Dealing with the consequences: the road not taken
People on the right who refuse to vote for Donald Trump are commonly met with the response that they must then bear some responsibility for electing Hillary Clinton, and that as they watch her presidency unfold they will have to realize that every bad thing she does is at least partly on their shoulders.
That was the sort of argument that was often used to suggest that people should vote for McCain rather than Obama in 2008, or Romney rather than Obama in 2012, even if the people in question weren’t fans of McCain and Romney. The idea was that it was obvious that, whatever their objections might be to the GOP candidates, the Democrat was obviously so very much worse.
If Trump and Clinton are the nominees and Hillary is elected, I agree that those conservatives who refused to vote for Trump will bear a great burden as they watch whatever Hillary Clinton might do as president. And although countless people on the right may believe it is utterly obvious that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be worse than a Trump presidency, most of those conservatives who plan to refrain from voting for Trump find that to be an unsupported assumption. They believe that each of the two candidates would be horrendous presidents, but merely in different ways, and that it would be a case of “firing squad versus hanging” to try to decide between the two. Some even think that Trump would be worse.
We don’t need to evaluate their reasoning right now, and say whether we agree with it, to know that that that is their considered and firm opinion, and that it’s a significant part of the reason they are refraining from voting for either one.
What’s more, we can probably never know if they were right or wrong to do so, because if Hillary is elected it will remain a mystery whether Trump would have been better, as bad, or even worse—even more of a mystery than is usual with candidates because of Trump’s unpredictability and lack of political track record. The answer to the question of who would be worse is not only not obvious, but what’s more it probably never will be obvious because we cannot compare an alternative that occurs with one that never occurs. We can only speculate.
This is not just true of Hillary vs. Trump, to a certain extent it is true of everything in life. Of course, if the outcome is good, we’re much less likely to question a decision we’ve made than if the outcome is bad.
In closing I offer something I wrote years ago on the subject of comparing alternative paths in life and in politics:
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (made into a movie that I, for one, considered unbearable, especially compared to the book that inspired it) was written in 1984, when Kundera’s native Czechslovakia was still under Soviet domination. Kundera could not see past the curve in the road to a future that was not even so very distant; he did not imagine that a Communist collapse was imminent (of course, in that lack of foresight, he had plenty of company).
Concerning decision-making in Czech history, Kundera wrote:
There is only one history of the Czechs. One day it will come to an end, as surely as Tomas’s life, never to be repeated.
In 1618, the Czech estates took courage and vented their ire on the emperor reigning in Vienna by pitching two of his high officials out of a window in the Prague Castle. Their defiance led to the Thirty Years War, which in turn led to the almost complete destruction of the Czech nation. Should the Czechs have shown more caution than courage? The answer may seem simple; it is not.
Three hundred and twenty years later, after the Munich Conference of 1938, the entire world decided to sacrifice the Czech’s country to Hitler. Should the Czechs have tried to stand up to a power eight times their size? In countrast to 1618, they opted for caution. Their capitulation led to the Second World War, which in turn led to the forfeit of their nation’s freedom for many decades or even centuries. What should they have done?
If Czech history could be repeated, we should of course find it desirable to check the other possibility each time and compare the results. Without such an experiment, all considerations of this kind remain a game of hypotheses…
The history of the Czechs will not be repeated, nor will the history of all of Europe. The history of the Czechs and of Europe are a pair of sketches from the pen of mankind’s fateful inexperience.
We remain trapped in “mankind’s fateful inexperience,” I’m afraid. Human life and history contain too much complexity, too many unpredictabilities and uncertainties, for us to ever really know whether the best decision was made. We can only try to apply the lessons of the past, knowing full well that we can never learn them quite well enough.
It’s still true.
Life isn’t about making choices and living with the consequences; it’s about making bets and, win or lose, dealing with the results. As an example, you could make all the “right” choices to live a long and healthy life (watch what you eat, exercise regularly, don’t smoke, etc.) and yet die at an early age because a piano dropped on your head, like some cartoon.
We will never know how many people refused to vote for Trump, thanks to the secret ballot, so we we can never know how that lack of support hurt Trump. This is even further complicated due to the vagaries of our electoral system; would a vote for Trump in a blue state like New Your or California have any impact at all on how those delegates get portioned (or would a vote against Trump in a red State like Texas have any effect as well?) One other thing to consider is that we can never know how any one person voted, unless that person comes out a public says how they voted (and they could even be lying then.)
If Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee fails to win the presidency, that failure lies squarely on his shoulders and not the voters. He would have lost because he failed to convince enough Americans to support his bid for the presidency. You cannot blame the voters for this defeat (although many will try).
As a parting note, I leave question; Suppose that Donald Trump does with the presidency. What happens to those people who refused to support his bid? Do keep in mind that you’ll never know who they are, unless they out themselves.
KRB
I’m much in agreement with one not-so-small caveat. Assuming each will be disastrous, if in different ways, it is in the ‘nature and quality’ of the supporting forces for each, where IMO, the most important difference resides.
We all know, without the possibility of doubt, of that which backs Hillary Clinton.
I’m comfortable with Robert Kagan’s “mobocracy’ as, overall an accurate description of Trump’s most devoted supporters. And a mob is a dangerous beast indeed.
