Preserving the Bargain: Why Principled Conservatives Stand Against Donald Trump

There are many reasons why life-long Republicans are appalled by the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump. At best, he’s a vile, obnoxious lout, at worst, he’s a misogynist and a bigot. He appears to have no real understanding of economics, foreign policy or Constitutional Law. Trump is consistently inconsistent in his public positions; up until the recent past he’s been more supportive of liberal politicians than conservatives; and he has a tendency to attach himself to outlandish conspiracy theories. Trump’s only real skill seems to be grabbing media attention which he mostly accomplishes by being a spectacular, childish jerk. But these are all reasons why any self-respecting Republican should recoil from the Trump candidacy. For thoughtful, principled conservatives, abhorrence of Trump goes deeper. In fact, it reaches the level of utter despair.

Believe it or not, there are people—a small subset of the population to be sure—who know why they hold the political views that they do, and can articulate their reasoning within certain general parameters of a well-considered philosophy. For those who’ve deeply examined their beliefs and care about vision and motives as well as strategies and outcomes, acquiescing to the Trump-takeover of the GOP means unmooring from their ideological foundation. And from a more immediate and practical standpoint, it means giving up on “the Bargain.”

The Bargain is this: “Work hard, play by the rules and try to live your life in a responsible manner and you’ll do well.” Principled conservatives understand that the Bargain is irrevocably linked to the American Dream. Thoughtful conservative leaders and thinkers have dedicated their political wherewithal to advocating a system of government that is conducive to seeing that the Bargain is honored. For the most part, the Republican Party has been the operative agent of conservatives. Always woefully imperfect, the GOP is now seeing its politicians thoroughly outmatched.

Barack Obama has masterfully overwhelmed his opposition by an unrelenting rejection of the Bargain. No, in fact, it is more than a rejection, he has pursued an aggressive reversal of its core principle. In Barack Obama’s world, entrepreneurs and investors build nothing, but rather are greedy and undeserving profiteers while those who avoid responsibility and eschew wise decisions are viewed as ever-virtuous victims of oppression. Policemen carrying out their duties “act stupidly” but violent felons are innocent martyrs. Hateful Islamic terrorists are shielded from scrutiny and criticism but law-abiding citizens are demonized for demanding their constitutional rights. The weird philosophy espoused by Barack Obama expects respect and subsidies for people whose illegal presence on American soil demonstrates utter contempt for our laws. And why not?  Obama himself picks and chooses which laws to enforce or creates new ones at his whim. With each incident and incitement conservatives react with outrage, but before they can find the actual principle worth defending and articulate a thoughtful response, Obama has them wheeling to face some new effrontery, barking and snapping at each other as much as at their tormentor.

And as Barack Obama and his allies have turned the world upside down, he is convincing our population that old rules no longer apply— that the Bargain is no longer in effect. (No one is adequately arguing otherwise, as we are so busy reacting to Progressive provocation.) Consequently, we are goaded into playing the games of identity politics, fighting zero-sum battles where interest group connections decide winners and losers, and learning that those who tell the biggest lies most consistently get the biggest prize. Terrible as it is, Obama’s efforts are paying off. For now, unknowingly (and quite ironically), those who have enthusiastically turned to Donald Trump are subscribing to the Left’s rejection of everything that made America great.

The famous “anger” being expressed by Trump’s supporters are people who see Obama’s unfair world, but rather than demanding fairness, are asking that the rules be bent in their favor. The Trump people no long believe in American ingenuity, exceptionalism and world leadership, having instead adopted the Progressives’ disdain for our strengths and desire for protectionism and isolationism. Trump’s people have been successfully baited to abandon the conservative ideal of a color-blind society and now happily categorize enemies by their ethnicity. Neither Trump nor his supporters have any love for the First Amendment when it contradicts their views, and just like the Left, they would love to see it severely limited. Doubtlessly, the men and women who support Trump have nothing but contempt for their alleged political counterparts, but they have proven the wisdom of Nietzsche’s warning:  "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

And this is the reason for my despair … and why I, a conservative, can no more support Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton; they are opposite sides of the same terrible coin, made of the same unprecious metal. And if this man becomes the face of the Republican Party and if the twisted views of the Left are merely repackaged to bribe disaffected former conservatives, then the America that stood as a beacon to the world will be utterly without hope.

