This morning, I came across an interesting article published on RealClearPolitics, entitled “Come Back, Never Trumpers! All is Forgiven!” Intrigued, I clicked on it, interested to see if this was a genuine attempt to extend an olive branch to Never Trumpers (of which I am one) or if it was something else, entirely. As expected, what I got was a condescending, half-baked article that completely missed the point of why I, and many others like me, opposed Trump in 2016, continue to do so in the present, and will in next year’s election (and beyond, if necessary). The author, Frank Miele’s, main argument is that Trump has proven himself to be an ideological conservative as president and, therefore, is automatically preferable to any Democrat put forward in next year’s election.
This very argument essentially forms the main cleavage between Never Trump holdouts and former Never Trumpers. It is the difference between those who opposed Trump purely on policy and ideological grounds, and those who opposed him for other reasons. There are other reasons for the differences between the two camps, but if I had to identify one reason as the principal reason for the split, it would be the one side’s willingness to embrace Trump because they believe he will deliver some goodies for Republicans and conservatives. Miele lists several such benefits from the Trump White House: the promise of a wall, tax cuts, deregulation, and above all, judges. Perhaps just as importantly, Miele gushes on about Trump’s willingness to defend us from intersectionality, Green New Deals, open borders, and the media. Miele concludes that true conservatives have no choice, but to undo the “mistake of your lives” and support “a president who fights for conservative principles instead of just talking about them.”
Miele’s argument might hold some water if policies and ideologies were the only considerations with regard to the presidency. I will admit that Trump has governed as more of an orthodox conservative on certain, but not all, policies than I envisioned. He has thrown some bones to social conservatives, for instance, in return for their devout loyalty. Trump recognized the power of Supreme Court appointments to both shape his legacy and buy the loyalty of the vast majority of the Republican Party, especially single-issue pro-life voters, and given his lack of interest and understanding of jurisprudence and judicial philosophies, gave them two Justices and received unconditional loyalty. A few other gestures, such as moving the Embassy to Jerusalem or backing “religious freedom” measures, solidified his support from these segments of the Republican Party, as did his signing of Paul Ryan’s tax reform (his only significant legislative achievement). And for the border hawks who made his nomination possible in the first place, Trump played hardball (at the expense of the military and the Constitution) to secure some funding for some construction. If policy was the only thing that mattered and Trump was scoring the conservative victories his supporters claim, Miele’s argument could at least be justifiable.
But policy is not the only thing that matters. It is, in fact, a rather secondary consideration for fitness of office that should be the focus of debates after the far more important initial considerations: competence, ethics, temperament, and wisdom. Trump failed on all of those accounts before becoming president, and his conduct in office has done nothing to change my initial assessment of him on those traits. Day after day, Trump subjects the country to paranoid rants, conspiracy theories, immature name-calling, demagogic accusations, lies, scandals, and clownish theatrics completely unbefitting of his office. Any semblance of ethics has been thrown out of the window by a man who uses the office to benefit his holdings, engages in nepotism, and has no qualms about colluding with foreign powers to undermine his opponents. He has no vision for anything, and his approaches to any kind of governance are usually ad hoc, reactionary, and guided by woefully incomplete or misguided understandings of the core issues. He is the Great Divider of Americans, exploiting wedge issues, anger, mistrust, and tensions for his own gain, rather than the First Citizen of the United States who seeks to unite the country and transcend partisan divisions. He is the most anti-Constitutional president America has had since Woodrow Wilson, determined to bend the other institutions to his will or circumvent them, at all costs. He views checks and balances as archaic impediments to his power, and openly expresses envy of autocratic tyrants of other countries (and befriends them at a much higher rate than he does the leaders of liberal democracies). Trump should not be in charge of a gun club, let alone the Free World. We rarely had to debate these types of issues in past elections, because we could always confidently assume that no matter who won, the government would be in the hands of stable and decent leaders who would not humiliate the country, shred the Constitution, or act like a demagogue.
