From: pjmedia.com, by Ron Radosh, on May 12, 2016, see the article HERE.
When the Choices Are So Bad, Go with the Lesser Evil: Hillary Clinton
NOTE: This is one of a PAIR of companion essays relating to the presumed choice in November between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
Speaker Paul Ryan emerged from his meeting with Donald Trump Thursday saying he was encouraged by what he heard. He still didn’t endorse Trump; he said unity will take time and he didn’t want “a fake unification process.” According to press reports, Trump was on his best behavior and mostly listened.
Trump’s charm offensive apparently worked on others he spoke with on Capitol Hill. Lindsey Graham’s attitude towards him even seems to have softened. The word of the day was “unity,” which they all said they wanted.
But they need to answer the relevant question: “At what price?”
Suppose you have successfully grown a small business into a large and profitable company. Just when your successful company has gone public, organized crime decides to invest heavily in it, and before you know it, they own controlling shares. The firm may have the same name, but it is now owned lock, stock, and barrel by the mob — who are using it for nefarious activities.
Would you pretend that the firm is the same one you founded?
Would you continue to be involved in it, encouraging the public to buy shares? Or would you realize that what you spent years creating is now run by those you despise, and it’s time to get out and go your own way?
The Republican Party has suffered a hostile takeover by the Trumpistas, turning a party influenced by conservative principles into a nationalist/protectionist party. If Trump is consistent — yes, he is anything but — the new Republican Party will differ from the one we knew just a short time ago.
Just how do traditional conservatives and Republicans differ from Donald Trump? At National Review, David French outlines fifteen areas. They include Trump’s promises to: raise taxes; increase the federal minimum wage; provide universal health care for all; keep both Medicare and Social Security as they are without making any changes whatsoever; change libel laws to allow one to sue anyone who writes an article disagreeing with you; and finally, advance nutty conspiracy theories. His latest was the notion that Ted Cruz’s father had something to do with the assassination of JFK.
One of the areas Paul Ryan feels particularly strong about is the elephant in the room — growing federal entitlements. Most conservatives know that both Medicare and Social Security are destined for bankruptcy, quicker if they expand, and that avoiding dealing with them is dangerous. Centrist Democrats like William Galstonhave been arguing the same thing for years. As he writes:
The longer we wait, the more abrupt and draconian the necessary changes will be.
Paul Ryan could easily find common ground with Galston. Not so with Trump. On this issue, there is little difference between Trump and Hillary Clinton — or for that matter, with Bernie Sanders.
As Chris Jacobs writes in National Review:
Conversely, by claiming he can “save Social Security and Medicare without cuts,” Trump is effectively signing Republicans up for a $28 trillion tax increase to “save Medicare” — and more besides for Social Security.
If you look at Trump’s foreign policy, gleaned from his recent address at Center for the National Interest, you will find a combination of building a “fortress America” at home and restricting America’s role abroad (call it realism or neo-isolationism) while pursuing a very dangerous alliance with Putin and Russia — whom he trusts will defeat ISIS for us. Trump’s foreign policy, in many ways, is a continuation of Obama’s. Trump advocates Obama’s retreat from American leadership which, as we’ve seen, has estranged our allies, strengthened radical Islamists, and allowed Putin to run roughshod over Crimea and Ukraine, enhancing his standing abroad.
Now, foreign leaders seeking to do business go to Russia rather than the United States.
What then, should we do? I fully support those who maintain their integrity and stand for “Neither Trump nor Clinton,” and who are calling for a third-party candidate: a genuine center/right figure to run and give the electorate an alternative. Such a candidate could, in addition to winning the vote of conservatives, take along independents in swing states and disaffected Democrats who reject a party that has moved far to the left.
With luck, a third-party candidate could deprive Trump and Clinton from gaining enough electoral college votes to win. In such an event it would go to the House, which must pick from the top three vote-getters, and they would not pick Trump.
Yes, it could turn out that this would lead to a Hillary presidency. So let me say it: in my opinion, Hillary is the lesser evil. There is nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who one thinks fits that description.
I am fully aware of all her negatives, of which there are many. In this I disagree with many in the Republican Party who are rushing to support Trump not because they like him or think he will be a good president, but because they want to defeat her.
On foreign policy, there is hope that Hillary Clinton will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad rather than the erratic and dangerous course it would take under a Trump presidency. With policy experts like Robert Kagan and General Jack Keane talking to her, we know she is getting good advice from serious non-leftist advisors.
Otherwise, we can find other ways to place roadblocks in front of her ever more leftist domestic policy prescriptions, which she has been suddenly advocating in a desperate hope to stem the flow of support to Bernie Sanders.
I leave you with the words of humorist P. J. O’Rourke:
Better the devil you know than the Lord of the Flies on his own 757. Flying to and fro in the earth, with gold-plated seatbelt buckles, talking nativist, isolationist, mercantilist, bigoted, rude, and vulgar crap. …Better the scurrying of mousey progressivism gnawing at the fabric of society in the White House than a rat sitting on the Oval Office desk. Better to root up the garden of free enterprise with the Democratic pigs than run off a protectionist cliff with the Gadarene swine Republicans.
You get it, P.J.
As I’ve said before, thank God that we’re still almost six months away from having to make this distasteful choice between Trump and Clinton. In fact, distasteful doesn’t do it justice. It is a date that could become another date that will live in infamy.
It’s not inconceivable that the choice made on that fateful day could have major implications on the ability of the United States to survive as a world power.
Both candidates are accomplished serial liars; they both will say anything that will enhance their prospects for winning the presidency. So, let’s look at a few details about Donald Trump:
For the first time in 12 years, FactCheck.org conferred the title “King of Whoppers” on a single individual: businessman Donald Trump. Trump wasn’t the only one telling whoppers, of course. But, as they wrote, Trump “stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong.” He dominated their annual article on political whoppers.
Donald Trump boasts and exaggerates with almost every breath. His loyalty is to himself. He is a self-absorbed, egotistic narcissist who delights in telling everyone how great he is or how much money he has.
He seems to be pleasant and accommodating as long as he’s getting what he wants, but oppose him and suffer his wrath. He uses intimidation to influence people to support him and if they don’t, he tweets insulting and vulgar remarks about them to his millions of followers – and maybe throws in a lawsuit for good measure.
He has said that he’d force our troops to break the law, including the Geneva Convention and commit atrocities. He is far too vindictive to be trusted with the powers of the presidency. It’s impossible to know where he stands on an issue since he flip-flops so often. He is deficient in character and apparently has no inner compass guiding his actions. He says that he can change into whatever he wants to be – as if that’s supposed to be reassuring?
He apparently can’t control what he says and often must depend on his staff to “walk back” something he’s said. His position on nuclear weapons is extremely troubling. He’s said that he would use nuclear against ISIS and at the same time has stated that he had no problem with other countries gaining access to nuclear weapons.
Donald Trump is not emotionally healthy. No normal man sits up late at night tweeting dozens of insults to anyone/everyone who has “wronged” him. Here’s a LIST of 217 people that he’s tweeted insults to. One of the most damning of the reasons that so many believe that he isn’t presidential material is his temperament. He is the embodiment of a “loose cannon,” he can’t seem to control himself, especially when someone treats him “unfairly.” He’s been seen to fly off the handle and become very angry when questioned about his achievements; you’re not supposed to question him – about anything.
It’s true, that Donald Trump may be the devil “we don’t know,” but are YOU ready to turn over the reins of our country to such a man?