No wonder we have only one party! We have a whole majority full of guys in Congress that are hell-bent on doing the same destroying. But we had to vote for them because otherwise the other side would have won.
Deface the political currency!
Posted on 05/24/2016 7:37:22 AM PDT by servo1969
When you differ from people you admire, you have to question yourself. After all, what is the purpose of admiring people if they aren't capable of influencing you?
So, I have had to challenge my position -- stated since the outset of the Republican presidential debates -- that if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, I will vote for him over Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter.
I devoted many hours of radio and many columns to criticizing Trump. His virtually assured nomination has therefore caused me grief as an American, a Republican and a conservative. That his character defects, gaps in knowledge on some important issues, and lack of identifiably conservative principles came to mean little to so many Republican voters is quite troubling. (Though, I might add, it is even more troubling that virtually all Democrats ignore the even worse character of Hillary Clinton, as well as the idiotic socialist ideas of Sen. Bernie Sanders.)
#NeverTrump conservatives, such as (in alphabetical order) Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro, Bret Stephens and George Will are not merely people I admire -- they are friends and colleagues. Goldberg, Stephens and Will have made multiple videos for Prager University, which receive millions of views. Shapiro and I have spent Shabbat together. I have had the privilege of writing for Kristol's The Weekly Standard and having him on my show many times. And I have enthusiastically promoted their books. These individuals are special to me not only as thinkers, but as people.
However, in the final analysis, I do not find their arguments compelling. Take the "conscience" argument that one can sleep with a clear conscience by not voting for Trump. I don't find it compelling because it means that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton or any other Democrat to win.
In fact, the "conscience" argument is so weak that Goldberg -- to his credit -- published a column two days ago titled "Sorry, I Still Won't Ever Vote for Trump." He wrote, "If the election were a perfect tie, and the vote fell to me and me alone, I'd probably vote for none other than Donald Trump."
Shouldn't all Americans vote as if their vote were the deciding vote? Including those whose votes "don't count" because they live in states that are so left-wing they would still vote Democrat if Vladimir Lenin headed the Democratic ticket?
The choice this November is tragic. As it often happens in life, this choice is between bad and worse, not bad and good.
But America has made that choice before. When forced to choose between bad and worse, we supported Joseph Stalin against Adolf Hitler, and we supported right-wing authoritarians against Communist totalitarians.
It seems to me that the #NeverTrump conservatives want to remain morally pure. I understand that temptation. I am tempted, too. But if you wish to vanquish the bad, it is not possible -- at least not on this side of the afterlife -- to remain pure.
The most moving interview of my 33 years in radio was with Irene Opdyke, a Polish Catholic woman. Opdyke became the mistress of a married Nazi officer in order to save the lives of 12 Jews. She hid them in the cellar of the officer's house in Warsaw. There were some Christians who called my show to say that Opdyke's actions were wrong, that she had in fact sinned because she knowingly committed a mortal sin. In their view, she compromised Catholic/Christian doctrine.
In my view -- and, I believe, the view of most Catholics and other Christians -- she brought glory to her God and her faith. Why? Because circumstances almost always determine what is moral, even for religious people like myself who believe in moral absolutes. That's why the act of dropping atom bombs on Japan was moral. The circumstances (ending a war that would otherwise continue taking millions of lives) made moral what under other circumstances would be immoral.
In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its party, the Democratic Party. The notion (expressed by virtually every #NeverTrump advocate) that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling. To that end, with at least one, and probably multiple, additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean little. All the left needs is the judicial branch, especially the Supreme Court. Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant.
Here, then, are nine reasons (there are more) why a conservative should prefer a Trump presidency to a Democrat presidency:
--Prevent a left-wing Supreme Court.
--Increase the defense budget.
--Repeal, or at least modify, the Dodd-Frank act.
--Prevent Washington, D.C. from becoming a state and giving the Democrats another two permanent senators.
--Repeal Obamacare.
--Curtail illegal immigration, a goal that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with xenophobia or nativism (just look at Western Europe).
--Reduce job-killing regulations on large and small businesses.
--Lower the corporate income tax and bring back hundreds of billions of offshore dollars to the United States.
--Continue fracking, which the left, in its science-rejecting hysteria, opposes.
For these reasons, I, unlike my friends, could not live with my conscience if I voted to help the America-destroying left win the presidency in any way.
I just don't understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose on America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them.
“he would NEVER compare ANYONE with Hitler.”
He just did.
He’s inferring that America’s current “difficult” choice between Trump and Hillary is much like our previous “difficult” choice between Staling and Hitler.
It’s right there, in the article. Which I read.
Good thoughts. Perfection eludes all of us, and even Trump’s supporters understand that he most probably won’t be able to accomplish all that he envisions. But the alternative is forcing us to choose sides, and there it is. What has been fueling the fights here on FR is that given the now-recognized inevitability of this choice, those who supported Trump on FR because they had the instincts to see who could best win the nomination and the general have resented being called immoral (not by you, FRiend). I think Prager’s examples above of persons making seemingly immoral choices in a “lesser evil” situation have answered those charges.
#Never Trump is about EGO, not principals.
