Tuesday, November 1, 2016

Regardless of Your Presidential Choice, Vote Straight Republican Down Ballot

The drumbeat of calls to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop Donald Trump continued in the New Jersey Star-Ledger in the form of a guest column by J. Christian Bollwage, the Democrat mayor of the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey. In Conscientious Republicans must support Clinton for good of the country, Bollwage writes:


As a lifelong registered Democrat, delegate for Clinton at the Democratic National Convention and mayor of the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey’s fourth largest municipality, my choice is no secret.


However, supporting Clinton goes beyond political party affiliations or perceived duty, she is just the best choice for the American people.


After reciting a litany of Clinton positives, including her embrace of “diversity,” Bollwage, appealing to anti-Trump Republicans who may abstain from casting a vote for president, writes:


It is not enough for conscientious Republicans to just say they will not vote for Trump. They must endorse Clinton for the job. Vocalizing displeasure and nonsupport of Trump means that either another choice will be made or that no vote will be cast.


Selection of [the] choice . . . no vote will be cast . . . sends the unfortunate message that not exercising your right to vote is the way to be heard and make a difference. That is not a lesson that should be taught by anyone, especially public leaders. . . . Therefore, if Trump does not represent the views of Republicans and/or leadership sought for our country, then an alternative candidate must be chosen.


But why? Bollwage explains:


Saying no to something you feel strongly about, but not doing anything positive to bring about change, has never been good enough. Republicans, who oppose Trump but do not endorse Clinton, are choosing to stand by and see what happens.


But what if the voter believes Clinton “does not represent the views of Republicans and/or leadership sought for our country” either? Why the obligation to vote for her? An abstention is just as much a political expression as pulling the lever for a candidate.


As to the candidates, I don’t want Trump. I definitely don’t want Hillary. I wish there were a better choice at the top of the ballot. Be that as it may, there is a wider perspective to consider here. Abstaining from not choosing a president doesn’t have to mean “not doing anything positive to bring about change.” What about the rest of the ballot? From a pro-liberty, pro-American principles perspective, the Democratic Party is immeasurably more destructive than the Republican Party. The worst of the Democrats’ policies are:


  • The Democrats are anti-reliable energy: They have been captured by environmentalist witch doctors who would sacrifice human energy needs to the climate gods. They will double down on their war on reliable, economical energy in the name of “fighting climate change,” with policies aimed at going 50% unreliable “green” energy  within 10 years and elimination of fossil fuels by 2050.


  • The Dems are anti-diversity: Oh sure, they categorize people by group racial or cultural heritage, and call it “diversity.” But they ignore meaningful individual diversity in attributes such as ability, intelligence, ambition, values, goals, personal circumstances, and moral character. If the Dems really valued diversity, they’d celebrate economic inequality, which is the direct result of human diversity in a free society. Tragically, the Democrats have allowed the racists to hijack the diversity narrative. Why? Because the Democrats are inherently collectivist, in sharp contrast to America’s uniquely individualist origins and culture. Thus, they will accelerate their war on achievement, in the form of an anti-economic inequality crusade. They have been captured by radical neo-communist egalitarians who value economic equality over individual rights, political equality, diversity and economic progress.


  • The Dems are anti-free speech and anti-intellectual freedom: They advocate a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United, thus giving the political class the power to control political speech, protect its incumbency, and shield the incumbents from citizen scrutiny, criticism, and accountability.


  • There is a dangerous strain of fascism rising within the Democratic Party: The Dems will add a dangerous new dimension to their war on free speech and intellectual freedom, in the form of federalizing the agenda of the Democrat-led AGs United for Clean Power.” These state Attorneys General are pursuing a prosecutorial assault on ExxonMobil and numerous intellectual institutions, under cover of “fraud,”  for dissenting from the Left’s climate catastrophist dogma. The “Big Lie” tactic—repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and the general public will eventually come to embrace it—is much less effective in a society that allows unfettered skepticism and dissent, as the general public has access to a constant stream of opposing opinions. The “Big Lie” is much more effective when dissent is crushed. Climate catastrophism is the Left’s Big Lie. Since this Big Lie is not getting the public traction the Left desires, they have now turned to crushing dissent to give it a boost. The blatantly fascist “inquisition” of the AGs United for Clean Power is more attuned to a Castro or Mussolini regime than to a major American political party.


Add to this horrific litany the Democrats’ generally insatiable appetite for taxing away earned wealth to create new and ever-broader handouts and unrelenting power-lust that drives them to ceaselessly expand the federal regulatory tyranny. The Democrats are unabashed collectivists. Collectivism is the statists’ tool of oppression of the individual.


True, the Republicans are wedded to the authoritarian social agenda of the religious conservatives. But the GOP’s social authoritarianism is not the main threat to America today. The Democrats’ economic and intellectual authoritarianism is the main threat.


And true, despite their rhetoric, the GOP is not really for limited government, as government always seems to grow both in scope of power over our lives and size under GOP leadership—just not as fast as under Democrats. But clearly, the Democratic Party has gone way beyond the “social safety net” Old Left agenda. The Democrats burgeoning economic authoritarianism, coupled now with a war on free speech and its newly emerging fascist impulse, is the most urgent threat. Add to that the kind of anti-liberty, anti-rights protecting government, anti-constitutional Supreme Court judges the Democrats would appoint, and the Republicans are nowhere near as authoritarian, on balance.


Both Clinton and Trump can lead the country in the wrong direction. But here’s the difference: Clinton is very much wedded ideologically to the statist Left, and can be counted on to advance its agenda. Trump, on the other hand, has an authoritarian impulse but has no ideological leanings; in fact, very little in the way of intellectual coherence. He’s a buffoonish loose cannon. But by that very fact there is much more of a chance he can be influenced toward pro-liberty, pro-constitutional policies than Clinton. If Republicans, Independents, and disillusioned Democrats who feel they must vote for Clinton, a third party candidate, or abstain just to stop Trump—and contrary to Bollwage’s assertion, abstention is a valid way of “being heard”—so be it. But to those Republicans, Independents, and disillusioned Democrats, I urge them to at least vote straight Republican down-ballot to act as a check on the dehumanizing collectivist/authoritarian impulses of a President Clinton.


Related Reading:

Echoes of 1972? The Trump Dilemma: The Democrats are Worse

How Much Does Trump Owe His Nomination to Democrat Voters?

2 comments:

mike Kevitt said...

There's also Ms. H. Clinton's intention to shut down the 2nd. Amendment. If that, and the rest (you didn't really mention everything), happens under a Ms. H. Clinton 'presidency', I might not take part in, but I will condone whatever lethal violence erupts in the streets, fields and highways. But I probably won't condone it any more actively than I am right now, in obscurity in my armchair. At my age, if I did more, sticking my neck out would be sticking my headless neck out, personally. If I was young, then, different. But, as I, and it, is, if the deluge comes, I'll sit back and LAUGH. I say this assuming Ms. H. Clinton and the Democrats sweep the election, getting the presidency, the and the Senate (for 'good measure', maybe also the House of Reps.). Otherwise, I might hold my laughing depending on what happens.

Michael A. LaFerrara said...

Yes, we mustn't forget Clinton's disdain for the 2nd Amendment. There are so many things wrong with the Democrat agenda from a pro-liberty perspective that it's hard to keep track.