Why There’s No Debating Trump Supporters

I don’t get into debates with cultists. I was once employed by Scientologists, but there was never a debate about their beliefs versus mine. Cults avoid confronting people with secure belief systems, preferring to prey on those who are emotionally vulnerable with no spiritual and/or intellectual foundation upon which to find solid footing. That wasn’t me, and as I was viewed as a likely “suppressive person,” they just fired me.

Though stressful at the time, looking back I value the experience. I’ve always been fascinated by group psychology, especially as related to the different types of cults: religious (Westboro Baptist Church, ISIS, Jim Jones’ Jonestown); political (Social Justice Warriors, Environmentalists, White Supremacists); sports teams (as represented by Harvey Updyke). I would also include relatively innocuous groups like fitness freaks or hardcore Trekkers. When you consider the people who comprise these groups, you realize cultists simply aren’t people you try to debate … and you shouldn’t let yourself be lured by the challenge. They won’t play by any recognizable standard rules, because it’s just too important to them that they not lose.

You must understand that their whole world has been subsumed by complete devotion to a messiah, fuehrer, an organization or an idea. Instead of honoring Truth, they have found a new god to give their life meaning. Truth is the great enemy of cultists; they will undergo amazing intellectual and emotional contortions to deny what is real—casting aside their powers of observation and reason as the very eyes that offend them. And whereas the rational man concedes a point here or there, or acknowledges a specific weakness in his argument because it is true, the cultist will never do this. Thus unencumbered by truth or reality he can always claim “victory” in his own mind; his fanciful world preserved.

Though not as evil and dangerous as Islamic terrorists or (quite) as deluded as Jim Jones’ followers, I’ve come to see Donald Trump’s supporters as increasingly cult-like. This, I’m realizing, is why debating them is such a waste of time. I observe Trump—note his sketchy past, hear his vile comments, consider his ludicrous proposals and weigh his unrelenting megalomania—and wonder how could any rational person possibly support this insufferable lout. But now I understand that his sycophants are no longer rational. In defense of their tin god, they have disconnected all the faculties that would allow them to see Trump for what he truly is.

Trump’s cultists have subordinated their egos to that of their master’s so that they, in a way, can become one with him. In return, his proclamations of grandeur become their affirmations of self-worth; his outlandish plans are adopted as their own brain-children; and perceived slights against Trump are taken as the most personal of insults. Trump’s apostles idolize him as flawless in his wisdom, purely righteous in his endeavors, and fearless in his quests so that they too can claim a little piece of his glorious divinity.

Of course, not everyone who votes for Trump or speaks out on his behalf is a cultist (yet). A few see the opportunity for profit in adding their voices to the snake oil salesman’s sideshow. Other’s don’t really know enough about anything to make a smart political decision. Some think it would just be funny to elect an obnoxious reality TV show star as President. And perhaps the largest portion of Trump supporters are those angry at not getting their way as often as they would like, and now petulantly embrace chaos in revenge. Yet without a doubt, there is a growing Brown Shirt core of Trump’s legions—largely morphing from the fore-mentioned segments—who are anxious to serve their new savior without question. And I run across more and more of them every day.

When I criticize Trump—revile his childishly cruel antics and words or prosecute his flimflammery—I am not out to change the minds of his fanatics. That’s well beyond my meager abilities acting alone. Instead, I am lending my words to rouse the unafflicted among us so that one day, together we might stage an intervention for these pathetic lost souls before it becomes too late to save them.

I Endorse Marco Rubio

Understanding that my opinion has been sought by no one, I nevertheless have decided to make it public who I intend to vote for in the March 1, Republican Primary in Alabama. (This proves that Donald Trump isn’t the only person driven to obnoxiousness by his ego.)

Some candidates I eliminated, and some eliminated themselves by dropping out. (Carly, I would have voted for you!) None were perfect, and the men who remain all have flaws of varying severity. Starting with those I find least acceptable and working my way to the one I will ultimately vote for, here are my assessments:

Donald Trump – I don’t know what he actually believes, and I have no idea what he would actually do if (God forbid) he gets elected. But even worse as far as I’m concerned, he seems to have based the viability of his campaign on the willingness of people to condone the most stupid/nasty behavior to show they're angry about being let down by "The Establishment." Ironically, Trump's supporters are falling for the mother of all con jobs.

