Trump vs. Clinton: Safer with 'The Devil We Don't Know'?

There's a movement percolating among some segments of the Republican party, known by the hashtag #NeverTrump. 

Essentially, this group believes that a vote for Trump represents a step over that "line which must not be crossed" – a violation of principle, if you will, that will have a more corrosive effect than the election of Hillary Clinton.

While I am no supporter of Donald Trump, I am a realist.  If this man is the nominee of the only party with sufficient infrastructure and support to successfully oppose the creature known as Hillary Clinton, then this man will have my vote. 

The alternative is unthinkable, the consequences to our nation unbearable.

The primary concern about Trump (one I share) is that he is not a conservative at all, but rather will lean toward the same sort of progressivist authoritarianism as Hillary, and her former boss, Obama.  This is a real possibility, given the history of Donald Trump, and his demonstrated lack of understanding regarding constitutional principles.

Nebraska senator Ben Sasse has been an early and appealing face for the #NeverTrump movement, advocating for an alternative candidacy – essentially a third-party insurrection from within the Republican Party itself.  He has written a lengthy post on his Facebook page that is generating a great deal of concern among both his supporters and his detractors.

As much as I have come to admire our junior senator (I backed a different candidate during that primary), I must challenge his thinking on this issue.  Aside from the logistical hurdles such a late insurgent candidacy would face, there is the simple fact that a challenge from the "mainstream" would be yet another blunder from the leadership of the party that refuses to accept that their "mainstream" is precisely what the voters of this cycle have soundly rejected.

The people of our nation are gasping for air under a thick blanket of faux outrage and stifling political correctness that have been the hallmark of the post-Reagan political landscape.  The left has successfully enforced a narrative of permissible opposition to its aims that has been given legitimacy via the supine acceptance of the Republican leadership.

When your opponent makes the rules, you have no hope of victory if you play by them.  That has been our lot in every election cycle until now.

America doesn't need an alternative candidate to Trump and Hillary.  America needs a candidate who will fight for the people against the regulatory, political, and social morass created by the left and enforced by innumerable bureaucracies of government.  Trump claims to be that candidate.  Hillary is the antithesis of such a candidate.

It seems safe to conclude that while Hillary can be relied upon to do the wrong thing every time, Trump holds out the possibility of doing the right thing at least some of the time, which by any standard of measure is infinitely better than the alternative.

But let's drill down a little deeper.  Let's say Trump is in fact absolutely not at all different from Hillary – or, as some have posited, worse.  Which candidate, as president, would prove more difficult to oppose in his nefarious (or simply stupid) policy initiatives?

Hillary Clinton?  The preferred candidate of the media?

How successful will we be when every shred of opposition to a President Hillary will be mercilessly cast as "misogyny" and "the scurrilous politics of personal destruction," by the media and their allies in popular culture?

Those of us who have been paying attention realize that this woman is one of the most corrupt individuals ever to hold office, if not the most corrupt.  Yet, despite mountains of evidence sufficient to convict nearly anyone else a thousand times over, she not only enjoys life outside of prison, but is a favorite to win the presidency. 

Clearly, the protective shield that has surrounded her will not magically disappear should she attain the Oval Office.  If anything, it will become virtually impenetrable.

However, it is my studied assertion that a President Trump, a man elected under the banner of our own Republican Party, who enjoys far less "protected status" than does Ms. Clinton, will be much more successfully opposed should he prove to be as misguided and corrupt as she.

Given the stakes – the Supreme Court nominations, the gathering threats to our national security and myriad other concerns, both known and yet to appear – is it responsible behavior to permit distaste for Trump to outweigh the known danger of his opponent?

This year, we should reverse the aphorism that says "better the devil we know..."

In this case, both may be devils, but one certainly fits that description.  The hashtag must be changed.  #NeverHillary.

There's a movement percolating among some segments of the Republican party, known by the hashtag #NeverTrump. 

Essentially, this group believes that a vote for Trump represents a step over that "line which must not be crossed" – a violation of principle, if you will, that will have a more corrosive effect than the election of Hillary Clinton.

While I am no supporter of Donald Trump, I am a realist.  If this man is the nominee of the only party with sufficient infrastructure and support to successfully oppose the creature known as Hillary Clinton, then this man will have my vote. 

The alternative is unthinkable, the consequences to our nation unbearable.

The primary concern about Trump (one I share) is that he is not a conservative at all, but rather will lean toward the same sort of progressivist authoritarianism as Hillary, and her former boss, Obama.  This is a real possibility, given the history of Donald Trump, and his demonstrated lack of understanding regarding constitutional principles.

Nebraska senator Ben Sasse has been an early and appealing face for the #NeverTrump movement, advocating for an alternative candidacy – essentially a third-party insurrection from within the Republican Party itself.  He has written a lengthy post on his Facebook page that is generating a great deal of concern among both his supporters and his detractors.

As much as I have come to admire our junior senator (I backed a different candidate during that primary), I must challenge his thinking on this issue.  Aside from the logistical hurdles such a late insurgent candidacy would face, there is the simple fact that a challenge from the "mainstream" would be yet another blunder from the leadership of the party that refuses to accept that their "mainstream" is precisely what the voters of this cycle have soundly rejected.

The people of our nation are gasping for air under a thick blanket of faux outrage and stifling political correctness that have been the hallmark of the post-Reagan political landscape.  The left has successfully enforced a narrative of permissible opposition to its aims that has been given legitimacy via the supine acceptance of the Republican leadership.

When your opponent makes the rules, you have no hope of victory if you play by them.  That has been our lot in every election cycle until now.

America doesn't need an alternative candidate to Trump and Hillary.  America needs a candidate who will fight for the people against the regulatory, political, and social morass created by the left and enforced by innumerable bureaucracies of government.  Trump claims to be that candidate.  Hillary is the antithesis of such a candidate.

It seems safe to conclude that while Hillary can be relied upon to do the wrong thing every time, Trump holds out the possibility of doing the right thing at least some of the time, which by any standard of measure is infinitely better than the alternative.

But let's drill down a little deeper.  Let's say Trump is in fact absolutely not at all different from Hillary – or, as some have posited, worse.  Which candidate, as president, would prove more difficult to oppose in his nefarious (or simply stupid) policy initiatives?

Hillary Clinton?  The preferred candidate of the media?

How successful will we be when every shred of opposition to a President Hillary will be mercilessly cast as "misogyny" and "the scurrilous politics of personal destruction," by the media and their allies in popular culture?

Those of us who have been paying attention realize that this woman is one of the most corrupt individuals ever to hold office, if not the most corrupt.  Yet, despite mountains of evidence sufficient to convict nearly anyone else a thousand times over, she not only enjoys life outside of prison, but is a favorite to win the presidency. 

Clearly, the protective shield that has surrounded her will not magically disappear should she attain the Oval Office.  If anything, it will become virtually impenetrable.

However, it is my studied assertion that a President Trump, a man elected under the banner of our own Republican Party, who enjoys far less "protected status" than does Ms. Clinton, will be much more successfully opposed should he prove to be as misguided and corrupt as she.

Given the stakes – the Supreme Court nominations, the gathering threats to our national security and myriad other concerns, both known and yet to appear – is it responsible behavior to permit distaste for Trump to outweigh the known danger of his opponent?

This year, we should reverse the aphorism that says "better the devil we know..."

In this case, both may be devils, but one certainly fits that description.  The hashtag must be changed.  #NeverHillary.