By Dan McLaughlin
Monday, November 07, 2016
One of the popular sports these days among Clinton
supporters — and sometimes among Never Trump Republicans (of whom I am proudly
one) — is bashing the people voting to make Donald Trump the 45th president of
the United States. A common refrain is to list the various awful things
associated with Trump — e.g., groping women, stirring up bigotry, toadying to
Putin — and suggesting that anyone who votes for Trump must be embracing all of
this.
A recent Pew survey found that 58 percent of Clinton
supporters “have a hard time respecting someone who supports Donald Trump for
president,” almost a third more than the proportion of Trump voters who view
Clinton supports with similar disdain. (That figure is markedly higher among
Hillary’s white supporters, and rises to 66 percent among Clinton supporters
with college degrees.) Undoubtedly, Hillary Clinton’s own description of half
of Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” has only encouraged this
attitude by her own followers.
I have many grave concerns about Trump, both as a
potential president and as leader of the Republican party, and intend to cast a
protest vote for Evan McMullin for those reasons. And I have my own bones to
pick with voters who chose Trump over better Republican candidates in the
primaries, when we had a choice. But in the context of an American general
election, the rancor and scorn directed at his voters is unreasonable and
uncharitable, in ways the critics would never direct at themselves or (in the
case of liberal criticisms) at their own allies.
There are rational arguments for supporting Trump in the
general election against Hillary Clinton, even if I regard those arguments as
naive or blind to the realities of Trump. And there are other legitimate
reasons that don’t fit neatly into polite, rational, educated debate. Let’s
look first at the sophisticated, reasoned justifications offered for voting to
Make America Great Again, and then at why the lower-information Trump voters
might reasonably decide to support him. We will find that both are rooted,
however misguidedly, firmly in defense of the American system.
The Three Best
Arguments for Voting Trump
There are a variety of arguments raised in favor of
voting for Donald Trump. Some of these assume that you agree with a
neo-Buchananite direction for the GOP, and these make a certain amount of sense
only if you start with that premise. For example, I personally don’t believe
that continuing our current immigration policy presents an existential
demographic threat to American culture and democratic institutions; if you do,
you’re probably voting for Trump. Others are just plain delusional or require
inventing a kind of Ideal Trump with little relationship to the actual man.
I’ll stick to the three main arguments for why normal Republican voters would
actually want to vote for Trump. Those arguments are wrong, in my view, but
they’re not crazy, and they are ones that many Democrats deploy regularly to
justify their own choices.
All rational arguments for voting Trump begin with the
binary nature of elections. If two candidates are running for office and you
see one of them as significantly worse than the other, you have a moral
obligation to vote for the other one, or else you own some responsibility for
the worse candidate’s winning. If you live anywhere but in Utah (and even
there, the McMullin insurgency seems likely to fall short), either Trump or
Clinton will win your state. In that case, a third party vote or staying home
isn’t meaningless — it’s a visible statement of protest — but it effectively
abdicates responsibility for the result. I’ve resisted this argument when
presented as a condemnation of Never Trumpers, but I don’t disagree with the
logic — it’s a weighty moral decision for an informed voter to refuse to choose
between the binary choices. People who think that both Clinton and Trump are
awful should vote for one of them anyway if they really believe the other is
worse. My only disagreement is that I think both of them are equally bad
(albeit in somewhat different ways), and thus I can’t in good conscience
support either one. And as a writer, even if I was going to vote for Trump, I
couldn’t compromise my integrity enough to face the daily chore of trying to
defend and justify him.
The first of the three rational arguments for Trump is the instrumental argument. This is the
argument that Trump may not mean anything he says or even know what he’s
talking about half the time but that electing him would still cause better
public-policy results, from a conservative perspective, than electing Hillary.
Maybe Trump wouldn’t keep all his promises to appoint conservative judges, but
he’d appoint some, and Hillary would appoint none. Maybe Trump would do more to
sign parts of Paul Ryan’s legislative and budget agenda than Hillary would.
Maybe Trump would hire a lot of Steve Bannon types to work in his White House,
but eventually he’d run out of those and have to staff the rest of the executive
branch with normal, essentially sober Republicans. Maybe Trump’s basic laziness
and lack of understanding of the workings of the system would cede power to
Mike Pence, his basically conservative and fundamentally responsible vice
president. Maybe, as I’ve speculated before, the Democrats would refuse to do
business with Trump, leaving him no real choice but to work with the people who
elected him.
