Why President Trump Would be a Bigger Disaster Than President Clinton
Clinton would lead to gridlock, Trump could lead to effective bipartisan anti-freedom coalitions.
There's still time to turn it around, of course. But now that many conservatives are moving from the bargaining phase to the depression phase of the Kubler-Ross model, we can begin to grapple with the prospective reality of a Trump-vs-Hillary general election.
Whether you're an ideological conservative, a proponent of limited government or someone who believes that the president has too much power already, you shouldn't think of this matchup as a contest between horrifying candidates. Rather, you should ask yourself which scenario would be more damaging? I'm pretty sure you'd find that Donald Trump is the form of the Destructor.
But Hillary Clinton is the worst, most evil liberal ever!
Yes. You can count on it. Clinton, as you may have noticed, does not have the charisma of Barack Obama. Not only would she be divisive and ethically compromised, but she would also galvanize the Right. Republicans would almost certainly unite against her agenda, which would be little more than codifying Obama's legacy: a collection of policies that half the country still hates.
She won't be able to pass anything substantial. The most likely outcome is another 4 to 8 years of trench warfare in Washington D.C., giving conservatives a pass for a number of winnable, state-level issues. There will probably be, if historical disposition of the electorate holds, a Republican Congress. (Who knows what happens to Congress if Trump is elected.) Hardly ideal. But unless you believe that an active Washington is the best Washington, gridlock is not the end of the world.
The myth that Democrats get everything will persist. But despite plenty of well-earned criticism, the GOP has been a more effective minority party than constituents give them credit for. People are frustrated, but the conservative idealists have been gaining ground since the tea party emerged. The tea party's presence has put a stop to an array of progressive reform efforts that the pre-2010 GOP would surely have gone along with.
Just as some Republicans are already warming to the idea of his candidacy, the temptation in Congress to follow "Trumpism"—a philosophy based on the vagaries of one man—will be strong. Trump's inclination is never to free Americans from the state, but rather to do a better job administering the state ("we're gonna take care of everybody!") through great deals and assertive leadership. Or in other words, everything the Founding Fathers didn't want the presidency to be.
So, while gridlock will still hold up most of the issues conservatives care about, chances are high—considering his long history of supporting big government—that Trump would try and cobble together a populist coalition for the polices that conservatives hate. This will end up marginalizing ideological conservatism from within the party.
I mean, what will Reaganites gain from this presidency? The idea that Trump could dismantle Obamacare—when, in reality, he backs many of its components and has yet to offer any genuine solutions—is a fantasy. The idea that Trump would name originalists to the Supreme Court is equally risible when you consider that Trump has shown absolutely no hint or inclination that he understands what originalism entails.
But the people of the working class are mad! How dare you disrespect their concerns?
There's a difference between caring about the plight of working stiffs and embracing isolationism, high tariffs and other policies that would destroy working class long-term prospects. Is everyone supposed to surrender to mercantilism because it makes 30 percent of angry voters feel better? You can't let a mob run your party. And it's not a mob—it is hyper-populist or constructed around a cult of celebrity or even because it's angry—though all those things are true. The problem is that it's incoherent and nihilistic.
It's worth pointing out that the chances of Trump's protectionist policies passing—with a bipartisan coalition of progressives and right-protectionists—are far higher under Trump than Clinton. Why should free traders help facilitate this kind of disaster? So they can brag about having a Republican president?
None of this is to argue that the conservative movement or the Republican Party is in good shape, that the status quo is working well or that the leadership doesn't deserve what's coming. I'm not saying someone shouldn't blow up the Republican Party. I'm saying that that someone shouldn't be an unprincipled imposter. Because at some point there's going to be a counterrevolution. Those who swear up and down that they would never vote for Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio because they aren't conservative enough shouldn't be surprised that a large faction on the Right—more than likely, the larger faction on the Right—won't support a candidate who is adversarial to its belief system. To support Trump would be an exercise in pure partisanship. For conservatives, it would mean facilitating their own destruction. It makes no sense.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM