New at TFPP: Pro-Life? Why Voting Your Conscience Means Voting Trump

This is it. Election Day is tomorrow, and despite what #NeverTrumpers will tell you, the differences between a Trump administration and a Clinton administration will be enormous.

At the Washington Examiner, Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony List and Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life have an incredibly important editorial urging pro-lifers to vote for Donald Trump. The whole thing is worth reading, but here’s the bottom line:

If Clinton and the Democratic Party get their way and repeal the Hyde Amendment, as many as 60,000 more babies would be aborted every year, paid for by taxpayers. We must not cross that Rubicon.

Then there are the estimated18,000 children a year who would die in painful late-term abortions. This would go unimpeded by Clinton, who says a baby on its due date has no constitutional rights. That adds up to 312,000 human lives lost over one presidential term.

The fact that this even needs to be said—to other pro-lifers, no less—at this late date is downright scandalous. But it does, because the maniacal sophistry of the #NeverTrump movement has convinced a sizeable minority of conservatives that protecting their self-image is more important than the election’s impact on the lives, freedoms, health, safety, and prosperity of more than 324 million Americans.

On abortion alone, one need not like, respect, or trust Trump (speaking just for myself, I certainly don’t) to understand that there’s an enormous difference between him, a candidate who may not have personal ideological investment in the pro-life cause but has every incentive to listen to the right people, sign the right bills, and appoint the right judges (and no incentive not to), and Hillary Clinton, a candidate who:

Read the rest at the Federalist Papers Project.

The Unbearable Shallowness of #NeverTrump Arguments, Part 3: Jonah Goldberg

Once upon a time, Jonah Goldberg was one of my favorite conservative writers. Then Donald Trump happened (noticing a pattern here?). Sadly, so much sophistry leaps off the page of one of his most recent pieces — yet another #NeverTrump diatribe, naturally — that it’s inspired me to revive a series I started in response to Steve Deace and Kevin Williamson.

I find the constant resort to what I’ll call argumentum ad masculinum tedious. Every day, I hear people telling me that I need to “man up” and support Trump as if this is some kind of dick-measuring exercise.

I’m sure there are others who resort to that, but in the piece Goldberg is referring to, Ace isn’t talking about “dick-measuring.” He’s simply saying people need to be intellectually honest to warrant respect. To maintain that withholding support for electing Trump somehow doesn’t benefit Hillary is intellectually dishonest, for the reasons I’ll explain below.

I don’t feel obligated to support Hillary […] Ace is locked into this binary argument that one must be for one candidate if one is against the other.

Conservatives of all people should appreciate that what one “feels” about one’s actions does not change the effect of those actions. Whatever you intend, the fact remains you’re ultimately choosing not to encourage people to cast the only vote that can do anything to keep Hillary out of the White House.

If during the Iran-Iraq War, I criticized Iraq, there is no objective reason why that should require the conclusion that I supported Iran.

Because we’re not talking about “criticizing” the candidates. Heck, those of us voting for Trump still complain about him all the time. It’s completely possible to state upfront Trump’s many faults, continue to constructively critique him, and still keep them in the broader context that they pale in comparison to the suffering you know Hillary Clinton would inflict on millions of Americans.

Frankly, Jonah, to pretend it’s a question of simply criticizing Trump reeks of goalpost-moving.

Again, in 1960, National Review refused to endorse Kennedy or Nixon because neither measured up.

A precedent that would only be applicable here if the issues at stake in 2016 were the same as the ones at stake in 1960 (hardly), if Trump was equivalent to Nixon (debatable), and most importantly if Hillary wasn’t light years worse than JFK (come on). So try again.

What if the race this year was between Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders, or to better illustrate the point, between Hannibal Lecter and Freddy Krueger. Am I really obligated to figure out which is the lesser of two evils, or am I actually obligated to say they’re both evil? Would Ace argue that it’s outrageous and cowardly for me to criticize them both, just because he’s concluded that Lecter is preferable to Krueger? “C’mon some of us are trying to win an election here! Stop bashing Dr. Lecter. Sure he eats people, but he’s so much better than Krueger. Just look at the Krueger Foundation!”

I’m sorry Jonah, but you have to know how disingenuous this paragraph is. If Trump and Hillary really were equally likely to be as equally bad as Krueger and Lecter (which they aren’t), you wouldn’t need to resort to such an outlandish analogy in the first place. You could make the point with comparisons to the actual candidates, not horror-movie substitutes. And again, nobody (except the most die-hard Trumpkins, not people like Ace or Bill Bennett) suggested you can’t criticize both; that’s a straw man.

I go back and forth over the question of whether Hillary or Trump would be worse for America — and/or conservatism.

Yeah, it’s a real stumper how to figure out whether Trump embarrassing Republicans with his antics and possibly reneging some of his conservative campaign promises might be worse for the country than Hillary working every day to kill babies, endanger American lives, systematically dismantle the rule of law, erase even more personal, economic, and religious freedoms, disenfranchise future conservative generations through judicial and bureaucratic appointments, ramp up IRS discrimination against conservatives, and amnesty enough future Democrat voters to prevent conservatives from ever again restoring the Constitution, limited government, the right to life, free-market economics, etc.

I fall back to the safe harbor of saying what I believe about both of them and the issues at play, for the simple reason that this seems like the right thing to do and because I want to be consistent about what I believe in — no matter who is president.

