No, it’s not a matter of preserving the status quo, or about reserving the Presidency for politicians who have worked their way up through the Party. It’s not about the fact that he wants to build a wall along the Mexican border, either. It’s not about his multiple marriages, either, or the extent to which he is or isn’t genuinely Christian.
There are practicality issues: can Trump actually do what he says he will? I think it’s foolish to believe this, when you watch him on the debate stage, seeming to be clueless about key issues, insisting that he’s just going to find “great people” and, by dint of his negotiating skill, get everything to work. But that’s a secondary issue.
There are ideological issues: does Trump really believe what he says he does? Sure, he has a conversion story about being pro-life, but he still defends Planned Parenthood. And his build-a-wall-and-deport, in the end, sounds a bit too much like the “touch-back” idea of prior amnesty proposals, the notion that illegal immigrants would be granted amnesty following a symbolic return to native soil. But that’s still another secondary issue.
Here’s the primary issue — or, rather, here are three issues.
He’s a con artist. This is more than just a line from Rubio’s stump speech. Trump University was indeed a scam, pressuring its customers to buy increasingly more expensive packages of instruction in real estate investing, the content of which was limited, and the appeal of which was promises of opportunities to meet Trump in person (he never came) or mentorship by professionals (which generally didn’t happen) or access to investment capital. There’s also Trump Steaks, the Trump clothing line, and other business deals based solely on his celebrity status. And, yes, he’s amassed a lot of money with his real estate deals, including strategic use of bankruptcy, but this isn’t a case of “rags to riches” or even “well-off to riches” — after all, that’s the family business which he inherited and initially ran jointly with his father.
He’s a strongman — he uses his celebrity to draw his followers and makes a pitch to them based on simplistic promises (“we’re going to start winning again”), he doesn’t bother to learn about policy, and he uses bullying tactics with his opponents, both personally, in his business dealings, and politically. He treats his supporters as simpletons. It’s commonly understood that he lies, for example, in his assertion that he has a net worth of $10 billion.
And he makes statements that are simply out-of-bonds, irresponsible, morally and factually wrong. Yes, there is a serious problem with Islamic terrorism. No, you cannot, as a presidential candidate, call for a moratorium on entry by Muslims into the United States. Yes, the federal government has, for too many years, been derelict in its duty to secure the border and prevent unauthorized individuals from working with false identification or under the table, due to indifference or even pressure from interest groups. No, you cannot accuse Mexico of intentionally sending rapists to the United States. What would Trump actually do as president? Do his wild comments and crazy tweets suggest that he’d fly off the handle in dangerous ways? That’s a big unknown. No, I don’t think he’s going to nuke Denmark, but it’s entirely possible that his rejection of all reasonble norms could cause significant unforeseeable trouble internationally. And, even if not: making an unreasonable demand as an opening negotiation, to enhance your chances of getting what you want, is one thing in a business deal — but in politics and public policy, it’s wrong and wholly unacceptable, if that demand itself is not just outrageous but morally wrong.
Just because you’ve been wronged, by Corporate America, by the GOP Establishment, by everyone who’s accepted and encouraged the de facto amnesty of nonenforcement, doesn’t give you the right to fight back by voting for a man who is not simply a buffoon, as he’s been labelled by those who would like to cast him as an object of ridicule, but who is deeply dangerous.
I get it. Everyone has reason to be angry. But two wrongs don’t make a right.
Is Trump The Next Hitler? Well, no. Hitler, well before 1932, announced plans to obtain Lebensraum and destroy the Jews, and the Nazi party used the paramilitary brown shirts for street battles with communists prior to then, and continued to use intimidation and threats of violence (and, no, treatment of protesters at rallies doesn’t count) to secure the vote on his dictatorial powers.
But remember: the Germans of 1932 were not a separate species of human. They thought of themselves as perfectly civilized, and many supported Hitler because of his promise of German resurgence, or out of frustration with the seeming incompetence of everyone else. In Venezuela, too, Hugo Chavez was democratically elected. Even if there is no real threat that Trump will suspend civil liberties and rule by fiat, we still need to put as much daylight as possible between our politics and that of strongman rule, or to use the old Catholic middle-school dance rule and/or urban legend, to “leave room for Jesus”.
Now, having said all this, a final comment: I hadn’t previously written this up because, well, my audience isn’t teeming with Trump supporters anyway, so the above is as much an exercise in my writing this down as anything else. It’s subject to change as it’s a bit less detailed than I’d like, but for further reading, here’s a selection of links with the same message:
“Why I Changed My Mind and Joined the #NeverTrump Movement” by David French at National Review.
“5 Reasons Every American Should Oppose Donald Trump,” by Paul David Miller at The Federalist.
“Let Me Make This Perfectly Clear: I Will Never Vote For Donald Trump,” by Matt Walsh at The Blaze.
Readers are encouraged to add links and/or details in the comments and I’ll revise the above, too.
Stay in touch! Like Jane the Actuary on Facebook:
This is where I share, not just blog posts, but other links I come across.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In