No, Republicans, Hillary Clinton Isn’t Worse Than Donald Trump
As someone who was a Republican for 25 years, I can understand – and in fact I share – the concern those still in the party have about a potential Hillary Clinton Administration. They, and I, have several disagreements with her on policy matters. She has made it clear that her respects for the civil liberties in Amendment I and in Amendment II are little beyond nominal. Her record in office is littered with errors: the early withdrawal from Iraq, the abandonment of Libya, the “reset” with Russia, and the beginnings of appeasement with Iran that led to the 2015 “deal.”
Yet as Republicans finally were forced to accept that Donald Trump is their presidential nominee (and, to be clear, a large plurality of Republican voters did the forcing), I am watching many of them succumb to a kind of madness regarding her. They are so desperate to justify their tribalism that I fear they are refusing to see reality as it truly is, particularly regarding Trump himself.
We begin with her record as Secretary of State. As I noted earlier, it’s not good. Yet how, exactly, would Donald Trump be different? He made clear last night he would continue the Obama Administration’s refusal to clean up the mess in North Africa and the Middle East. His statements on NATO – and his refusal to let the Republican platform include a promise of support to Ukraine – reveals, if anything, an acceleration of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry withdrawal from the defense of Europe. If Clinton’s record on foreign policy troubles you (and it should), then Trump would only be worse. It says something that the party most likely to bear (and enjoy) the “isolationist” label (the Libertarians) have nominated the candidate with the foreign policy least affected by the mistakes of the Obama Administration or by the willingness to build upon them (Gary Johnson).
Moving from foreign affairs to domestic policy requires an examination of trade and immigration along the way. Regarding the former, Trump made it clear what he thinks of freer trade. This should not surprise, as rank protectionism has been his stock in trade for over twenty-five years. Vladimir Putin is not an enemy to him, but the people of Mexico and Americans who would buy their goods are. It is yet another example of his inability – and in some cases, downright refusal – to acknowledge friend from foe. Sadly, Mrs. Clinton has gone right along with Trump on trade, leaving only Johnson as the candidate for freedom on international exchange.
Trump makes the same mistake on immigration, insisting that a Christian or Shiite refugee from Daesh should be banned from entering America, while sycophants of tyranny in “peaceful” nations are just fine. Granted, Mrs. Clinton makes different mistakes on this issue, and neither of them seem willing to address the visa-jumping issue, let alone the restricive high-skilled immigration process that creates mini-monopsonies for American firms looking hire from outside the country.
To be fair, Trump does seem to have a better grip on some supply-side economic policies (particularly income tax), but even here he clouds things with his Me-Too-ism on minimum wage,
entitlement deform, and a stubborn refusal to even discuss reducing government’s size, scope, and cost (Johnson doesn’t share these flaws). He has as little respect for First Amendment rights as Mrs. Clinton (see his promises on libel law), and he remains all over the map on the rest of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, I understand her rank recklessness about classified communications should be an issue, but can anyone trust Donald Trump with classified information? To ask the question is to answer it.
In short, Trump is marginally better on economic policy, marginally worse on foreign affairs, possibly better on social issues, and possibly worse on trade, but the idea that overall he would be a better president than Mrs. Clinton can only be driven by a personal animus towards her that doesn’t hold up to the facts.
Resorting to binarism in this choice is a false one, driven again by the assumption that Mrs. Clinton must be stopped at all cost. Yet once the cost of a Trump vote is counted, one should realize “at all cost” is wrong. The cost of electing Trump is as high as that of electing Clinton.
It is likely that one of them will be elected, but I can do my best to prevent that by voting for someone else – someone better on the range of issues. For me, that person is Gary Johnson.
@deejaymcguire | facebook.com/people/Dj-McGuire | DJ’s posts
