Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Why I'm not Voting for Either Hillary This Election

Note: One of the things I like about Triablogue is that we have a pretty diverse view on many topics. While there is general agreement on many things, this is one where there is quite a bit of variance even amongst us. I only speak for myself in this post.


So this election has boiled down to a choice between the male version of Hillary Clinton and the female version of Hillary Clinton. As a Conservative, I am now doing my part to try to convince as many people as possible to vote for neither of them.

It’s been somewhat heartening seeing how many of my Facebook friends have already said they won’t vote for Trump. But unfortunately, there have still been dozens of posts I’ve seen from people saying, “Whelp, now that it’s down to Trump verse Clinton, I gotta hold my nose and vote for Trump.”

Let me try to persuade you that this is the absolute worst decision you can make as a Conservative.

Right now, the Republican Party consists of a coalition between various factions. Without giving any percentages (because I don’t know them), the party has social conservatives, social moderates, and even a few social liberals. I used to think that conservatives were a large proportion, even the majority, of Republicans, but I no longer think that is the case. Instead, we currently are just a fairly large minority.

Now, Republicans do not have enough moderates to win on their own in a general election. They need to establish coalitions to get enough votes. The problem is, for decades now—at least since I’ve been conscious of politics, and probably well before that—Conservatives have voted for Republicans no matter what. Republicans know they have the Conservative vote locked up.

So think of this logically, from the point of view of someone like, say, Karl Rove where your only desire is for Republicans to win, not for any particular policy. If you know that Conservatives will vote with the moderates no matter what, because they cannot abide the Democrat winning, then will you spend resources or political capital on Conservative issues? No. What need do you have to do that? You’ve already got them voting for you. Instead, what will you do? You’ll give favors and spend resources and use your political capital to try to convince the liberals to join the moderates too. And that means that you move the party leftward to make it more palatable for the liberals. Conservatives won’t like it, but they will vote Republican anyway. You lose nothing by moving left, but you gain liberal votes.

So how does this cash out? It means that as long as the Republicans know they can take the Conservative vote for granted, they will continue to give us candidates like Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney…and yes, even Donald Trump (who is the embodiment of the establishment regardless of what anyone claims).

Conservatives, if you vote for Donald Trump in this election then the Republican Party knows it can run the most liberal candidates and you will vote for them anyway. You will never again see a Conservative candidate in the Republican Party. The party will continue its leftward race.

Conservatives need to realize there are two things that must remain true in order for them to get their agenda into the public sphere. If either of these goes, Conservatism no longer has a voice.

1) Republicans must need Conservatives to vote with them to win elections. So far, this is true. If Conservatives do not vote with the Republican moderates, there are not enough Republican liberals and Democrat poached voters to make up the difference. But more importantly:

2) Conservatives need to show they will not vote for Republicans if Republicans ignore the Conservative agenda. And at this point, Conservatives fail. Conservatives are needed, but Republicans do not need to cater to Conservatives because Conservatives are obedient even when they are being abused.

Here’s the bottom line. If you want Conservativism to remain viable, then this election is the time to not vote for either Hillary. If you vote for Trump, then the party moves further to the left and at some point the party will gain enough members from the liberal side to counter-balance any support they would have gotten from Conservatives, and at that moment even the number (1) point that I mentioned above no longer applies for Conservatives.

But don’t just take my word for it. Consider the words of Ace of Spades, a social moderate/liberal who has until now been supporting social conservativism because he believed it was necessary to win elections. He’s been one of my favorite political commentators, despite being an atheist. Well, here’s what he’s seen:
…I don't think I'm going to be adapting my views to the socially-conservative mainstream any longer, because I'm not sure these views are actually the Republican mainstream any longer. I knew social conservatism wasn't quite as believed as was claimed; I knew many politicians claimed to be pro-life who were in fact pro-choice, and I knew many of the Beltway class of advisers, think-tank workers, etc. were pro-choice, or more pro-choice than the GOP was as a formal matter. They were certainly more pro-gay (if not always actually pro-gay-marriage).

But the fact that a clear social liberal, who practically no one believes is "pro-life" or even pro-gun, is the runaway favorite for the GOP nomination is a fact with major implications for the party going forward. If Trump's liberalism can be accepted, why can't the liberalism of Giuliani (or a Giuliani type to be named later) be accepted?

I had thought a whole bunch of things were non-negotiable demand points from an important part of the coalition.

Now it seems they either are plenty negotiable, or that part of the coalition isn't as important as I thought.
And again:
Pro-life Trump supporters are making several points in the comments. Let me respond to them, or my paraphrase of them.

"There are more important things to worry about at the moment, like protecting the integrity of the nation," is the general claim.

Understood -- and I agree. Pro-lifers are being, they say, tactical here, and reasonable about what can and cannot be done.

Here's the problem with that: If you want to maximize your leverage in political negotiations, you really have to establish you're unreasonable on the issue, and will not compromise -- if your demands are not met, you'll walk.

