If we set aside our principles and, to remove Trump, vote for a candidate who stands against them in almost every sense, we would be surrendering the high-ground and engaging in the same “lesser-of-two-evils” political maneuvering we eschewed in 2016. That’s playing the short game.
This is an opinion submission from a reader like you, We consider all submissions.
In recent weeks, there has been a growing chorus of discussion and disagreement in conservative circles over who conservatives should vote for in 2020. With the growing certainty that Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee come November, this discussion has taken on a more urgent tone.
Notable conservatives at the national level are split. Some, like Joe Walsh, are adamant that conservatives should vote for Sanders, even if that means handing the presidency to a self-avowed socialist. Others, such as Jonah Goldberg and David French, have urged constraint, arguing that Sanders is just as bad as Trump.
Even here at the Liberty Hawk, we find ourselves embroiled in this great debate. Justin Stapley has made the argument that, as principled conservatives, we must be just as #NeverBernie as we are #NeverTrump. On the other side, Richard from Japan, a truly talented author, proposes that, in the long run, it is better to vote for Sanders now than to let Trump continue in power. I, returning from a bit of a hiatus on writing on deep subject matters, find myself eager and ready to jump headfirst into the debate.
I am of the opinion that voting for Sanders is just as much of a loss as voting for Trump. To illustrate this, I would like to break down Richard’s writing. I’ll discuss where he got it right, where he got it wrong, and why, if we are truly to protect conservatism in the long-term, we must not put aside our principles in this most critical hour.
Richard declares that, even if Democrats nominate someone horrendous, he will vote for that horror, because anything is better than Trump. He states that this is the long view of conservatism. Let’s discuss several of his main points.
American needs a conservative party, with good leaders and strong principles. We can’t have one if most available conservative voters continue to support the GOP.
I have no disagreements with this point. He is, of course, correct in saying that America needs a conservative party with principled conservative leaders and that the GOP has failed in this regard.
Most available conservative voters will continue to support the GOP as long as Donald is perceived as a winner. Therefore Donald must lose, and convincingly.
He continues on his streak of correctness. For Trumpism to die, voters must kill it in a convincing fashion. This was the hope in 2016, and it continues to be the hope. If Trump loses by a significant margin, it will push his theory of politics out of the mainstream.
In order for Donald to lose convincingly, another party’s candidate must take a majority of both electoral votes and popular votes in the November election. In reality, only the Democrat nominee is capable of winning those votes.
Richard is right when making these two points separately. Yes, another candidate must take a clear majority in November to convincingly end Trump’s control of the GOP. And, yes, the most convincing way to do this would be with the Democratic candidate.
There is potential, however, for a third-party candidate to convince enough voters to break with the major parties. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, I will concede that, for Trump to lose, a Democratic candidate must win.
For the Democrat to win convincingly, a coalition of Democrats, independents, and disgruntled former Republicans such as Justin and myself must vote for the Democrat ticket, and perhaps even the House and Senate candidates as well. Only when the Republican monopoly on conservative voters is broken can the hard work begin of repairing the damage done from 2016 until now.
This is true…kind of. If he replaced ‘Democrat’ with ‘third-party candidate,’ it would be easier to get behind this sentiment. But, again, I yield for the sake of simplicity. Richard is right in describing the coalition needed to beat Trump. I will concede that I may vote for the Democratic ticket.
He is also correct in saying that Democrats may have to win down-ballot as well. As I have stated before, there is but one Republican Senator who deserves his seat, and that is Mitt Romney. The rest have disregarded the severity of their position in favor of worshipping Trump.
Even if that means voting for Bernie Sanders.
And, he’s lost me. Richard argues that the best way to beat Trumpism is to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat, come November. This I cannot do, and this is something no conservative serious about preserving his principles can bring himself to do.
All conservatives can agree that Trump is horrible for the movement. But that does not mean that voting for Bernie Sanders would be any better. If we are to pride ourselves on standing for principles in the face of opposition, why should we throw away those principles for a man who stands counter to everything we hold dear?
Richard declares that by voting for Bernie, he is taking the long view. This, quite simply, is not true. Republicans were wrong to support Trump in 2016 so that they could beat Hillary. We would be wrong to vote for Bernie to defeat Trump. In four years, we would be back in the same predicament.
The long game of conservatism must be, as Justin says, to reject the ‘lesser of two evils’ mentality and instead oppose any politician, left or right, who seeks to undermine constitutional principles.
Men are fleeting. Political movements come and go. Principles, however, are immortal. They endure. The men who wrote the Constitution understood that, long after they were dead and dust, there would be those who tried to usurp what they had created. That is what conservatism must stand for. That, ultimately, is the conservative long game.
If we want to defend what the Founders gave us, we must stand up to any and all who desire that usurpation. That means voting against Trump. It also means, despite what Richard argues, voting against Bernie.
Do you have a response to this article? Would you like to offer your own take on this topic? Feel free to submit your own article or offer a comment.