In 2016, my mind was made up. Although I recognized this was one of the most starved menus of presidential candidates in recent memory, it was clear to me who the lesser evil was and who, if I was able to, I would eventually vote for.
Donald Trump, I thought, was a wild card: a man with no love of the status quo who seemed untethered to the present untrustworthy political establishment. Although he sounded (and continues to sound) like a narcissistic child, I thought it was part of his pitch — a down-to-earth, willingly vulgar outsider who just doesn’t care about political impasses and who might be fiscally classically liberal, ready to take on the Islamic state and reassert American leadership on the international stage.
The alternative was inconceivable. Hillary and Bill Clinton represented the worst politics has to offer. He, a sexually deranged calculator, on whose resume stand sexual assaults, rape accusations, cover-ups, physical intimidations, and more. She, the incarnation of political dishonesty, constantly flip-flopping political positions based on the audience she is talking to, the color of their skin, or nature of their genitalia.
Add to that the email scandal, Hillary repeatedly lying under oath about it, and her seemingly honest intention to play to the agenda of the regressive Left; I was ready to support Trump for a term if I thought we could avoid the continuation of political corruption that was the Clintons.
But today something far more terrifying is unfolding before our eyes. President Trump’s realignment of the country has sent a strong message to the ever-growing number of autocrats and dictators, as well as our allies around the world, that American leadership is not what it once was. The U.S. is no longer looked up to on the international stage for any sort of moral guidance, and in this time where liberal democracy is growing out of favor, we should all worry.
The reality is this: To have a generally freer, safer, and more prosperous world, the U.S. must be the unchallenged top dog. This is not ideal, nor should it be the ultimate objective for the world to live forever in an American sphere of influence, but it is just the matter of the day that a strong, feared, and respected America and its military are essential to a world in which human rights are paramount and respected.
In a Prager University video, historian and author Andrew Roberts highlights the past four greatest global threats to peace, democracy, and freedom: imperialist Bismarck Prussia in World War I, Nazi Germany in World War II, Soviet communism during the Cold War, and the enduring Islamic extremism of terrorist groups and states in the Middle East and Africa. In each of these cases, the U.S. was and is the prime opponent defending the world from their totalitarian ambitions. In each case (except the enduring issue of Islamo-Fascim), the U.S. and its allies prevailed, resulting in a freer and more prosperous world for all.
The U.S. has had its share of horrors in its past, as has every nation. The genocide of Native Americans, the enduring legacy of slavery or Jim Crow, or even the questionable nuclear bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki all stain America’s past. But realistically, what is the alternative to American international hegemony and leadership today?
What would today’s world look like if America’s two closest economic and military rivals, Russia and China, were the dominant international powers?
In China, the massacre and standoff of Tiananmen Square is barred from public discussion. It is illegal to talk or write about it. The Chinese government assigns its people a “social score” to rate their allegiance to the party and overall “peacefulness.” A bad score yields travel restrictions, infringement of speech, and can even make it illegal for you to own a pet. In the U.S., the president and his administration are constantly critiqued without the slightest risk of political repercussions. Meanwhile, Muslims in the north of China are incarcerated in “concentration camps” meant for their “reformation” — in the U.S., Muslims are running for office in record numbers.
The political and moral opponents of Putin all seem to finish their careers in jail cells. In the U.S., being an opponent of Trump is a successful and popular political platform. Pussy Riot and LGBT rights groups are routinely tortured and imprisoned in Moscow, while in the New York or Washington we have annual LGBTQ pride parades and legal gay marriage.
Neither China nor Russia has a single press outlet independent of government or a reliably honest public opinion that doesn’t echo that of the state-owned mass media. In the U.S., the press is overwhelmingly opposed to the president. Both Chinese and Russian “democracies” hold sham elections for lifelong dictators who alter the constitution to remain in power.
The moral and political edge the U.S. has over its two closest competitors is enormous. Once we acknowledge that a strong, sensibly liberal interventionist U.S. leads to a better world, we should question the protectionist, illiberal path Trump is forging amid a world seeming ever more attracted to authoritarian populists.
When the leader of the free world praises the bloodthirsty autocrat Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines on the extra-legal slaughter of drug dealers, happily sells tons of arms and ammunition to Saudi autocrats, congratulates Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin on winning their sham “elections,” or claims to be on the side of far-right politicians like Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary, the seat of moral superiority in the U.S., until now so beautifully occupied, seems to be left vacant. The two realistic contenders to this position are nightmarish in their intentions.
The president’s home team is equally worrying. Trump’s disgraced ex-campaign manager Paul Manafort is currently under investigation for illegally advising and lobbying for ex-Ukrainian strongman Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian lackey responsible for slaughtering protesters during the 2013 Maidan protests (so beautifully cataloged in the Netflix documentary “Winter on Fire”). Is this compatible with the humanist and liberal values hoisted by the previous occupants of the Oval Office? I hold the presidency and its history to too high a standard for this to be viewed as anything other than deeply disturbing.
Further, Trump’s protectionist trade wars and tariffs would make Adam Smith and Milton Friedman roll over in their graves. Despite the somewhat justified standoff with China over intellectual property and unfair trade, my vain hopes of a fiscally conservative Trump have mostly vanished.
First, Trump hurts U.S. farmers via his trade disputes, then spends $12 billion of federal money in an effort to aid them. Big Government creates a problem that wasn’t there in the first place and then spends taxpayers’ money to try to fix it (which it won’t).
With Erdogan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia, Orban in Hungary, president-elect Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and President Xi Jinping in China being openly hostile to liberal democracy while consolidating their power, the time for sober and decisive American and allied leadership on the world stage has never been so necessary. The current tense and fragile atmosphere of world politics is reminiscent of the onset of World War I.
We need a democratically sound United States ready to reassert its international role once more and to diplomatically and militarily stand for the values of humanism and liberalism. Unfortunately, this president seems immune to the charm of higher values. For this precise reason I will be looking elsewhere in 2020.
Louis Sarkozy is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a student in philosophy and religion at New York University. He is the youngest son of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Correction: The headline of this piece previously read “Why I won’t vote for Trump again in 2020,” even though the writer was unable to vote in 2016.
