There are some among my friends and esteemed colleagues who claim that they absolutely will not vote for billionaire Donald Trump should he officially secure the GOP nomination at the Republican convention later this year because he is not a real conservative with a proven conservative track record. Others assert that they absolutely would not have voted for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz if he had secured the GOP nomination because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States as stipulated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution.
In these assessments, my friends and esteemed colleagues are essentially correct. This does not mean that I would refuse to vote for either of these men on principle, however.
So, does this mean that I’m unprincipled?
Well, let us for a moment examine the principles involved in such decisions in general (rather than my own principles). There were indeed substantive arguments against both Trump and Cruz as nominees – and by “substantive” I mean other than those that start out with the specter of a Trump presidency being a cataclysm of biblical proportions, or that Cruz is a miserable person whose father was the gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas. Those are not substantive arguments.
There is also no substantive argument that either of these men could possibly be an inferior choice compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – and I realize that there are those in the Republican Party who have said just that.
Now that socialist policies have rendered over 30 percent of Americans aged 18 to 26 sufficiently brainwashed that they claim to favor socialism over capitalism and the democratic process, we have arrived at a place where nearly half of voting Americans will knowingly vote for an openly socialist candidate. Never mind the half-billion people killed and millions more maimed and enslaved by socialists during the last century, or the readily apparent failure of socialism in Europe and Scandinavia; American socialists are smarter than those dopes, and they’ll do socialism better than everyone else has.
Here’s a principle to consider: In an election between a socialist and a non-socialist, it is our civic duty to keep the socialist out of office whether or not we are particularly fond of his or her opponent.
Actually, it is quite easy to understand the motivator behind so many Republican, Democratic and swing voters having gravitated toward Donald Trump (who is preaching a nationalistic message), or Ted Cruz (who actually is a fire-breathing conservative).
That motivator is pain.
The fact that presidential elections are won based primarily on economic factors has been known to voters and candidates alike for decades. In electing Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, America boarded a bullet train to Destination Socialism; in the ensuing eight years, the destructive effects of rapidly encroaching socialism upon individuals and families became starkly apparent, as did the inaction of establishment Republicans in ameliorating those effects. Half of our workforce is out of work, millions have lost jobs and homes, and Obama’s regulatory and trade policies continue to exacerbate our economic woes. In a manner befitting a Soviet premier, the saboteur in the White House lauds his economic policies and the glorious state of the economy – unchallenged by the press or his ostensible Republican opponents, of course.
Voters correctly surmise that a Hillary Clinton presidency or that of an establishment Republican will only bring more of the same.
In short, voters in increasing numbers are coming to the conclusion that we effectively have a one-party system wherein Democratic politicians are vigorously driving the international socialist agenda, with Republican politicians simply providing a face-saving foil (which I have referred to previously in this space as “token resistance”) against Democrats.
The fact is that a significant number of American voters – perhaps even a majority – don’t want anyone from either party who represents the establishment becoming our next president. These people would vote for you, or me, or an Airedale if they thought we had a good chance against Hillary Clinton. One has to be able to set aside emotionally based prejudices toward Donald Trump in order to adequately appreciate this logic.
Additionally, the deportment of those once considered conservatives, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and commentator William Kristol, has gone a long way to clarifying the term “neocon” for those who remained unsure of precisely what a neocon is: A progressive (socialist) establishment Republican masquerading as a genuine conservative.
Finally, the petulance of self-described conservative voters who vehemently oppose Trump has illustrated their ignorance and ideological inconsistency. Pundits from Rush Limbaugh to David Horowitz have pointed out the disingenuousness of conservative voters who cite the Constitution as the inerrant Word of God, yet advocate stealing the nomination from Trump by any means necessary because they think he’s an icky guy.
Psychologists maintain that for human beings, the avoidance of pain is a much more effective motivator than the prospect of pleasure. Political analysts have long said essentially the same thing through citing economic factors over ideology as voters’ prime motivator.
If Donald Trump wins the presidency, it will pretty much validate these claims once and for all, whether or not Trump follows up on his campaign promises – and that is a question we face during every general election, no matter who becomes the new president-elect.
Article posted with permission from Erik Rush.