• September 24, 2022

5 Reasons Why “Vote For Trump To Stop Clinton” Is Bogus

With all eyes on Orlando this week, it may be easy to forget that a high stakes presidential race is still on the table. Or that you’re being played.

Since the sole constitutional conservative in the race suspended his campaign, an impressive chorus of caterwauling has erupted from the red side of the aisle over the only “Republican” left standing. The typical refrain goes something like:

We have to “unite” around Donald Trump. We have to vote for Il Duce –NY in order to stop Ms. What Difference Does It Make? from gaining the White House. I don’t like Trump either, but I’m going to hold my nose and pull the lever for Mr. Let’s Make a Deal. Anything’s better than Hillary. Even Hillary Lite.

What nonsense. Here are five reasons why the fatalistic hand-wringing surrounding the “lesser of two evils” argument related to the two presumptive presidential nominees is a false dichotomy that should be rejected:

  1.  It assumes that a vote for Donald Trump is somehow better than a vote for Hillary Clinton.
  2. It assumes that a Trumpidian presidency would be better than a Clintonian one.
  3. It assumes a closed loop. That an Either/Or proposition is the sole option available.
  4. It assumes that a vote for The Nominee – and only the nominee – is the only vote that counts.
  5. It overlooks Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the 12th Amendment.

Regarding assumption #1, there is precious little in Trump’s track record to support this notion.  In fact, a pretty good argument can be made that a vote for a career kleptocrat in order to keep another career kleptocrat out of the White House is still a vote for a career kleptocrat. Hello?

Assumption #2 is likewise detached from reality. Given the level of vitriol, pugnacity, galactic incoherence, and sheer ignorance evident in Trump’s campaign, a Trump administration may be worse than a Clintonian one.  (Perish the thought!) We know Hillary is a disaster. And have the ammo to fight her. But in all likelihood, Donald pseudo “Republican” Trump would be a disaster, too. Only with orange hair.

Furthermore, a Trump presidency could be far more dangerous, long-term, than a Clinton one. Why? Because Il Duce-NY is a “deal maker” with no discernible core values beyond promoting himself.  (Repeat for Branch Trumpidians: Because Il Duce-NY is a “deal maker” with no discernible core values beyond promoting himself.) Because when Clinton’s policies fail, folks will blame Democrats. When Trump’s policies fail – because they’re pretty much the same thing – they’ll blame the faux Republican “free market” businessman and career capitalist. Those policies will be rejected, as will their advocate(s). That’ll leave us with Socialism is Our Only Hope chorus emanating from the Amen Corner at nose bleed volume.

And you may have just paved the way for a dictator.

Assumption #3 is highly dubious, too. To cite just one case, see Petition to Deny Trump the Nomination at the ConventionPublished in Red State on May 7, the petition proclaims: “CharacterMatters: If You’re Really #NeverHillary, Then You Must Be #NeverTrump.”

It’s a pretty damning indictment. You may want to take a gander before you vote “the lesser of two evils.”

Regarding Assumption #4: Did we suddenly go Politburo? Velcome to ze gulag, komrade? Because in a constitutional republic, every vote counts.

While we’re on the subject, kindly keep in mind that Trump beat 16 GOP rivals by running on emotion. Not facts. He may do it against Shrillary. But here’s the $64K question: While America cannot survive another four years of Obamanian politics and policies a la Shrillary, how can America survive four years of fly-by-night, govern-by-emotion?

In an incisive May 1 article, My Apology to Trump Supporters, author Diane Reynolds briefly reviews what you’re voting for if you vote Trump.  Scandals, flip-flops, policy lapses and other significant “presidential disqualifications.” The list doesn’t even touch “big government, progressive, liberal, democrat past, or his financial support of liberal democrat policies and politicians, or the corruption this self-proclaimed establishment insider contributed to.”

So tell me again how a vote for a New York carnival barker is preferable to a vote for a New York carnival barker?

MRC’s Brent Bozell takes it even further in his blistering April 26 column published by Breitbart. One particular paragraph is worth reiterating, vis-à-vis the Supreme Court appointee argument. Bozell notes:

When it comes time to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice, and President Trump names his radically pro-abortion sister, as he’s suggested he would, or some other radically pro-abortion pro- Planned Parenthood jurist, as we know he will, will you accept that you helped him do that?

Also see: 99 Top Republicans Who Refuse to Back Trump

Conservative legend Thomas Sowell puts Assumption #5  – and most of the rest – to bed with a compelling argument based on the Constitution.(Remember that quaint little document?)

In an insightful, thoughtful piece published on May 6, Sowell warns, “The political damage of Donald Trump to the Republican Party is completely overshadowed by the damage he can do to the country and to the world, with his unending reckless and irresponsible statements.”

Let that sink in for moment. (That’s okay. I’ll wait.)

At the very end of his column, A Third Party Candidate Could Save America, Sowell expressed his fears about a Trump presidency and reveals what he sees as a possible solution: A third party conservative run to deadlock the electoral college:

What the Republican establishment once feared most – that Trump would lose the nomination and run on a third party – now seems to be a danger that has passed. But a far larger danger to something far more important, American society, is that Trump could be elected president of the United States.

Those who talk about “the will of the people” need to know that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton represents the will of the people. Polls repeatedly show these two with the highest negative reactions of any of the candidates in either party. A majority of the people polled have negative reactions to each. …

What was once feared most by the Republican establishment – a third-party candidate for president – may represent the only slim chance for saving this country from a catastrophic administration in an age of proliferating nuclear weapons.

If a third-party candidate could divide the vote enough to prevent anyone from getting an electoral college majority, that would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where any semblance of sanity could produce a better president than these two.

So you see, you do NOT have to vote Trump “to stop Clinton.” That argument is bogus. Unimaginative at best. Craven at worst.

That being said, there IS a “throw away” vote in this election. It’s the vote that willingly dumps core values and convictions in exchange for a vacuous, incoherent fraudster, a pathological liar and serial philanderer who’s only marginally more qualified for the White House than a potted plant. Indeed, the only “wasted” vote in this context is a vote for Trump.

To be clear: I am not saying “take your bat and go home.”  Far from it. I’m saying the exact opposite: Stay in the game. Remain true to your core values and convictions. Have the guts to be consistent. The force that can halt the inexorable expansion of progressive liberalism in this country isn’t’ Il Trumpo. It’s consistent, courageous constitutional conservatism. Trump represents none of the above.

When your mark your ballot this November, do so with integrity. Now is not the time to cower. Quit. Or cave to a knuckle-dragging Troglodyte. Indeed, a vote for Il Duce-NY won’t “stop” anything. It may very well make matter worse.

So here’s a thought. If you self-identify as a “constitutional conservative” and are drinking the “Gotta vote for Donald to stop Hillary” Kool Aid, put down the cup. Refuse to be forced into a false dichotomy. Whether that means voting write-in or voting third party, now is not the time to gently into the night, humming the second bar of “Lesser of Two Evils.”

Make no mistake: A vote for the “lesser of two evils” is still a vote for evil. (Can you hear Patrick Henry: “Give me the lesser of two evils or give me death”?  Or John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to vote the lesser of two evils”?)

Don’t go there. Show some spine. Do the most courageous thing you may ever do: Refuse to be played. You do not have to stand in the batter’s box whiffing away with a broken bat. You can choose to grab another one. Think outside the box. And Get. Another. Bat.

Stand and fight. The future of your country is at stake.



A version of this article also appeared on the author’s blog, Conservelocity, and at the American Clarion.

Related post