Essay: "Trump Supporters and ‘Never Trump’ Conservatives, Reconcile"

[EasyAce]

By Peter Spiliakos
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440674/2016-presidential-race-conservatives-donald-trump-democratic-party-republican-party

I can’t have contempt for Trump supporters as a group. Some — Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich, for example —
are contemptible, but they were that way when Trump was just a game-show host. I know and respect many Trump
supporters in my personal life, and I know several of the authors in the Scholars and Writers for Trump group. I think
that they are mistaken, but also that they are genuinely public-spirited. They overrate Trump and underrate the risks
of a Trump presidency, but, whoever wins the presidency, the fates of Trump’s principled conservative supporters and
of his principled opponents are intertwined — and the sooner both sides recognize this, the better.

One divide between Trump opponents and some of the pro-Trump writers is how they see the man. Ken Masugi argues
that Trump is standing up for “the elementary principles of American government.” It isn’t clear that Trump has the
slightest interest in the principles of American government — whether it is his desire to “open up” libel laws so that he
can legally persecute his critics or his offhand suggestion that he would implement national stop-and-frisk policing despite
a total lack of presidential authority to do any such thing. Trump’s only consistent principle is to do and say whatever
is best for Trump in the moment. He is a demagogue.

But that does not, by itself, make the case against Trump. He is a demagogue, but he might be our demagogue. Let us
remember the weaponization of the IRS by the Obama administration, and that the famous Citizens United case was
about the government trying to prevent the release of a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton. Clinton is also a demagogue,
who dismisses Trump supporters as “deplorables” and Bernie Sanders supporters as deluded, mom’s-basement-dwelling
losers. If we are reduced to a choice between two demagogues, each contemptuous of the rule of law, it might make sense
to pick the one that is on our side.

Except that Trump is not on our side. Trump is on Trump’s side. When Trump was asked what foreign leader he most
respected, he answered Angela Merkel — except for “the whole thing on immigration.” After a campaign based on nationalism
and immigration restriction, Trump said he most respected a leader who sought to impose virtually open borders not only
on her own country but on all of Europe. A nationalist and immigration restrictionist saying he most respects Merkel is like
a libertarian saying he most respects Kim Jong-un — except for the totalitarianism thing.

The risk of disappointment by Trump is higher than for most politicians. There are many ways to be let down by an
officeholder. Sometimes politicians go astray because of misplaced idealism — like George W. Bush hoping to use American
power to democratize the Middle East. Sometimes politicians go astray because of opportunism — like Marco Rubio
thinking he could flip-flop on immigration in order to impress the media and the donors without paying a price with the
party’s voters.

Trump is something else entirely. He seems to take pride in stiffing those who trust him. For him, the best deal is the one
where you get more than you give. My social-conservative friends would do well to remember that, for Trump, the best
deal is the one where they gave him everything before the election and he gives them nothing when he becomes president.

That still leaves the argument that, even if Trump is a demagogue, and is unreliable, he is still better than Clinton. This is
a strong argument. Her Supreme Court choices would be disastrous and tip the balance of the Court in a liberal direction
that would leave conservatives entirely horrified and would probably dismay even many of her voters — but by then it
would be too late. The illegality, irresponsibility, and hostile dishonesty revealed in her e-mail scandal indicates that, as
president, she would be reckless and dangerous. Bill Clinton seemed to relish talking his way out of ethical troubles. Clinton
seems annoyed that she should have to answer questions. Aside from questions of her ideology, within a party whose
activists have become ever-more radical in recent years, Clinton’s temperament is unsuited to the presidency, but this this
has been masked by Trump’s more operatic personality flaws.

This leaves some conservatives making a version of Pascal’s wager. Clinton is sure to be a disaster, Trump might prove to
be incompetent or a betrayer, but that still leaves us no worse off than we would be with Clinton. What is the worst than
could happen? Amnesty and liberal judges?

That understates the downside risks of a Trump win. If Clinton wins, her center-right opponents will be united in opposition,
and will be able to continue (begin?) the contentious process of building an alternative message and agenda. Clinton will
begin her presidency as an unpopular and distrusted figure who takes office more than seven years into a recovery that
has most people feeling dissatisfied. Clinton will be able to do a great deal of harm in four years, but there will exist the
potential for a speedy conservative recovery that could undo some of that harm. (I would suggest that it starts with ending
the filibuster and increasing the number of Supreme Court justices, but that is an argument for another time.) 

Some Trump supporters argue that, because of demographic change, this is our “last chance” to stop the Left, but they are
mistaken. If taken at their word, that means that Trump’s victory would be not our last chance, but our last hurrah.
Demographic change, with or without amnesty, is baked into the 2020 cake. Any conservative recovery would require a
coalition that combines the mass of Trump voters with non-whites whose answers to survey questions places them on the
center-right but who vote for Democrats in elections. If Trump had never been born, we would face the same problem on
the same schedule.

What happens if Trump wins and — as I think would be likely — makes fabulous deals with incoming Senate Democratic
leader Chuck Schumer on judges and immigration? I expect that Trump’s principled supporters will join us Never Trumpers
to stand up against him (even though their leverage will be minimal to nonexistent and they will draw Trump’s hate). But the
opportunists and the party apparatchiks will stick with President Mister Trump and tell us that we are traitors, and that we
will get even worse judges, amnesties, and guest-worker programs with the Democrats. There are also the inevitable disasters
that will arise from Trump’s erratic personality.

The result of all this will be civil war in which all sides will lose. As Ross Douthat wrote, in the event of a failed Trump
presidency, the general public will not distinguish between conservative factions. They will not distinguish the false conservatism
of a traitorous Trump from the hard-edged tea party-politics of Ted Cruz or the pro-middle-class constitutionalism of Mike Lee.
In the short term, all will be smashed. By 2020, any voter under 40 will be able to remember only two Republican presidencies
— both failures.

The downside risk of Trump is not just that we get the worst of Trump. It is that we get the worst of Trump followed by a
president from a radicalizing Democratic party — and probably another overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Then, you
shall see national transformation.

Even after such a succession of disasters, we conservatives (Trump supporters and Trump opponents) will still have the
responsibility to work together to build a better politics. The hour will be later and the ruin will be more complete, but we
would still have the duty to redeem what we can of the situation.

That responsibility is what endures. Most conservatives will vote for Trump. Some will not. I will write in someone’s name.
But if Trump wins, his principled critics and his principled supporters should work together to help him when he is right and
oppose him when he is wrong. If Trump loses, those same groups should work together to build a post-Trump Right that
addresses the concerns of Trump’s working-class supporters and earns the votes of persuadable Americans who could not
be persuaded to vote for Trump. Whatever happens, we should recognize one another as friends divided by prudential
differences in difficult circumstances. Whatever happens, we should reconcile on the basis of our shared principles —
because whatever happens, we will share the same fate.

— Peter Spiliakos is a columnist for the online version of First Things.

[HonestJohn]

He is a demagogue. But that does not, by itself, make the case against Trump. He is a demagogue, but he might be our demagogue.

No.  Demogogues are dangerous no matter who they are or what party they are from.

I opposed our last demogogue, Obama, for he was a demogugue and was going to be a disaster for the country. 

Now our party wants another, as 'revenge'.

As I stand by my beliefs and am not a hypocrite... I oppose the demogogue. For he will be a disastr for our nation.

[EasyAce]

Oh, I'm still voting "None of These Candidates," but I thought this was an interesting essay.