By Charles Murray
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
I am part of the tiny fraction of the population that
deals professionally in public policy from the right. In influence, we are all
over the map, from talk-show hosts with audiences of millions (Limbaugh,
Hannity) to politicians who directly shape policy (Ryan, McConnell) to
academics who write technical papers read exclusively by their peers. We have
been dubbed the “Republican Establishment” during this campaign season —
bemusing to those like me who have trivial influence and are not even
Republicans — but I’ll use Establishmentarians
as a convenient label for who we are. This note is addressed to my fellow
Establishmentarians, from the Hannities and Ryans to my fellow ink-stained
wretches.
Barring a startling turn of events, Donald Trump is going
to be the Republican presidential nominee. There are good reasons to question
his fitness to occupy the presidency, because of both his policy positions and
for reasons of character. The standard response among the Establishmentarians
who have announced they will vote for Trump is that “Hillary is even worse.”
That’s acceptable for people whose only obligation is to cast a vote. Having to
choose the lesser of two evils is common in American voting booths. But that
shouldn’t be good enough for Establishmentarians.
If we’re going to presume to lecture others about public
policy and good governance — as all of us have made a career of doing in one
way or another — we need to put our views about Donald Trump on the table now,
before the nomination and election. That’s especially true of the False Priests
and the Closet #NeverTrumpers — labels that I owe to Jonah Goldberg.
The False Priests are the columnists, media pundits,
public intellectuals, and politicians who have presented themselves as
principled conservatives or libertarians but now have announced they will vote
for a man who, by multiple measures, represents the opposite of the beliefs
they have been espousing throughout their careers. We’ve already heard you say
“Hillary is even worse.” Tell us, please, without using the words “Hillary
Clinton” even once, your assessment of Donald Trump, using as a template your
published or broadcast positions about right policy and requisite character for
a president of the United States. Put yourself on the record: Are you voting
for a man whom your principles require you to despise, or have you modified
your principles? In what ways were you wrong before? We require explanation
beyond “Hillary is even worse.”
The Closet #NeverTrumpers are drawn from the
Establishmentarians who can easily avoid publicly revealing their views of
Trump. They include policy analysts like me who don’t have a history of writing
about current politics, political strategists, senior Hill staffers, and
potential appointees to high office in a Trump administration. Many of them now
privately tell people like Jonah and me that they agree with the us, the
#NeverTrumpers, 100 percent. Great. But I suspect that many of these private
opinions will get deep-sixed if Trump is elected. That’s not acceptable. You
shouldn’t be able to cozy up to the new administration without having
previously acknowledged your real opinion of the man you will then be willing
to work for.
We Establishmentarians, therefore, should all go on the
record about our view of Donald Trump. That includes me. I have done so in
140-character tweets, but it’s time to elaborate. Apart from that, I have a
specific need to go on the record: While I am already on record with my
sympathy for the grievances that energize many of Trump’s supporters, I am
thinking about writing a book that is even more explicitly sympathetic with
those grievances. I want to forestall any suspicion — especially if Trump is
elected — that writing in sympathy with some of the content of Trumpism
indicates any form of sucking up to Trump the man.
Here goes:
In my view, Donald Trump is unfit to be president in ways
that apply to no other candidate of the two major political parties throughout
American history.
Let me begin by acknowledging that in some respects, it’s
the same-old, same-old. Greedy and venal candidates? Trump and Clinton are both
bad. But LBJ was just as bad. Narcissistic candidates? Trump’s narcissism is
complicated by his transparent insecurity. But I actually find Barack Obama’s
serenely untroubled narcissism to be creepier. Candidates with deplorable
marital morals? Trump, yes, but Bill Clinton was at least Trump’s equal, and
JFK set a bar for reckless personal behavior that neither can hope to match.
Candidates who lie? This is a little more complicated.
Yes, many candidates for president have lied. Hillary Clinton has — with
stupefying ineptitude — told and continues to tell whoppers. But Trump takes
first prize for sheer bulk, averaging one factual untruth every five minutes,
according to a systematic
fact-check of over four and a half hours of stump speeches and press
conferences.
