even tamper with American elections. That Trump is so drawn to Putin is a decisive strike against his candidacy. To all those who say in defense of Trump, “What about the Supreme Court?” I answer, “What about Vladimir Putin?”
Additionally, Trump has expressed some bizarre ideas about foreign policy, like seizing the oil from Iraq, which is something he reiterated just this week. This sort of colonialism is contrary to the idea of the United States as a republic. We are not an empire. We are not to turn other nations into our vassals, taking their natural resources as though they belong to us. But for Trump, apparently, that is on the table. His coziness with the alt-right also makes me doubt that he would be a friend to Israel, and his fetishizing of deal-making makes me worry that he’ll be inclined to make bad deals rather than walk away. And his call to ban Muslim immigrants is such a reckless idea that, I fear, even enunciating it will harm our international standing.
Is it possible that Trump would be better than Clinton on foreign policy? Yes, it is. But—unlike the dimension of domestic policy—I do not think it is likely. Indeed, Trump’s foreign policy statements have been so extreme that they disqualify him, in my judgment. And note that, unlike in domestic affairs, presidents have wide discretion to remake foreign affairs as they see fit. Sure, Congress could check Trump in many cases. But as we saw with the Iran deal, a president who is hell-bent on remaking our country’s role in the world can often succeed, regardless of congressional opposition.
Third is the non-ideological management of the executive branch, and, by extension, the country’s interests. This is embodied in the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution—the president “shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.” This extends the job of the president beyond the grand ideological debate in the country, which mostly happens in Congress. Obviously, the president has a role in this (for instance, via the veto pen), but the Framers also tasked him with ensuring that the expressed will of Congress is brought into being. More broadly, the president is charged with keeping the markets and foreign nations calm, and basically reassuring the country and the world that somebody is “in charge.” He must be a good steward.
There are good reasons to doubt that Clinton is up to this task. Viewed even in its most sympathetic light, the Benghazi fiasco signals that she struggles to pay attention to tasks once the public has lost interest in them—and the political payoffs have already been delivered. Her use of a private email server suggests a similar disregard for the mundane functions of government, and a lack of awareness of how dangerous and crafty our foreign opponents are. And the connections between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and foreign agents suggest an inability to appreciate the difference between public service and private profit.
But for as bad as Clinton is, there is good reason to fear that Trump will be a worse steward—perhaps catastrophically so. He is incurious. He is ill-informed. He lacks personal discipline. He craves the spotlight for its own sake. He lusts for controversy. He does not attract smart advisors. Individually, these are all bad qualities in a president—but combined they are potentially disastrous.
The best articulation of my worry about Trump comes from Mike Murphy, in his interview with Matt Labash from the spring. It’s a lengthy quotation, but it is worth it:
I simply do not have these kinds of concerns with Clinton. I am definitely anxious about her ability to fulfill the duties under the “take care” clause, but I am not worried that she is going to scare the bond markets for no reason, fire the attorney general on a whim, nuke Denmark, or generally shake the world’s faith in us.
I will admit the chances that Trump does any of the things Murphy enumerates is small, but with Clinton, they are virtually zero. And it is a hallmark of behavioral economics that people tend to be loss averse: The prospect of losing something is more psychologically powerful than the prospect of winning something. So while I am attracted to the idea of entitlement reform under an all-Republican government (even if it is helmed by Trump) that potential benefit is more than countered, in my mind, by the fear that Trump does something crazy.
So, I find one category that clearly favors Trump, and two that favor Clinton. I think that Trump is probably more conservative on domestic issues than Clinton, and that a Republican Congress will be able to rein him in (for the short-term, at least). On the other hand, I believe that Clinton’s views on foreign policy are closer to my own than Trump’s. Moreover, while I do not have confidence in Clinton’s ability to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” I have the same worry with Trump—and, like Murphy, I fear his weaknesses may be substantially worse.
I cannot, however, bring myself to vote for Clinton. So, I have decided either not to vote the presidential line, or vote for a third-party candidate. You may disagree with the particulars of this calculus, but I have put thought into it, and I stand by it. I respect others for coming to a different conclusion.