How are “saying what I believe about both of them and the issues at play” and “being consistent about what I believe in” incompatible with coming to a conclusion about which vote is the right one to cast?

Harvard Republican Club Wants Hillary Clinton to Be President

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. Continue reading

Last Night, Ted Cruz Told Conservatives That Saving America Is Optional

Ted Cruz is by far the best candidate I’ve ever had the opportunity to vote for…and still, he let me down last night. He let his country down last night.

I know Donald Trump’s moral, intellectual, and philosophical deficiencies by heart. I was #NeverTrump for a few days after he secured the nomination. But a few days was all it took for me to confront, process, and admit two realities: first, that on every issue, the wrong things Trump may do are negated by the wrong things Hillary Clinton will do; and more importantly, that we may not have the opportunity to reverse Clinton’s actions in a term or two, because she will stack the Supreme Court for decades to come and grant amnesty to enough future Democrat voters to prevent conservatives from winning another presidency or Congressional majority in our lifetimes.

Ted Cruz understands this, because he himself has referenced both: Continue reading

The Unbearable Shallowness of #NeverTrump Arguments, Part 2: Kevin Williamson

We continue our tour of #NeverTrump’s dangerous shallowness with National Review’s Kevin Williamson, whose work on the subject is particularly insufferable thanks to his wrapping profoundly stupid arguments in arrogant contempt for all who disagree.

Cruz and the rest should not be bullied into accepting the nonsense that refusing to go in for Trump is a vote for Mrs. Clinton. It isn’t. Declining to support Trump is an act of integrity and good taste. It isn’t anything Cruz or Bush has done that makes Trump unsupportable — that is Trump’s doing, and no one else’s.

I don’t know what’s lamer: the suggestion that “Trump’s doing” somehow negates NeverTrumpers’ free will in choosing not to vote for him, or the two-word denial that not voting Trump amounts to supporting Clinton. Presidential elections only have two viable candidates. The only way to make one lose is to get the other more votes. Of course deliberately withholding votes from the alternative to Hillary benefits Hillary. This is not complicated.

And “act of integrity and good taste”? To give Hillary Clinton the opportunity to effectively end the Constitution and the conservative movement via a one-two punch of establishing a 6-3 leftist Supreme Court (at best) and amnestying enough future Democrat voters to ensure we never win another national election in our lifetimes?
Another 9/11? Fifty million more abortions? More persecution of Christian employers and conservative activists? More liberties and checks on government power erased? More disenfranchisement of the states and the people? Possibly sacrificing our opportunity to ever fix any of the crises facing America?

“Meh,” says Kevin to all of that. “Hating Trump is more important to me than the suffering of millions of Americans.”

Kevin did, however, elaborate on “it isn’t” in an earlier article, and good Lord is it worse than you’re expecting: Continue reading

The Unbearable Shallowness of #NeverTrump Arguments, Part 1: Steve Deace

The intense disgust Donald Trump inspires in most conservatives is unquestionably valid, seeing that he’s a loathsome, unqualified buffoon who ruined the best chance we’ve had since 1984 to put a truly worthy movement conservative, Ted Cruz, in the White House. The emotional difficulty of looking past his offenses and weaknesses is understandable, and there are legitimate concerns about Trump’s fitness for office, chances against Hillary Clinton, and representation of the Republican Party.

However, it’s increasingly apparent that Trump Derangement Syndrome has so consumed most of the #NeverTrump movement that they’ve lost the ability to objectively evaluate both Trump’s weaknesses and the consequences of another Clinton presidency. Not only are opposing arguments ignored without serious consideration, many NeverTrumpers hurl indignation and condescension at any suggestion there are opposing arguments. Ugly though it sounds, it’s hard not to conclude that some have decided that the future of their country is less important than projecting their self-image as morally and ideologically purer than the rest of us.

It’s time to start calling out this arrogant negligence. The following is the first in a series of posts calling out the shoddy logic and irresponsible flippancy dominating #NeverTrump arguments. To be clear, not everyone we’ll discuss is guilty of all the sins described above, but all display a distinct lack of seriousness unworthy of the future generations who will suffer if they get their way and Hillary wins. Continue reading

New at American Clarion: Disappointment in Paul Ryan Provides Clue to America’s Current Mess

Wilfred McClay of the University of Oklahoma best summarized the root cause of conservatives’ unpleasant choice for president this fall: “when a political culture forbids respectable politicians from raising essential topics, the electorate will soon turn to ‘unrespectable’ ones” like Donald Trump.

Unfortunately, the punditry remains slow to recognize this, and nothing symbolizes its cognitive dissonance more than the reactions to House Speaker Paul Ryan supporting Trump despite Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel. The past few weeks have been filled with fears and lamentations over the threat to Ryan’s standing as, Wisconsin radio host Charlie Sykes puts it, “the intellectual leader of the conservative movement in the GOP.”

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg sums up the sentiment in writing that it’s “more difficult for me to write than it should be” that Ryan’s “a disappointment”:

[P]hilosophically and temperamentally, I’ve long felt that Ryan is my kind of politician, and that judgment didn’t change after getting to know him (which is rare, given how most politicians are all too human). His vision for government’s role and the kind of party the GOP should be has always resonated with me, even if I didn’t agree with him on every policy or vote.

It should tell you all you need to know about the sorry state of the Right that disappointment in Ryan took this long for so many.

Read the rest at American Clarion.