The other part of Miele’s argument is, predictably, to raise fears about Democrats gaining power and destroying all that is good and right in this country, essentially echoing Sohrab Ahmari’s standard trope. Speaking solely for myself, I do not believe that America is on the precipice of some kind of dystopian existence brought about by the left. There is nothing that gives me cause to believe that America’s last hope is to reelect a loutish bully to “fight” against the media or the Democratic Party. Sure, I would vehemently oppose a Green New Deal and not be happy if a litany of other progressive policy proposals ever came into law, but I would trust in the icy, indomitable will of Mitch McConnell to kill any of that nonsense. He may not be doing much to check Trump, but you can be sure he would be a legislative graveyard for President Warren (who I will not vote for). And if President Warren circumvented him with bogus emergency declarations, then Republicans would only have themselves (and Donald Trump) to blame for giving bipartisan blessing to such extraordinary usurpations of power. A second term of Trump, on the other hand, fills me with terror, as he would be buoyed by the implications of a second general election victory and by virtue of being barred from future electoral prospects via the 22nd Amendment, would be free from the restraints of the reelection incentive. He has been unhinged and unpresidential in a first term while seeking reelection, which means his second term would be a ceaseless maelstrom of his antics and incompetence.
Miele also makes the common argument that “the other side is fighting dirty, and so must we,” and makes the laughably absurd claim that “if the Democrats are fighting without rules, they are going to win unless they are met with a determined opponent willing to do anything to preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution and the country founded upon it.” Trump has no interest in defending the Constitution; he only wants to defend his own power. He may be willing to defend the interests of his allies, but only insofar as they advance his own interests and power. We are talking about the guy who claimed that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him “powers you wouldn’t believe,” but “no one talks about it.” The Constitution deserves a better defender than one who only accidentally defends it, on occasion, and other times actively seeks to displace it for being “archaic.” As to his first point that Democrats “fight without rules,” all I can say is that partisan lenses blind one to the dirty play that one’s own party engages in all the time. Republicans, especially in the Age of Trump, engage in hypocrisy and cowardice that I could never have imagined before I left the GOP. Miele may accuse us of “shivering in exile in a self-imposed gulag of superiority,” but being in the political wilderness is a blessing by virtue of allowing one to truly understand and appreciate just how single-minded the parties are in pursuit of power and how devoid they are of anything resembling ethics and values, as the consequence of that single-minded pursuit of power.
So, no, Mr. Miele, I must turn down your offer of “forgiveness” for being a Never Trumper, and I will continue to persevere in the political wilderness, rather than rejoin a sinking Titanic. I have many regrets in life, especially in the political realm (such as putting too much faith in Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse), but opposing Trump is not one of them. Perhaps the only thing I will gain in the long-run is the respect of my future children for not giving in to the siren song of political power and bending the knee to Trump. If all I gain is the ability to look them in the eyes and say that I never supported a madman who was unfit in every way to be president, it will be worth it. Some things are more important than slightly reduced income tax rates (which are offset by Trump’s tariffs, anyway…), and that is what you fundamentally misunderstand about those of us who were loyal Republicans, but still refuse to bend the knee to Trump.
This very argument essentially forms the main cleavage between Never Trump holdouts and former Never Trumpers. It is the difference between those who opposed Trump purely on policy and ideological grounds, and those who opposed him for other reasons. There are other reasons for the differences between the two camps, but if I had to identify one reason as the principal reason for the split, it would be the one side’s willingness to embrace Trump because they believe he will deliver some goodies for Republicans and conservatives. Miele lists several such benefits from the Trump White House: the promise of a wall, tax cuts, deregulation, and above all, judges. Perhaps just as importantly, Miele gushes on about Trump’s willingness to defend us from intersectionality, Green New Deals, open borders, and the media. Miele concludes that true conservatives have no choice, but to undo the “mistake of your lives” and support “a president who fights for conservative principles instead of just talking about them.”
Miele’s argument might hold some water if policies and ideologies were the only considerations with regard to the presidency. I will admit that Trump has governed as more of an orthodox conservative on certain, but not all, policies than I envisioned. He has thrown some bones to social conservatives, for instance, in return for their devout loyalty. Trump recognized the power of Supreme Court appointments to both shape his legacy and buy the loyalty of the vast majority of the Republican Party, especially single-issue pro-life voters, and given his lack of interest and understanding of jurisprudence and judicial philosophies, gave them two Justices and received unconditional loyalty. A few other gestures, such as moving the Embassy to Jerusalem or backing “religious freedom” measures, solidified his support from these segments of the Republican Party, as did his signing of Paul Ryan’s tax reform (his only significant legislative achievement). And for the border hawks who made his nomination possible in the first place, Trump played hardball (at the expense of the military and the Constitution) to secure some funding for some construction. If policy was the only thing that mattered and Trump was scoring the conservative victories his supporters claim, Miele’s argument could at least be justifiable.
