They don’t say so, of course. In fact, the name Hillary Clinton doesn’t appear anywhere in their announcement that they won’t endorse Donald Trump. But that’s the inescapable conclusion of their sanctimonious, tunnel-vision screed.

“[F]or the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee,” they declare…a decision so well thought out, with the consequences of the election’s outcome so carefully weighed, that not once do they mention who will become president if the Republican nominee does not.

Oh, they list plenty of Trump’s flaws, most of which are true and severe. But in doing so, they commit the same fundamental flaw of nearly every #NeverTrump manifesto: speaking as if Trump is in a vacuum, completely ignoring the fact that the choice before them is not Trump or a virtuous, responsible chief executive, but Trump or Hillary. They avoid weighing the harm they fear from a Trump presidency against the harm we know a Clinton presidency would bring.

As Ace so perfectly explained recently, they refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of getting their way.

Consider the following list of blistering condemnations:

Donald Trump holds views that are antithetical to our values not only as Republicans, but as Americans…would endanger our security both at home and abroad…does not possess the temperament and character necessary to lead the United States…speaks only in platitudes…is eschewing basic human decency…lies in a manner more brazen and shameless than anything politics has ever seen…is a threat to the survival of the Republic…

Does the Harvard GOP honestly believe those words don’t also describe Hillary Clinton at least as well? Have they all come down with temporary amnesia and forgotten that the Democrat Party openly rejects the Constitution, limited government, the right to life, religious liberty, gun rights, economic freedom, military readiness, and anything even slightly resembling fiscal responsibility? How about its long record of embracing dishonesty and corruption, persecuting conservatives, stoking class envy and race- and sex-based resentment, disdaining traditional and religious values, condemning children to failing schools and violence-ridden neighborhoods, and getting Americans killed through perpetual disregard of our national security interests?

Do Harvard “Republicans” somehow think Hillary would bring more honor, patriotism, or legal reverence to the Oval Office? Do they not see the fundamental blow that rewarding her with leadership of the free world after her crimes would strike at the very concept of rule of law?

Do they not care that the Left is constantly working to disenfranchise conservative voters and secure a permanent stranglehold on government through a stacked judiciary, an ever-expanding unelected bureaucracy, systemic dismantling of election-integrity measures such as voter ID, restricting conservative speech and fundraising through campaign finance regulations, and amnestying then addicting to the welfare state enough new Democrat voters to lock conservatives out of a national majority for a lifetime?

By the way, as long as we’re talking about dishonorable Republican presidential candidates, it should be noted that Harvard Republican Club’s home page prominently features photos with Marco Rubio, a serial liar whose defining moment in the Senate was betraying a major campaign promise on which he got elected; Mitt Romney, who notoriously committed a number of the same flip-flops for which Trump is distrusted; John Kasich, an insufferable demagogue and liberal on a host of issues; and Mike Huckabee, a Trump supporter, smear monger, nanny-statist, amnesty shill, and soft-on-crime snake-oil salesman; not to mention a student in a “Stand with Rand” T-shirt…why do I get the feeling that if Sen. Paul were the nominee, Harvard Republican Club wouldn’t make similar declarations of that they couldn’t abide, say, his past sympathizing with roadside bombers?

Over at American Thinker, Andrew Solomon nailed what seems to be the root of this deadly selective morality:

It is the classic tell of an unspoken bias – that in actuality, not only do they not support Trump, but they are just as happily complicit in fealty to one of the most evil candidates of the 21st century. They complain incessantly about Trump but level not one solitary criticism about his opponent because that may presuppose an accidental backing of the man who lacks manners. Not civility, mind you, but mere table manners. They have no problem with the transformation of an entire country for an entire generation or more as the SCOTUS is transformed into a left-wing Berkeley sit in, but God forbid they should ever let one of their neighbors or Facebook friends know they aren’t upward, sophisticated Americans.

Flattery is preferred to the blunt edge of truth in today’s soft American dying culture. Pandering and paternalism and patronage, lies with benefits, are more attractive than the crazy guy spitting out commonsense realities and offering fixes to a dying economy of zero growth.

In the closing remarks of this rhetorical waterboarding, Harvard Republican Club quotes Alexis de Tocqueville as saying, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

I can think of nothing that more fittingly symbolizes these pseudo-intellectual pseudo-conservatives than peddling a notorious historical misquote so soon after their presidential candidate landed in hot water for making the same mistake.