That’s a lot of maybes, and a lot of faith placed in a
guy who is so renowned for being beyond anyone’s control or influence that the
RNC is reduced to arguing in court filings that it literally can’t control
Trump when he ignores a consent decree placed on the party years ago. It’s a
lot of hope for conservative outcomes from a 70-year-old con man whose
instincts have always been those of a big-government statist and social
libertine, and who seems to delight in humiliating those who support him. And
it underestimates the extent to which weighty foreign-policy decisions are
often made by the president almost alone, with little input from Congress and
less from the courts.
But for more than a few conservatives, the risks of Trump
outweigh the certainties of Hillary. That’s not irrational. Neither is the
decision of some conservatives to support Hillary, having made the assessment
that the risks of Trump to national security are just too high — although given
how terrible Hillary’s foreign-policy record is, I can’t agree with them
either. The past few decades have taught us that control of the Supreme Court
carries vastly more power over how we are governed than the political branches
do; that accumulation of power has been driven mainly by social-issue liberalism,
so liberals can’t really blame anyone but themselves for convincing voters that
no price in the degradation of the elected branches is too much to pay in order
to claim that prize.
Democrats may pour scorn on Trump voters for the things
they are willing to swallow in order to support a candidate they agree with on
public-policy issues, but what would it take for those Democrats to vote for a
conservative Republican for president? Democrats
make the instrumental argument for ignoring their own side’s scandals and
faults on Election Day all the time. The people ranting about Trump’s
mistreatment of women spent the 1990s lecturing us about the irrelevance of any
kind of sexual misconduct to public-policy debates, and many of them are now
arguing that even Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive national security
information should be ignored, or at any rate outweighed, by the instrumental
arguments for her — as the subtitle of a Matt Yglesias piece at Vox puts it, “If you agree with her on
policy, vote with a clear conscience about the server.” That’s exactly what
Trump’s instrumental voters are doing: They think they agree with him more on
policy than with her, and they are casting their ballots accordingly. That
doesn’t mean they are necessarily embracing everything about Trump, any more
than Hillary’s voters are.
The second rational argument for voting Trump, advanced
most forcefully by Glenn Reynolds, is the
structural argument. The structural argument is that, sure, Trump might be
as bad as Hillary or even worse but that he’d actually be a much less serious
threat to do harm because the vast and nominally non-partisan apparatus of
official Washington — the bureaucracy and civil service, the courts, the press
— would come together to thwart him at every turn, whereas they would be force
multipliers that amplify all of Hillary’s misdeeds and bad policy ideas. Yuval
Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru have explored in detail in National Review how Hillary’s liberalism presents a mortal threat
to our democratic institutions, a threat that is all the more insidious because
it is incremental, mainstreamed, and normalized by our elites, and painted in
bland tones in contrast to Trump’s carnival barking. One of the great
frustrations of a lot of Trump supporters is that Trump gets lacerated in the
press for saying things bluntly that Democrats have been saying and doing for
years, but in the polite language of the legal profession and the Beltway
insider. In its extreme version, the structural argument asserts that if Trump
is really that bad, he can always just be impeached and removed from office by
bipartisan consensus.
Of all the arguments for Trump, this is the one that
tempts me the most. Its diagnosis of how D.C. operates is, in fact, a big part
of why I argued in the primaries that Trump wouldn’t be effective at “burning
it all down.” It doesn’t outweigh the other reasons for opposing him, and
indeed it relies on a mechanism that is both dangerous and defeatist for
conservatives: the empowerment of an official Washington unified to undermine
an elected president on a scale previously unprecedented. We have seen how this
game plays out before. Ever since Watergate and Vietnam, the media have used
their roles in those controversies to justify a more aggressively partisan and
ideological right to decide what the public should be told. Ever since the
civil-rights era, liberals have used its necessary expansions of federal power
to justify permanent expansions of federal power in every walk of life. Media
that have become more openly biased against Trump — because he deserves it —
already won’t easily put that genie back in the bottle. The structural argument
goes a way toward explaining how some people have reasonably rationalized
voting for Trump, but it carries a whirlwind all its own.