Sins of omission are still sins.
Trump or Clinton will be President. If you really believe Conservative principals, you have a choice between Trump who is, at worst, partially on your side and Clinton who is completely against you.
#Never Trump is about ego driven media children who are getting an education that they are not so big and influential “opinion sharpers” as they thought they were.
What astounds me about these people is that THEY ALL were FIRMLY behind MITTENS and McLaim two f the MOST LIBERAL BASTARDS on the planet in the Pubbie Party!!!!’
Yes, a lot of people have called others a lot of names and made sweeping judgments of a sort that surprised me, even after all these years. I’m much more of a, “I disagree with (point) because (reason),” person.
I agree with Prager on his main points. However, I also agree with Jonah Goldberg that the idea that his (Jonah’s) non-vote will decide the election is simply magical thinking.
Your reasonableness and advanced ability to debate instead of flame is one of the many reasons I “identity” as your FRiend!
Why, thank you! I always appreciate dialog with you, too!
I get a little rude sometimes, but I make sure it’s toward the subjects of the news (Hillary Clinton, for example) rather than the poster. I also try to evaluate an article on its own merits, rather than disagreeing with the author about one thing and therefore writing off his lifetime output.
I presume his position is, then, that use of the A-bomb was “not moral purity” either. Not to draw equivalence, by the way, but he argues that the morality of an action can depend on circumstances (e.g., between two bad choices, or do a bad thing for a good end), and that dropping the A-bombs on Japan was moral, period.
If that is indeed Prager.s moral principle, he is on the side of those who have done great harm in history.
To choose a bad thing for a good end is Consequentialism. The end justifies any means. Such moral thinking wreaks great suffering ultimately. The human mind is not capable of foreseeing all consequences of most actions. That is why the moral system of admitting intrinsic evils has produced healthy societies.
That is not the case between Donald and Hillary. This is a choice between better and worst. Donald is better than Hillary. Hillary is the absolute worst.
No contest. Vote Trump even though he is not the perfect candidate.
Role model. Wish more newbie posters (and quite a few old ones) would use your criteria.
I just don’t like conflict ;-).
These are not conservatives, they are propagandists for the Cheap Labor Express
Their rejection of the Trump Express notwithstanding, the authors cited have a long-term well established record as political, social, and fiscal conservatives. You are entitled to your derisive opinion of them based on their opposition to Trump; but your contempt for them does not diminish their solid record as conservative columnists and thinkers.
Prager's analysis and argument is spot-on, and he makes very good points. I intend to vote for the republican candidate in every single race on the ballot below the presidential ticket, and I will definitely NOT vote for the democrat candidate. At this point I am undecided as to whether I will vote for the libertarian candidate or for the democrat running as a republican in the presidential race. In Texas, I can't see Trump being so dreadfully horrible as to lose the race to Hillary, so my protest vote for a more conservative libertarian candidate couldn't possibly be the same thing as a vote for Hillary. And if Trump were to somehow lose Texas to Hillary with or without my vote then we are so far gone that what difference at this point does it make anyway.
The People are going to speak quite loudly this November, so the William Krystols of the world can just stick that in their pipe and smoke it.
These idiots don't control us.
I'm surprised that they entertained the notion that they ever did.
It's wonderful to see them losing their grip on the control they think they exercised.
They exist to report on the world as it is, not to tell us how we should make it.
In their arrogance, they've lost track of their subordinate role.
I pray to God that this Revolution succeeds so that these Uniparty elites can be permanently disabused of the notion that they rule over us.
They prosper at our pleasure, not the other way around.
Vote Trump!
No wonder we have only one party! We have a whole majority full of guys in Congress that are hell-bent on doing the same destroying. But we had to vote for them because otherwise the other side would have won.
Deface the political currency!
I care more than ever. I hate losing. I purpose to fight harder.
My Congressman has an inexcusably lousy 49% CR Liberty rating. Why didn't somebody, anybody primary him? What did I do to help that happen?
FReeper: fivetoes - Tom Buchanan, Dec 2001, It's All My Fault - he passed away in March.
Well said.
Will, Shapiro and the rest of the NeverTrump pundits are the enemy within. The long years of fraudulent conservative noises aren’t a badge of honor. Whatever they once were, they are poison now.
They seem to really fear this “nativism” they speak of so frequently.
Wonder why that is?
“They seem to really fear this “nativism” they speak of so frequently. Wonder why that is?”
Because they aren’t patriots. They are court-followers seeking influence and prestige.
In the Revolution they would have been loyal to King George.
Ben Shapiro is a conservative.
*********************
These are not conservatives, they are propagandists for the Cheap Labor Express
*********************
Yes, but more importantly for us, they are simply positioning themselves for the next four years of a Trump presidency, as to who can grab the most money heel-biting Trump, only after we spend the first 100 days hearing their lamentations, and their beating of empty tubs, as to which of them tried the hardest to stop Trump.
The thing to do is to starve GoldbergKristolShapiroStephensWill of money. Tell their advertisers directly and explicitly why you are refusing to patronize them any further. In Will's and Kristol's case, enough blowback may be enough encouragement to retire several of these neocon RINOs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.