Monday, February 29, 2016
David Harsanyi maintains
that Donald Trump, if elected, would be a "bigger disaster" than
Hillary Clinton, and I am inclined to agree with
There's a difference between caring about the plight of working stiffs and embracing isolationism, high tariffs and other policies that would destroy working class long-term prospects. Is everyone supposed to surrender to mercantilism because it makes 30 percent of angry voters feel better? You can't let a mob run your party. And it's not a mob -- it is hyper-populist or constructed around a cult of celebrity or even because it's angry -- though all those things are true. The problem is that it's incoherent and nihilistic.Harsanyi also makes valid points about the GOP being better as an opposition party than as a ruling party and raises the legitimate concerns about how a Trump presidency might alter the composition of Congress.
It's worth pointing out that the chances of Trump's protectionist policies passing -- with a bipartisan coalition of progressives and right-protectionists -- are far higher under Trump than Clinton. Why should free traders help facilitate this kind of disaster? So they can brag about having a Republican president?
I am not yet convinced that Trump will win the GOP nomination, but if he does, I will almost certainly vote against him or abstain from voting for President, in the respective cases of Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders running for the Democrats. (HT: Steve D.)