Before signing my mail-in ballot, I feel compelled to write a signing statement. I will not vote for Harris because I don't believe in the Democrat's secular progressive agenda. But I will not vote for Trump because of his deeply flawed character and his rejection of core conservative values. So I'm writing in Mitt Romney. Here are some of my reasons.
I reject the idea that voting strategy reduces to a binary choice even if there are only two leading candidates. Every vote counts for something, if only increasing the number who refused to go with their party's pick. Some good can come from that in four years. Also, during primary season, my fellow Republicans had many good choices, but overwhelmingly chose Trump. You can't make a "lesser of two evils" argument in November when 85% of you voted for one of those "evils" in the spring.
I don't think Trump is a threat to democracy the way the Democrats portray him, but I also think he is no defender of democracy either. If the Democrats could rewrite the Constitution to toss out the electoral college, the equal representation of states in the Senate, lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices, or tamp down First and Second Amendment rights in order to advance their social agenda, they certainly would. But Donald Trump would gladly do the same rewriting, only for his own personal advancement. They have a similar stance toward the Constitution. The same could be said for Trump's fiscal policy, judicial picks, and foreign policy. It's all secondary to whatever advances his brand.
The main argument that social conservatives can make for Trump is that he gave us several conservative Supreme Court justices which resulted in overturning Roe after 50 years. I am grateful for that. But I think Constitutional originalism is a compelling idea that doesn't need deeply compromised supporters. If it's right and true, it would have been best to pursue it without Trump with the hope that doing it right gives it a chance of standing longer. It's obvious to everyone that Trump doesn't believe in or even know what Constitutional originalism is, so there are sure to be unintended consequences for his transactional politics.
Finally, Trump in 2024 is a fully known political figure. I don't believe there are any more new insights or ideas. In 2016, his governing philosophy was largely unknown so you could hope for something good. In 2020, you could debate how effective or ineffective he had been because of the large distortions from COVID-19 and the George Floyd riots. But in 2024, it's all out there. If we get Trump, we are getting chaos, crazy talk, deficits, impeachments, and just a great big mess. If your main goal is to piss off the libs, then Trump is your man. He will surely do that. But that's not governing and I don't want to be part of it.
I predict that the Trump will lose, he will claim the election was rigged, but it will not rise to another January 6 moment. I think Americans are tired of the shtick and will not let anything major foment. That will be the end of Trump in politics. One jaw-dropping win in 2016, followed by a steady string of losses, kind of like a new TV show that starts with a bang, then slowly degrades season after season.
The more pressing question is whether the Republican party will recover from its veer into populism and post-liberalism and away from the Reagan coalition of limited government, Christian morality and strong foreign policy. I don't know. It will take leaders who can clearly articulate a vision that is true to our American values, can competently deal with today's challenges, and is appealing to the masses. I hope that's possible. But until then, it's Still Never Trump.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid, thanks for this interesting and thought-provoking post. Really enjoyed it. As for the “pressing question” you raise in the last paragraph, I think the answer is “no.” Trump’s appeal has always been more visceral than policy-based; but I do believe the Republican party has shifted meaningfully and permanently away from the free-market and peace-through-strength values and policy prescriptions that its former leaders espoused. The overlap in both rhetoric and policy proposals between the two major parties is striking and indicative. Trump’s claim that he will temporarily cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent sounds like an idea Bernie Sanders could get behind.
DeleteWhere I might disagree with you just slightly is on the idea that Trump is a fully known political figure. Strange to say, I grant you. But Vance and Trump, Jr. both believe that Trump was stymied to an extent in his first term by old-school conservatives or moderates, who intentionally undermined his agenda and directives. Vance and Trump, Jr. are dead set on excluding such traitors from a second Trump administration. This, coupled with the fact that Republican populism is still nascent and certainly untested at the helm of the government, might mean that we can’t clearly imagine how a second Trump administration will go or what it will seek to accomplish.
I was planning to vote for Ben Sasse (again), but maybe Mitt Romney is a better idea given Sasse’s current situation.