While doing my morning chores (reading political articles), I’ve noticed a gradual increase in the number of Republicans (primarily self-identified conservatives) who are finding themselves in a quandary about whether to vote for Donald Trump or not. Some are even considering voting for Hillary Clinton or perhaps casting a third-party or write-in vote. While I’m not among Hillary’s followers, there are many of them and they are firmly committed to voting for “the first American woman president.” Most Republicans would rather have a colonoscopy than vote for Hillary, but in recent months, some have formed an intense dislike for Donald Trump that begins to challenge the decades-long dislike for Hillary Clinton.
For those of us who are vehemently anti-Hillary, a vote for Trump would seem to be a logical default. He would naturally be considered the lesser of the two evils and that “lesser of two evils” thing has become all too familiar for conservatives. It’s been a recurring theme each recent presidential election when we had to “hold our nose” to vote.
In the early days of the nomination process, Trump seemed worth considering. Here was a successful businessman running for president – that’s an option that we really haven’t had before. As a retired businessman myself, the idea intrigued me. It would be nice to have a president that understood that when expenses constantly exceed income, the entity won’t survive. So, Trump showed promise; maybe he’d succeed in reigning in out-of-control federal expenditures.
Fast forward to today: after many months of researching Trump’s business dealings, I found that he really hasn’t been as successful as he’d have us believe. In fact, one would be well served by taking anything he says with a truckload of salt as he is prone to exaggeration and prevarication.
He benefited greatly by having a very successful father who built the Trump name into a marketable brand. Trump’s dad vouched for him, co-signed for him, loaned him money, and eventually left him a small fortune when he died. Trump was born with a silver hard hat on his head. Yet, even with that jump-start, he’s managed to kill a dozen businesses and taken bankruptcy four times.
Not only that, but his personality and temperament aren’t appropriate for a president either. As much as I hate Hillary Clinton, I’m not so sure that Trump would be any better.
Here are two problems that are part of the unsatisfactory baggage that accompanies a vote for The Donald:
One, Trump has stated that he views a vote for him as a mandate to continue to be provocative and unorthodox. Pardon me, but those two terms are not ones I want attributed to my president. Provocative and unorthodox are not adjectives that inspire confidence in a Commander-in-Chief and he just doesn’t radiate the confident stability I want to see in my president.
And secondly, a vote for Trump implies support and approval for every slur, every insult, and every outrage committed by him. By voting for him, I would become part of an enabling collective that gave him the power and I become at least somewhat responsible for any and all decisions he makes.
I confess that I wish I could support him, but I don’t like the man. He is, from what I’ve seen, a serial liar and exaggerator, a con-man, a crude and vulgar bully who constantly boasts about himself, has an over-sized ego and is most certainly suffering from a full-blown case of NPD (narcissistic personality disorder). Other than that, I’m sure he’s a nice man.
To vote for him, one must either ignore or dispute all of those derogatory things that I just attributed to him. No one, in their right mind, would vote for someone who is a serial liar, a con-man, a crude and vulgar bully who constantly boasts about himself, has an over-sized ego and is most certainly suffering from a full-blown narcissistic personality disorder to be President of the United States.
So, if you choose to vote for Donald Trump, which is it? Will you dispute those labels because you believe that he’s NOT a serial liar? Or he’s NOT crude and vulgar? Or he’s NOT a con-man? If you can’t effectively prove that those descriptions are false, you must be ignoring them. Why would any reasonably intelligent citizen intentionally ignore those traits of a presidential candidate?
I can come up with only one logical answer. It came to me while composing a reply to a reader’s comment the other day.
Trump has political Kavorka (“the lure of the animal”) remember when Kramer had it in Seinfeld?
Under the circumstances, maybe we’d better ease up on buying ammunition and stock up on garlic and vinegar instead. We just might need it.