Dr. Ben Carson – Like just about everyone else, I’m favorably disposed to like Dr. Carson. Unfortunately, supporting him violates my rule against voting for anyone who knows less about important issues than I do.  

John Kasich – I really like Kasich on a human level. He seems to have managed to spend most of his life in politics and still hold onto his principles—which are basically to be a good, decent and fair human being. He is what used to be called a ‘statesman.’ In other words, Kasich is Dudley Do-Right … and the Clinton machine would leave him tied to a railroad track. Even if elected, Kasich would be outnumbered about 1,000:1 by Snidely Whiplashes. It’s likely the Democrats would steal his lunch money every day of his term, and they’d rob all the working people’s money as well … along with every other individual right that Constitution-loving Americans hold dear.

Jeb Bush – Jeb prefers smaller government solutions to liberal ones—I think.  He’d probably be a competent president. But a leader needs to have an idea of where he wants to take the country, not just making sure the “trains run on time.” Reagan had that, and say whatever you else you want to about him, so does Barack Obama. I’m afraid Jeb would only want to “fix” the BO Railroad, when what we need to do is blow it up and set off in a completely different direction. On an emotional level, Jeb is also like choosing something other than what you really want. He’s the healthy-choice meal, or the girl you can get to go with you to the prom rather than the one that makes your heart go piddity-pat.  

Ted Cruz – Here’s the attractive ‘bad boy.’ Simply based on a checklist of issues, I’m most in tune with Cruz. He has a nice libertarian streak. He has the greatest raw intelligence of any candidate running for president (on either side). Cruz also has that ‘vision thing’ I’m looking for. Those are important enough considerations that I can overlook the fact he doesn’t have executive experience and that he’s only a first-term Senator. Given Risk vs. Reward, I might even be willing to bet he could overcome the tidal wave of opposition from the Democrats’ attack dogs in the news and popular media. (He’s got the data-mining thing going on!) The problem? Well, I don’t like the sneaky stuff he pulled with Ben Carson in Iowa—not so much that he did it, but that he tried to pass it off as an unfortunate error and coated a dirty trick with a saccharin apology. In general, Cruz seems a little too Clinton-like for my tastes … character matters (or at least save the rough stuff for the general election!). Plus, his voice gets on my nerves.

And that leaves …

Marco Rubio – I remember when Rubio, as a Tea Party Conservative, basically ran Charlie Crist out of the Republican Party. (BTW, Crist may still be running. This week, I think he’s with the Bull Moose Party.) Next to Cruz, Rubio is the most reliably conservative Republican still in the race. And by conservative, I mean for limited government, pro-Constitution, supportive of the rule-of-law and willing to fight terrorism. The biggest knock against him was his “Gang of Eight” gambit in favor of immigration reform. Yeah, it irritated me too, but being a principled conservative doesn’t always have to foreclose the possibility of a U.S. Senator trying to make legislation. At the time, Rubio was new to the Senate and probably naively believed Barack Obama and the Democrats could be trusted on anything. Since then, he has had about four years to learn any deal with Obama is a bad deal for America.

As with Cruz, Rubio’s lack of experience on the national stage or executive experience still bothers me. But I actually understood what he was trying to say (over and over and over) during his debate meltdown with Chris Christie. His point was that you don’t need to have a lot of experience to be effective, by pointing to what Obama has been able to do after just a single undistinguished term in the Senate. Unfortunately, Rubio got lost also trying to infer that he’d be an effective force for good, whereas Obama has put his efforts into attacking anything that makes America great. (Yeah, the argument is still a bit too complicated to follow). I believe I can usually trust Rubio to make good decisions for our country.

In reality, Rubio’s ethnicity probably won’t help him much with the Hispanic vote—the illegals will still vote for Hillary or Bernie. However, he’s definitely the most attractive candidate the Republicans can muster for getting a better share of the all-important, low/no-info vote. And I think he’d acquit himself fairly well in the general election after going through preliminary trial-by-fire from his fellow candidates in the GOP nomination process.

Rubio’s electable, I mostly trust him, he’d make a fairly good president and … most importantly, he’s the best we have to choose from.