So yes, it's great to see pro-lifers are willing to compromise on this. Sure, it demonstrates they are flexible, adaptable, and willing to make tactical compromises for the greater good.

But now we know that going forward -- and you don't just get to say "Our flexible position only applies in 2016, and only to Trump." No, it applies going forward, generally.

We now know that this is not the deal-breaker some of us thought it was. (All emphasis original.)
Social Conservatives need to be unreasonable, we need to be uncompromising, we need to be unbending. We need to be willing to let Republicans lose elections when they don’t do what we want them to do.

It is myopic to focus on Hillary Clinton and say, “We cannot let her win” when the alternative is to destroy any chance the Conservative movement has to pass any policy. A Hillary win won’t destroy Conservativism, but Conservatives voting en mass for Trump most assuredly will.

12 comments:

  1. I agree with a fair amount of this. I'll express two caveats:

    i) The underlying problem is that conservatives are in the minority. It's a significant minority. For instance, conservatives vastly outnumber LGBT types.

    But reconfiguring the political parties doesn't fundamentally change the balance of power, because it's always going to shake out in terms voting blocks. A new strategy doesn't add more conservative voters to the roster.

    ii) I think Republican leaders are generally so compromising, so lacking in vision, because, unfortunately, that's human nature in a fallen world. The Chamberlins always outnumber the Churchills–by a wide margin. I don't think there's any mechanism for producing good leaders. We're stuck with human nature.

    iii) In addition, there's a tension between strong leadership and concerted action. Naturally leaders are usually loners. By definition, they are better at leading than following. Put natural leaders in the same room, and they will clash. It's hard for naturally leaders to work together, because they are headstrong individualists. Too many chiefs, not enough braves. Yet the legislative process requires cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Steve. To clarify from what you said in point i) above, I'm not speaking of reconfiguring the party, but rather not voting for people who never give you anything. If your vote is guaranteed no matter what, you're not going to get what you want--you're going to get what the person you're voting for wants. If your vote is *not* guaranteed, then the person who wants your vote has to give you something for it.

      Right now, we don't need to add more Conservative voters to the roster (ideally we would do so, but my point here doesn't require it). There are plenty of Conservatives right now who can demonstrate their muscle by making it impossible for Republicans to win without *actually* governing with Conservative ideals. Instead, Conservatives argue that we must vote for the (R) or else doom, but that very position results in doom.

      I agree with your points ii) and iii) above. But again my view is looking at the base, the mass of Conservatives, not a particular leader. The fact of the matter is that we don't need a strong Conservative leader to be able to enact our will in Congress and the White House. In fact, in theory we could even have a Hillary type in charge, so long as that candidate knows that he or she has no option but to enact Conservative ideology or he/she will lose the next election. (Now in practice that will never happen with a Hillary type since they can get enough Democrats to vote for them.)

      Milton Friedman explains this better than I do though :-) "I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office."

      A variation on that quote can be seen in a response he gives here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEVI3bmN8TI

      Delete
    2. Peter, regarding the Friedman quote: "The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing..." - I think this is actually more important than the election. The big question is, how do we do this? How can the "screaming left", that shouted down good sense and enabled abortion and "gay marriage" and now the bathroom nonsense -- how can we make it "politically profitable" for those people to "do the right thing"?

      Only by defeating the atheistic philosophies that underlie their thinking with a Gospel that gives them hope. They seem to understand, they have no hope. The more I watch these things, the more I'm convinced that they realize that they are condemned, that they have nothing to lose by going full-bore in their own ways, and in the political culture, that's what we're faced with. People who feel that they have nothing to lose. And that's our culture writ large today.

      Delete
    3. Peter, from what I can tell, your strategy goes something like this: As of now, conservatives should boycott the GOP. In that event, the GOP will instantly cease to be politically competitive with the Democrats. The GOP will then limp along with a skeleton crew of moderates (or RINOs, or whatever you wish to call them). Then, after the remaining Republicans get tired of Siberian exile, they will plead with conservatives to return to the party, and promote the conservative agenda. Assuming that's the scenario you have in mind, I find it unrealistic for two related reasons:

      i) If conservatives abandon the GOP, it will become a sinking ship, at which point I'd expect the remaining Republicans to abandon ship as well. Since the moderates already have more in common with Democrats than conservatives, I think it would be more logical for them to change parties. Switch from Republican to Democrat.

      I'd add that in blue states like NY and NJ, liberal Republicans can and do win (e.g. Christie, Giuliani, Bloomberg, Pataki, Todd Whitman). Conservatives have no leverage in those states. No high cards.

      In that case, there won't be any GOP for conservatives to come back to. At best, conservatives will have to form a new party. It might be leaner and meaner, but it will also be smaller. Unable to compete with Democrats at a national level.

      ii) In addition, I think any party that replaces the GOP is likely to reassemble the same parts in the same basic shape. It will be the opposition party to the Democrats. The recruiting pool will be the same electorate. Same kinds of issues, voters, voting blocks, special interest groups. Same personality types who run for public office. Same social dynamics in terms of how to rise in the leadership structure.

