Perhaps the most absurd argument in an election season overrun with absurdity is the claim that those who reject both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are doing so simply to “feel good about themselves.” In other words, it’s an act of empty moral grandstanding, a decision to essentially opt out of the election and leave the dirty work to other, more responsible citizens — you know, the ones who realize that either Trump or Clinton will win and are making the terrible, messy choice between two unfit candidates.
To the contrary, rejecting Trump and Clinton is the practical decision, one with beneficial real-world consequences, in this election and in elections to come. Margins matter, mandates matter, and — most of all — ideas matter. If Trump wins, racking up votes at a rate that matches or exceeds that of far more conservative, far more credible pro-life candidates such as George Bush, John McCain (yes, he was more conservative), or Mitt Romney, does any reasonable person believe the takeaway from the election will be the triumph of economic and social conservatism — much less the triumph of Reagan Republicanism?
No, the conclusion will be that the GOP has fundamentally changed — for this election cycle and at least the next. It will prove that it can win with candidates who are indifferent, at best, to conservative social values. It will prove that it can win with candidates who are in favor of ever-greater government intervention in national and international markets. It will prove that it believes that international retreat advances American national interests.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member