The third rational argument for voting Trump is the moral-hygiene argument, also known
as “throw the bums out” or “drain the swamp.” This is specific to the current
Clinton scandals involving Hillary’s e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation,
but also more broadly to the Clintons’ long career of scandal as well as the
general air of immunity and insulation from popular accountability that has
grown around official Washington under President Obama. This is the argument
that Democrats and liberal elites have basically reached the point where they
feel confident being above the law, eroding longstanding norms of democracy,
and getting away with almost anything, and that nothing would shock them out of
that complacency quite like the voters electing an obviously unqualified
blowhard whose main selling point is that he’s not an acceptable member of the
club. Like everyone elected on a “throw the bums out” ticket, Trump can always
be thrown out himself later.
This, too, is a strong argument for voting against
Hillary, and an emotionally tempting one for voting Trump. But it is
counterbalanced by the cost in moral hygiene in rewarding Trump’s own behavior,
encouraging similar candidates in the future, and encouraging those in our
society who would imitate Trump by rehabilitating open racial bigotry and
adding to our society’s sexual crassness. Trump could humble the Democrats for
a while, and maybe even accelerate their own internal tensions toward a
crackup, but in victory he would do almost certainly permanent damage to the
Republican party (if he hasn’t already) as a vehicle for any kind of
conservative principle.
In the end, reasonable people can differ on which of the
two sides of each of these three coins presents the more serious threat; you
don’t have to ignore the cost of one to value the other. It should not be that
hard for critics of Trump’s voters to understand that every choice in this
election is a fraught one, and that Republicans who end up pulling the lever
for the Donald are not necessarily indifferent to the costs; they just see
tradeoffs with other evils of great gravity differently.
The
Standard-Bearer
All of that is why informed, rational political actors
might end up making a different choice from that of Never Trumpers. But for
many voters, the answer is even simpler, even if their votes reflect the same
essential calculus, and we should resist the urge to sneer at them.
The simple reality of democracy is that lots of voters
are a lot less well informed about political issues and candidates than the
typical pundit or political junkie. Those voters process the information they
do receive quite differently from people who consume a lot more news, and
they’re also going to rely on the party-line identification of a candidate to
deliver information about the candidate that they’re not personally committed
to gathering. Inevitably, such voters will sometimes cast party-line votes for
candidates who are individually horrible people.
This is not limited to voters who are stupid and/or
ignorant, although there will always be more than a few of those around. (A
candidate who wins all the voters with below-average intelligence starts off
with 50 percent of the vote.) It also includes voters (ranging from surgeons to
soldiers in war zones to mothers with a bunch of small children) who may just
be busy with other things, or elderly, or not proficient in English. Some of
these people probably shouldn’t vote — but if they choose to, their choices are
just as legitimate as anyone else’s. Indeed, there’s an entire body of
political-science research dedicated to arguing that voters may choose to be
rationally ignorant about a lot of things that are a waste of their time to
learn.
Consider the “birther” story. If you paid close attention
to the reported facts, it was ridiculous to believe that Barack Obama’s mother,
a white woman from Kansas living in Hawaii in 1961, made a secret trip to Kenya
just to give birth to him and then conspired with the local authorities to
cover up the location of his birth. National
Review laid out those facts in an editorial on the topic back in 2009. It’s
fair to argue that prominent people who pushed birtherism, and voters who
studied the topic obsessively without changing their minds, were crazy, racist,
or both — Donald Trump included.
But not everybody devotes that much attention to these
things. If you were an ordinary citizen who didn’t spend a ton of your daily
routine reading the national news, and you knew that Obama’s father was Kenyan,
and that Obama spent much of his formative years outside the United States,
it’s not that big a leap to think that maybe the guy was born somewhere else.
If you were cynical about politicians in general and Chicago Democrats in
particular, it’s also not that big a leap to think he was hiding his real birth
certificate. Obama’s own book publisher, relying solely on information provided
by Obama himself, listed him as Kenyan-born on promotional materials back in
the early 1990s. Things that may seem insane to believe or disbelieve if you know
all the facts may not be all that illogical if you simply have a few of the key
facts wrong. That makes you uninformed on the topic; it doesn’t make you a
racist loon.
Is Trump inconsistent in his views, and mostly
self-interested? Has he treated women as disposable sex objects? Has he said
irresponsible things and played on people’s racial and cultural resentments?
