Which untrustworthy cronyist liberal New York millionaire do you prefer?
The imminent nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have hung this unpleasant question before many voters who normally vote Republican. For some, it’s an unpleasant but not difficult question of choosing “the lesser of two evils.” But it’s not obvious to many other conservatives which evil is lesser. Also, it’s not obvious that anyone is required to choose between two evils at all.
Granting the near certainty that either Trump or Clinton will be president (sorry, Ben Sasse fans), no voter or commentator or politico is obligated to choose either of them.
For one thing, only one-third of the U.S. population lives in a swing state — defined as states ranked “Toss-Ups” by RealClearPolitics. The Electoral College means that most voters’ votes won’t have much bearing in deciding the outcome. So why worry about choosing between two horrible candidates?
Also, there will be more than two parties on the ballot in every state. Any voter is free to choose a minor candidate. Maybe vote Libertarian, Conservative or Right to Life. Write in Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan. If you reject Donald Trump’s big-government philosophy, are put off by the racism in his policies and rhetoric, and are worried that Trump is personally unfit to be president, why attach yourself to him? Casting a protest vote, or leaving the presidential line blank, is often the right choice.
Some Republicans will object that refusing to vote for Trump is the same as voting for Hillary—or at least that it counts as half a vote for Hillary. And if you’re in a swing state, this argument may be tempting. But it’s based on the false premise that your vote belongs to the Republican Party.
And it’s not clear — at least not yet — whether Trump really is the lesser of two evils.
As a conservative, I weigh the candidates against each other by considering the worst-case scenarios. On that score, there’s an irony: Hillary’s time as secretary of state — especially her disastrous and illegal war in Libya — doesn’t suggest supreme competence; Trump’s rhetoric, meanwhile makes many people think of fascism. But the “fascism” threat (an overblown word, of course) is probably greater with Hillary, and the incompetence threat is far greater with Trump.
Let’s say Donald Trump does decide to trample on the rights of religious or racial minorities, or immigrants, or political opponents, using the power of the White House for this purpose. Trump would be opposed by at least some of the Right, and all of the powerful elites in the media, academia.
If Hillary, on the other hand, decides to sic the government after conservative Christians and her own critics, we know she’ll enjoy broad support among the influential. What if she takes the ACLU’s side and tries to force Catholic Hospitals to abort babies? What if she tries to impose speech codes in the name of tolerance and quashes criticism in the name of campaign-finance reform? Corporate, media and academic elites will likely line up behind her.
That’s legitimately scary.
The worst-case scenario under Trump is just as scary. His ignorance, self-regard, tactlessness, boorishness and impulsiveness are undeniable. From a president, words matter. Trump has been Trump for nearly 70 years. He will not change when he enters the White House.
Imagine the damage he could cause as president with an impetuous action, an ill-considered word, or a typical ego-driven fit of pique. It’s hyperbole to say he could trigger a nuclear war, but there are countless other horrible consequences he could trigger with his erratic behavior. While Hillary has a history of steering us into bad wars, Trump really could gaffe us into one that’s even more senseless.
And given Trump’s well-known approval of violence (carried out by other people, of course), it’s not hard to imagine him becoming even more bellicose in foreign policy than Madame Secretary herself. A war-filled Trump presidency isn’t that hard to imagine, either. Don’t forget that George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 as a dove, talking up a “humble foreign policy,” and was even accused by his opponent of being an isolationist.
And throw this on top of the Dangers-of-Donald pile: Recent actions by Republican leaders show that where Trump leads, a large number of the party’s elected officials will follow. A Republican Party that becomes expressly anti-immigrant, anti-trade, incoherent on abortion, in favor of big government and okay with racism will damage conservatism for a generation.
Which is the lesser of these two evils? Thankfully, good men and women are free, when confronted with two evils, to choose neither.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