But it’s worse than that. It’s not that Trump makes
strategic decisions about what useful untruths he will tell on any given day —
it looks as if he just makes up stuff as he goes along. Many of his
off-the-cuff fictions are substantively unimportant: He says Rex Ryan won
championships when he coached the New York Jets, when he didn’t. No one would
care — if it were a one-shot mistake. But it happens repeatedly. Then it gets a
little more important, as when he says Paul Ryan called to congratulate him
after his victory in the New York primary, announcing a significant political
event that in fact did not happen. Then the fictions touch on facts about
policy. No, Wisconsin does not have an effective unemployment rate of 20
percent, nor does the federal government impose Common Core standards on the
states — to take just two examples plucked at random from among his continual
misrepresentations of reality. That he deals so heedlessly in those
misrepresentations makes it impossible for an opponent to conduct an authentic
policy debate with him.
It’s one thing when a candidate knowingly deceives the
public on a few specific topics. Hillary Clinton has knowingly tried to deceive
the public about her flip-flop on gay marriage and her misuse of her e-mail
server. That’s bad. It should be condemned. This aspect of her character should
affect one’s deliberations about whether to vote for her. It’s another thing
entirely when a candidate blithely rejects Pat Moynihan’s (attributed) dictum,
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts.”
Trump’s indifference to facts is an example of why he is
unfit for the presidency — not dispositive in itself, but part of a pattern.
That pattern is why “Hillary is even worse” misses the point. P. J. O’Rourke
recently announced that he is voting for Clinton. “She’s wrong about absolutely
everything,” O’Rourke said. “But she’s wrong within normal parameters!”
Similarly, I am saying that Clinton may be unfit to be president, but she’s
unfit within normal parameters. Donald Trump is unfit outside normal
parameters.
Defending that statement would take a lot of space. I
refer you instead to some brilliant essays with which I agree. Ross
Douthat has made the conservative case for Trump’s unfitness on grounds of
both ideology and character. Andrew
Sullivan has written a scarily convincing brief for Trump as a potential
“extinction-level” threat to American democracy. But for conveying the essence
of why I think Trump is unfit outside normal parameters, I cannot write
anything nearly as concise and expressive as David
Brooks wrote a few months ago.
Donald Trump is epically unprepared
to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to
learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn’t know what he
doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out. He insults the office
Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most
of us would undertake to buy a sofa. . . . He is a childish man running for a
job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires
were somehow arrested at age 12.
Since Brooks wrote those words, Trump has become the
presumptive Republican nominee, and he now does have advisors. He has had ten
additional weeks to demonstrate his capacity to learn; to show that he is taking
national policy more seriously than buying a sofa; to persuade us that
underneath the showman exterior is presidential seriousness. My view is that he
has not and cannot. What you see is what you get.
I am told that it is unfair to speak in such harsh terms
of a person I don’t know personally: Look how nice his kids seem to be. Look at
all his friends who say that he’s really a pleasant fellow in private. Sorry. I
don’t need any secondary sources. Donald Trump makes the case for David
Brooks’s assessment in every public appearance. When a man deliberately
inflames the antagonism of one American ethnic group toward another, takes
pleasure in labeling people “losers,” and openly promises to use the powers of
the presidency to punish people who get in his way, there is nothing that
person can do or say in private that should alter my opinion of whether he is
fit to be the president of the United States.
I know that I am unlikely to persuade any of my fellow
Establishmentarians to change their minds. But I cannot end without urging you
to resist that sin to which people with high IQs (which most of you have) are
unusually prone: Using your intellectual powers to convince yourself of
something despite the evidence plainly before you. Just watch and listen to the
man. Don’t concoct elaborate rationalizations. Just watch and listen.
And contemplate this fact about history: We have had
presidents whose competence once in office was better than we could have
anticipated. Truman, for example. We have had presidents whose characters were
subsequently revealed to be worse than they had seemed during the campaign.
Kennedy, for example. We have never had a president whose character proved to
be more admirable once he was in office than it had appeared during the
campaign. What you see on your television screen every day from Donald Trump
the candidate is the best that you
can expect from Donald Trump the president. “Hillary is even worse” doesn’t cut
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment