What the “Never Trump” Republicans Seem to be Missing

First, we emphasize, that we do not support Donald Trump nor are advocates for him.  Our purpose is to shine a corresponding light on Hillary Clinton as bright as that shown on Trump by the NeverTrump folk.  The NeverTrumpers, while having no love for Clinton, show almost a forgiveness of her record as they excoriate Trump.  They take solace in the “devil you know” in Clinton vs. the unknown that is Trump.

NeverTrump arguments can be distilled into two major thoughts:

1. Trump is a narcissist
2. Trump will irreparably damage the Republican Party 

These are not far-fetched thoughts but, as we shall reason, they are unjustly exaggerated and pale in comparison to the scrutiny of Clinton.

Brent Stephens wrote an elucidating article appearing in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Section on September 12th amusingly entitled “NeverTrump for Dummies”.  Stephens refers to himself as a conservative and argues largely that Trump is “anti-conservative, un-American, immoral and dangerous”.  But his analysis of Trump is erroneous at times and, at other times, unbalanced, weak and unsupported.

We can agree that Trump is not a conservative and admit his style at times gives a dangerous discomfort.  However, to categorically state he is un-American and immoral is unfounded and unsupported.  Stephens’ fundamental objection to Trump is “that he is unfit, as a person, to be president”.  Stephens continues by identifying that Trump has not released his tax returns, has had six business bankruptcies, been involved in some 4,000 lawsuits and “routinely shortchange suppliers or stiff his charities.”

Without arguing all that Stephens puts forth, we also need to examine the other side of the ledger with Clinton, which we assess as arguably more severe.  The Clintons have been described as a “Crime Family”.  Their foundation has been in a pay-for-play position while she was Secretary of State and, during this time, Clinton’s actions placed national security at risk in the process.  Trump may be a bore, but Clinton’s abuse of power for self-profit has put the nation at risk.

Further, while Trump is ignorant of the Constitution, Clinton is an enemy of the Constitution and will actively work against it.  She is also the nemesis of the most basic principles of a Republic and a democracy, namely, that of virtue and transparency, respectively.  Clinton has repeatedly proven herself corrupt and a lair.  While Trump may be “unfit” to be President, Clinton is disqualified from holding any public office.

Under Clinton, the Democratic Party is unified and continues its march to the left.  She has stated she will continue Obama’s policies and expand socialism by adopting portions of Bernie Sanders’ positions.  Accordingly, we can forecast with confidence, a Clinton administration for higher taxes and more regulations that, for the past seven years, have resulted in:

• Stunted economic growth to under 2%,
• Persistent high unemployment of over 9% (from the broader U-6 indicator),
• The lowest workforce participation since the 1970s coupled with the highest welfare participation of over 100 million people, and
• Crushing national debt approaching $20 trillion that is a ticking time-bomb.

While Trump also trumpets new entitlements and no structural changes in existing entitlement programs, he does offer at least the glimmer of hope with a nod toward lower taxes and regulations that are desperately needed to boost growth.  Only growth can cure our dreary economic malaise.  And whatever Trump may say about immigration and trade, he will need the approval of the Republicans and Congress.  It is here that, unlike Clinton, Trump will be corralled and moderated by his own Party.

But what of foreign affairs and national security?  Could his ego could get us into a war?  While Trump may be a lot of things, he did not create a large business by being a fool.  If he were in office, we surmise, the seriousness would be apparent vs. the clown act that we have witnessed on the campaign trail thus far.  Also, Trump isn’t the only Circus Master, remember Hillary barking like a dog?  Trump may be a narcissist that some compare to Hitler, but then the same adjective would be accurate to describe Barak Obama.  If narcissism is the trait for launching a nuclear war, then we would already have had such. 

Trump’s approach to foreign affairs is uncertain, but Clinton’s foreign and national security blunders are proven and have put the country at risk, given to the rise of ISIS, and generally destabilized the world. 

As Secretary of State, Clinton has a long record of failure: Libya, Syria, Russia, China, and Iran policies.  Then there is her crown jewel…Benghazi.  Clinton says she takes “full responsibility” – but what does that mean?  Four Americans died.  She ignored requests for more security before the attack, then, when the attack happened, she was absent. Then after the attack she prosecuted a full scale cover-up to lie about the cause of the attack.

She has potentially compromised national security by using a private email server then lied to the American people about why she did such.  She only came forward after she was caught, yet continues to lie about it even in the face of the FBI report to the contrary.  Her motives are clear – to shelter from public scrutiny her linkage and influence peddling with the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State.  Further, at least one of these dealings resulted in transferring controlling interest of the nation’s uranium mines to a Russian controlled company.  Accordingly, Clinton’s record displays a pattern of reckless and self-serving wrong decisions.

It is reasonable to assess Trump as unqualified for lack of experience, but how many presidents came into office qualified?  Certainly, Trump is better prepared than Obama was, and Clinton’s “experience” shows her inept.  Would you want to hire a jockey with a 30 year losing record? 

Then there is the notion that the narcissist Trump will, like Hitler, consolidate power through executive action.  But how will Clinton be any different?  A Trump consolidation of power will be resisted by both parties and all media, whereas, a Clinton consolidation will find accommodation by the Democrats and the liberal media – as was the case with Obama.

Finally, there is the Supreme Court.  Clinton will only nominate liberal justices and liberal justices believe in the “Living” Constitution; i.e. one in which they interpret for “modern” times.  As such, only five justices will decide what “rights” you have.  We cover the path to tyranny a Living Constitution can inflict on our freedom in our book, Vigilance The Price of Liberty.  Liberal justices believe that:

• Property rights should be few,
• The right to bear arms is limited to a militia,
• The conservative media should be restrained,
• Free speech should be confined to politically correct speech, and
• Freedom of religion should not interfere with politically correct public policy.  

We are only one justice away from a liberal majority on the Court.

Now, will Trump appoint conservative justices as he has proposed?  We just do not know.  But a liberal Supreme Court is certain with Clinton.

Trump is not a conservative, but Clinton is an enemy of all that so-called conservatives say they stand for.  Stephens defines a conservative as "A principled commitment to limited government, free markets, constitutional rights, equal opportunity, personal responsibility, e pluribus unum and Pax Americana”.  Setting aside the last two bits of an attempt at humor, Clinton is for expansive government, centrally controlled economy, evisceration of the Constitution, replacement of equal opportunity with equal outcome, and against the notion of personal responsibility.  While Trump is no friend of the Constitution, there is certainly some agreement between himself and conservatives on free markets, equal opportunity, and personal responsibility.

If conservatives believe that the Republican Party will be a check on Clinton, then we need only look at the weak-kneed push back they had on Obama and ask why they would do any different with Clinton?  Quite the contrary, the Republicans will most probably have more spine against Trump, as Republicans would do what they need to do for their election rather than remain loyal to the Party’s leader.

Clinton is committed to growing government, taxes, entitlements, and regulation.  All of which are taking their toll on the economy, society, prosperity and liberty.  As has been the case throughout history, when the government of a nation controls more and more, the nation becomes more and more impoverished.  The prosperity that springs from the growth created by free men and free markets dwindles to stagnation and is eventually reduced to rationing from the heavy hand of government regulations.

As JFK said “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.”  Better we ask less from government as, beyond a limited boundary, the more it does the less we have in both prosperity and liberty.  NeverTrumpers should keep this in their thoughts when considering which candidate they would reject.