GOP Should Cut Losses

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

I have encountered a couple of pieces outlining, from slightly different angles, why the worst possible outcome in this election is a Trump victory. Some months ago, Jonathan Hoenig of Capitalist Pig made the case (HT: Steve D.) from the perspective of the pro-capitalist:

... Donald Trump's business credentials are exactly what makes him so dangerous. In the minds of voters, Trump represents capitalism. But as was pointed out in this space five years ago, Donald Trump is explicitly anti-capitalist on issues ranging from taxes to anti-trust to trade.


Because he is in business, Trump's progressive taxes, threats to CEOs and tariffs against consumers will be legitimized as capitalist, as moral, as just. They're not.

And when Trump's policies fail, as they will, American capitalism will unquestionably get blamed.

This is why I'm supporting Clinton: Long term, the damage levied by Donald Trump to capitalism in America will be immeasurably worse than that wrought by Hillary Clinton. [emphasis and links in original]
And then, in a piece aimed squarely at the GOP, home of many who favor limited government, there is a Reason Magazine piece by Steve Chapman, which includes the following:
[The Republicans] are in the position of a bride who, on the eve of her wedding day, knows she's making a mistake. If she backs out, she'll bring a mess down on her head. But if she doesn't, she'll be caught in a snare that will be painful and hard to escape, with consequences she will have years to regret.

The first harm from Trump is that he would be the new identity of the party. Forget the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Never mind what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan propose. He would be the one defining the national agenda. If President Trump wanted to intern Muslims, launch drones against Mexico or put David Duke up in the Lincoln Bedroom, his fellow Republicans would wear the stain.

One of the miseries they have suffered in recent months is waking up each day anxiously wondering what new folly their candidate is about to commit. It's bad enough having to put up with his insulting of a gold star mother, not knowing that Russia has invaded Ukraine, accusing Barack Obama of founding the Islamic State, and retweeting white supremacists.

But all this amounts to an ignorant egomaniac running his mouth. In the White House, Trump would be acting, not just talking. He would possess powers that can be wielded in all sorts of destructive ways. As Republicans have learned from Obama's use of executive authority, it's hard to stop a determined president from doing whatever he damn well pleases.
Chapman goes on to speculate about all sorts of other things Trump might try, like dumping Melania and dating. Such speculation would be incredible, and thus either easily dismissed as rude or satirical for practically any other candidate, but not for this one. And it underscores what the Republicans have set up for themselves -- and our country -- by backing him.

Both pieces deserve full reads, and emphasize that the Republicans should get the pain over with sooner, rather than let things fester for four years and suffer far more, and for longer, later. Hoenig helps put the pain of Clinton presidency into perspective, and Chapman reminds us that the sky is the limit for Trump's unpredictable foolishness.

-- CAV


Blair said...


Each day that passes, I'm more convinced that 'The Donald' ran for President as a favor to the Clinton's. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I think the persona he is projecting is the perfect caricature of what those on the Left think republicans/conservatives are actually like. There's no question in my mind he is a narcissist, who simply must be in the public eye at all times. Running for office was his next game, and the Clinton's said, 'go for it!'
Speaking for myself, unless her opponent was Donald Trump, Hillary had no chance of becoming the next President.
Plus, because Trump is such an intellectually vapid loose cannon, he helps the Left by further damaging and discrediting legitimate positions and issues that the nation needs to face, thus prolonging our decline.

Gus Van Horn said...


You may be right that Hillary Clinton wouldn't stand a chance of being elected without the offices of The Donald, but then again, I'll permit myself some gallows humor here: Just wait until 2020. They're sure to find someone at least as good at the job of losing to her.

Jokes other than Trump and Mrs. Clinton aside, the thought of Trump running as a favor to the Clintons occurred to me at some point, too. With the bag of random impulses that is The Donald, a bag whose only constant is using government favors to aggrandize himself, one needn't be a conspiracy theorist to have such a thought. I would put nothing past either "side" in this mockery of a contest, including being in cahoots. But that's no assertion on my part. I have no idea what's going through their heads.