Does he sometimes bluster his way through things when he doesn’t know what he’s
talking about? Has he played the system to get rich? Or has he been falsely or
unfairly accused of some of those things? To a lot of Americans, you could say
much of the same about most politicians.
It’s enormously frustrating to get people to accept that
Trump is different in the scale and degree of these things, but if you talk to
people who think the whole political system is a racket full of terrible people
(and it’s not crazy to think of it that way), you can see why many of them just
tune a lot of the negatives out. They see the things that people like Bill
Clinton and Ted Kennedy got away with for years — and were defended for — and
write off the predations of powerful men on women as a part of the system. They
see Barack Obama embrace Al Sharpton and bend his knee at a preacher who
denounced America in nasty racial terms, and they figure what’s good for the
goose is good for the gander. They remember, if they are old enough, open
segregationists being a routine part of the Democratic party. They hear every
Republican candidate of their lifetimes denounced as racists, and they tune
that stuff out — ask literally anyone in Republican politics how often they’ve
heard “they say that about everybody” raised as a defense of Trump in the past
18 months. Trump’s crude, blunderbuss rhetoric strikes a lot of people as
“straight talk” simply because he’s doing bluntly what people have seen
politicians of both parties doing obliquely for years. To lawyers and political
insiders, he’s crossed a lot of lines — but a lot of voters don’t see the
lines, or think they are drawn to keep ordinary people out of the conversation.
A significant number of people will vote for Donald Trump
for president because they’ve come to the conclusion that the Republican party
is more on their side than the Democrats are, or because they think it’s due
time to change parties controlling the White House, or because they think it’s
worth trying a political outsider in the presidency, or because Trump is a
really rich guy who seems to get his way a lot and must therefore be a strong
leader, and they’ve tuned out the bad stuff because experience has taught them
cynicism about our political class. Voting for a bad man for those reasons doesn’t
make them bad people, it just makes them ordinary people who were offered only
bad choices.
Malice toward Few,
Charity toward Most
Trump does, of course, have some very noisy supporters
who are indeed deplorable, by any use of the term. The “alt-right” white
“nationalists” he’s attracted to his banner are a blot on his campaign and a
problem for the Republican party so long as he’s associated with the party. But
we should not be so eager to use them to disparage some 60 million people, and
we should recognize that Democratic partisans are doing so mainly out of
opportunism.
There’s a cottage industry these days of maligning
Republican voters for late-night TV laughs and Twitter snark based on the
party’s most ignorant, resentful, or bigoted supporters. Yet there are large
contingents of voters in the Democratic party, too, who are some or all of
those things, and who don’t much distinguish between honorable public servants
and corrupt, inept, and abusive hacks so long as they have a D after their names.
Who do you think voted to send Alvin Greene to the Senate or make truck driver
Robert Gray the governor of Mississippi? Voters who will vote for literally
anyone they see as on their side. Attention to these voters is asymmetrical for
a bunch of reasons, ranging from liberals’ inability to see their own sides’
prejudices to the fact that it’s more politically acceptable to make fun of
ignorant and resentful white people (who are likelier to be Republicans) than
ignorant and resentful black people (who are likelier to be Democrats).
Educated white liberals consider it a virtue to share a party with the poor,
ignorant, and resentful — but only if it’s their
voters.
Some of what Trump represents is white voters embracing
(or re-embracing) racial-identity politics of precisely the type we’ve long
seen in municipalities and congressional districts with overwhelmingly
African-American electorates, jurisdictions that are frequently notorious for
reelecting corrupt and ignorant politicians (a dynamic common to racial and
ethnic enclaves that vote on identity-politics lines, and by no means exclusive
to black communities). That’s a bad thing and not to be encouraged on either
side of the partisan or racial divides, but liberals are hasty to be more
charitable to the people who keep sending Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson Lee
and Hank Johnson and Charlie Rangel back to Congress, and electing even worse
people as their mayors. The liberal critics of Trump voters certainly don’t
accept willingly the idea that the most ignorant elements of the Democratic
party represent all of its voters.
Trump himself and his true deplorables deserve no mercy
from anyone, and there are many recriminations still due over how he got
nominated. But many millions of Trump’s general-election voters don’t deserve
to be lumped in that same basket. In general, the American family could use a
lot less malice and a little more charity toward our fellow voters all around.
No comments:
Post a Comment