      Delete
    4. Hello Steve,
      I don't think your scenario would happen, but it's a risk I'm willing to take. Liberal Republicans gain us nothing at all anymore. It would be one thing if occasionally the Republican majority actually did ANYTHING Conservative, but the reality is as Cruz stated: there is not one iota difference between our current Congress and Congress under Harry Reid in terms of what legislation they passed.

      These are unforced errors on the Republican side. We have a Republican majority in the house and senate, yet the Republicans govern as Democrats.

      I'm sorry, but I simply cannot support a party that gives phantom promises that they have no intention of keeping.

      The way I see it, the Republicans are going to blame Conservatives when Trump loses, and I think Conservatives should say, "You're darn right it was us who did it, and you cannot win without us so how 'bout you toss us a little something from time to time instead of taking us for granted?" At that point, the Republican party gets to decide if they're going to continue ignoring Conservatives or if they're going to cease all pretense and be the Democrat Jr. Party.

      I believe they will lie and say that they'll be Conservative and we'll give them all the power they want in 2018 and we'll just repeat all this crap again in 2020, but that's because I'm an optimist.

      Delete
  2. Well said Peter.

    I have been saying this since the early 90s, the last time I voted for a Rebublican candidate because I committed back then to never vote for a RINO again.

    The typical response I got was "You have to vote for the lesser of the two evils." I never bought into that line.

    What I find inconsistent is that many who say they are not voting for Trump have voted for RINOs in the past. Perhaps they are waking up a bit. Or just naive.

    Those lamenting that Trump is going to be the nominee should had been promoting Cruz all this time. So they share the blame.

    In any event, if we have learned anything from this campaign those voices who prognosticate who is "electable" have no credibility: "This candidate is electable because he has better hair, persona, blah, blah blah."

    Alan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did support Cruz, and did so from the beginning even arguing for him on this blog. Unfortunately we are left with Trump now and I won't vote for him. I agree with your post here Peter. I will be writing in Ted Cruz in November.

      Delete
    2. I will be writing in Cruz as well, as I have the last two decades of writing in conservatives.

      Delete
    3. Alan:

      "I have been saying this since the early 90s, the last time I voted for a Rebublican candidate because I committed back then to never vote for a RINO again."

      Yet you repeatedly said Trump is one of the three candidates in this election cycle you could support. And he's the last man standing. What is Trump if not the quintessential RINO?

      "The typical response I got was 'You have to vote for the lesser of the two evils.' I never bought into that line."

      What did you not buy into? The principle or the application?

      "What I find inconsistent is that many who say they are not voting for Trump have voted for RINOs in the past."

      There's nothing inconsistent about regarding Trump as far worse than Bush 41, Dole, McCain, or Romney. It's a matter of degree, in relation to the Democrat alternative.

      "Those lamenting that Trump is going to be the nominee should had been promoting Cruz all this time. So they share the blame."

      Only if you think Cruz had a good shot at winning the general election. Moreover, you've indicated previously that you yourself weren't promoting Cruz all this time. Rather, your support was split between Cruz, Trump, and Jindal.

      "In any event, if we have learned anything from this campaign those voices who prognosticate who is 'electable' have no credibility."

      Evidently, you still don't grasp how that adjective is used. People like Jason and I use it in reference to the general election, not the primaries.

      In addition, the prediction that Trump would fail to secure the nomination was typically expressed in conditional terms. It was said that he couldn't win the nomination with 30% (or so) of the Republican vote. Unless he could raise the ceiling of support, he'd be unable to win the nomination.

      Well, he succeeded by surging later on. Especially as he moved into purple or blue state territory, he did better. And that was expected.

      The best chance to knock him off was sooner in the process. If he was still in the game by New York, he'd be playing on his own turf for the backstretch and final stretch.

      Delete
  3. I won't be voting for Hillary or Trump either in this election.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just like a classic RINO who just got the nominee the very day after, today Trump begins to go left to appeal to liberals, and leaving conservatives in the dust (e.g. Minimum wage).

    Indiana and the rest of the country will regret not following Wisconsin as their model for Cruz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan E. Kurschner

      "Just like a classic RINO who just got the nominee the very day after, today Trump begins to go left to appeal to liberals, and leaving conservatives in the dust (e.g. Minimum wage). Indiana and the rest of the country will regret not following Wisconsin as their model for Cruz."

      Thanks for your recent comments, Alan.

      However, what I'm puzzled by is the fact that you've been promoting Trump since he began running. In fact, you promoted him despite the fact that others here including other Tbloggers pointed out to you that he was a RINO. You even said stuff like people who disagreed with you on this had "no credibility" with you (e.g. here).

      I'm glad for the change of heart, but it comes as a surprise.

      Delete