But policy is not the only thing that matters. It is, in fact, a rather secondary consideration for fitness of office that should be the focus of debates after the far more important initial considerations: competence, ethics, temperament, and wisdom. Trump failed on all of those accounts before becoming president, and his conduct in office has done nothing to change my initial assessment of him on those traits. Day after day, Trump subjects the country to paranoid rants, conspiracy theories, immature name-calling, demagogic accusations, lies, scandals, and clownish theatrics completely unbefitting of his office. Any semblance of ethics has been thrown out of the window by a man who uses the office to benefit his holdings, engages in nepotism, and has no qualms about colluding with foreign powers to undermine his opponents. He has no vision for anything, and his approaches to any kind of governance are usually ad hoc, reactionary, and guided by woefully incomplete or misguided understandings of the core issues. He is the Great Divider of Americans, exploiting wedge issues, anger, mistrust, and tensions for his own gain, rather than the First Citizen of the United States who seeks to unite the country and transcend partisan divisions. He is the most anti-Constitutional president America has had since Woodrow Wilson, determined to bend the other institutions to his will or circumvent them, at all costs. He views checks and balances as archaic impediments to his power, and openly expresses envy of autocratic tyrants of other countries (and befriends them at a much higher rate than he does the leaders of liberal democracies). Trump should not be in charge of a gun club, let alone the Free World. We rarely had to debate these types of issues in past elections, because we could always confidently assume that no matter who won, the government would be in the hands of stable and decent leaders who would not humiliate the country, shred the Constitution, or act like a demagogue.
The other part of Miele’s argument is, predictably, to raise fears about Democrats gaining power and destroying all that is good and right in this country, essentially echoing Sohrab Ahmari’s standard trope. Speaking solely for myself, I do not believe that America is on the precipice of some kind of dystopian existence brought about by the left. There is nothing that gives me cause to believe that America’s last hope is to reelect a loutish bully to “fight” against the media or the Democratic Party. Sure, I would vehemently oppose a Green New Deal and not be happy if a litany of other progressive policy proposals ever came into law, but I would trust in the icy, indomitable will of Mitch McConnell to kill any of that nonsense. He may not be doing much to check Trump, but you can be sure he would be a legislative graveyard for President Warren (who I will not vote for). And if President Warren circumvented him with bogus emergency declarations, then Republicans would only have themselves (and Donald Trump) to blame for giving bipartisan blessing to such extraordinary usurpations of power. A second term of Trump, on the other hand, fills me with terror, as he would be buoyed by the implications of a second general election victory and by virtue of being barred from future electoral prospects via the 22nd Amendment, would be free from the restraints of the reelection incentive. He has been unhinged and unpresidential in a first term while seeking reelection, which means his second term would be a ceaseless maelstrom of his antics and incompetence.
Miele also makes the common argument that “the other side is fighting dirty, and so must we,” and makes the laughably absurd claim that “if the Democrats are fighting without rules, they are going to win unless they are met with a determined opponent willing to do anything to preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution and the country founded upon it.” Trump has no interest in defending the Constitution; he only wants to defend his own power. He may be willing to defend the interests of his allies, but only insofar as they advance his own interests and power. We are talking about the guy who claimed that Article 2 of the Constitution gives him “powers you wouldn’t believe,” but “no one talks about it.” The Constitution deserves a better defender than one who only accidentally defends it, on occasion, and other times actively seeks to displace it for being “archaic.” As to his first point that Democrats “fight without rules,” all I can say is that partisan lenses blind one to the dirty play that one’s own party engages in all the time. Republicans, especially in the Age of Trump, engage in hypocrisy and cowardice that I could never have imagined before I left the GOP. Miele may accuse us of “shivering in exile in a self-imposed gulag of superiority,” but being in the political wilderness is a blessing by virtue of allowing one to truly understand and appreciate just how single-minded the parties are in pursuit of power and how devoid they are of anything resembling ethics and values, as the consequence of that single-minded pursuit of power.
So, no, Mr. Miele, I must turn down your offer of “forgiveness” for being a Never Trumper, and I will continue to persevere in the political wilderness, rather than rejoin a sinking Titanic. I have many regrets in life, especially in the political realm (such as putting too much faith in Marco Rubio and Ben Sasse), but opposing Trump is not one of them. Perhaps the only thing I will gain in the long-run is the respect of my future children for not giving in to the siren song of political power and bending the knee to Trump. If all I gain is the ability to look them in the eyes and say that I never supported a madman who was unfit in every way to be president, it will be worth it. Some things are more important than slightly reduced income tax rates (which are offset by Trump’s tariffs, anyway…), and that is what you fundamentally misunderstand about those of us who were loyal Republicans, but still refuse to bend the knee to Trump.
RSS Feed