But a mob is not organized and is a blunt instrument, which can only dominate an America in which the military, at the Colonel level of operative command, has abandoned their oath of allegiance to the US Constitution. As no fascist, wanna-be dictator can rule without the backing of the military.
Whereas, IMO there is no doubt that Hillary will continue Obama’s purge of the military into ever deeper levels of the military. Once the military is deeply emasculated, fatally weakened and transformed enough, they will present an inconsequential obstacle to the final transformation of America. Leftist soldiers will not hesitate to kill those who “cling to their bibles and guns”.
Kae Arby,
A failure to vote for Trump only has relevance in a swing State. If Hillary is elected, and those who refused to vote for Trump in swing States were the deciding factor… they will have to live with their sharing in the responsibility of whatever the long term consequences may eventuate.
[Trump] “would have lost because he failed to convince enough Americans to support his bid for the presidency. You cannot blame the voters for this defeat”
That’s partially true. We are all responsible for our actions, including a refusal to accept the long term consequences of a choice, when it was articulated before we made our choice.
“Suppose that Donald Trump does win the presidency. What happens to those people who refused to support his bid?”
The same thing that will happen to those who voted for him. Everyone has the right to vote as they will and we all have to live with the consequences of the majority’s choice.
As Kipling and other Victorian authors would put it, it’s all about Character. You could vote for your lesser choice if it was only about political style or differences in position. With regard to Trump and Clinton, both are unfit for any high office on the basis of severe and significant character flaws. Both would fail under pressure in disastrous ways. A vote for Libertarians, None of Above or others with votes for other officers strongly against the liberal/progressive would send a message to others that character counts and would hopefully discourage others of the Trump/Clinton type from running in the future.
Regarding Fascism the military and Trump.
Consider the analysis presented by Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” (2007). It (fascism)was viewed by American intellectuals as the other (non communist) way to solve problems in the 1930s.
Also consider the analysis presented recently in WeoponsMan.com with regards to military officers upholding the constitution and disobeying “illegal” orders by DJT. He felt they would by and large go along with DJT.
Trump is closer to a Berlusconi than a Julius Caesar.
DirtyJobsGuy,
“Trump and Clinton, both are unfit for any high office on the basis of severe and significant character flaws. Both would fail under pressure in disastrous ways.”
Agreed that both are unfit. I have zero faith in the proposition that Hillary will fail to implement her agenda. As, even if she personally proves ineffective (doubtful), the forces in support of the Left’s agenda will not fail, at least not out of incompetence.
OM,
“Trump is closer to a Berlusconi than a Julius Caesar.”
Perhaps. If Trump proves incompetent and ineffective then he will indeed prove to be another Berlusconi. On the other hand, IF he is sincere on his core issues and is willing “to cut down all the laws, to get after the devil”, then… he will prove to be another Caesar, in effect if not in an exact parallel.
Geoffrey Britain:
Just who are Trump’s “supporting forces”? From where I sit, most of them don’t look like conservatives. That, combined with a totally untrustworthy man with a history of supporting liberal causes, fails to convince me that his election would be a win for conservatism or a force that would undo the damage thus far wrought by liberalism and stop its progression.
Trump says he is a deal maker. Why shouldn’t people hold out now for a better deal? The more he gives in to conservatives openly on specific issues, the harder it will be for him to get his whacky ideas through congress, and he will know that. Perhaps the current holdouts will make it easier to vote for him as a hand-bound candidate in September. It may even motivate him to learn a bit more about how to conduct foreign policy. We have nothing to lose by resisting now.
As to Hillary, he is the one who will have to defeat her. He can only do that by showing stronger policies and better character. The way it stands now, all the undecideds could pledga allegiance to him and he could still put his foot in his mouth the first week of November.
Neocon, I think you are very wise. great analysis of the French Revolution. Thank you.
The problem I see with your Caesar analogy is that Caesar had many significant achievements in service of Rome before he crossed the Rubicon. DJT isn’t in any way comparable.
Trump may turn out to be a bumbler with autocratic and totalitarian tendencies. If that is case you can only hope that he is kept in check by wiser underlings. Not much evidence to suggest that will be the case, since who in his campaign can you point to with those characteristics? Corey, Roger Stone, Manaforth?
So you are left with the hope that his cabinet and VP will consist of the “best and brightest” to control or compensate for an amoral/evil man (Andrew Klavan’s critique) and loose cannon as President. And of course there is the assumption that Trump’s “core issues” are best for the country as his “core” appears to be quite flexible.
This is like the “American” idiocy of trying to figure out how much blame goes to the rapist, the rape victim, or the person trying to teach people not to rape.
There’s a geometry about it.
One other thing to consider is that we can never know how any one person voted, unless that person comes out a public says how they voted (and they could even be lying then.)
If that person was actually dead, then that person voted Democrat 99% of the time.
As for the military, the Left has already subverted significant portions of it in the US, in case people had failed to notice.
https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/racism-at-west-point/
If the Leftist subverted chain of command in your US military is given an order to kill Republicans or patriots or otherwise suppress the “Terrorists”, they Will Obey their Orders. The problem with people wasting Time on Elections is that they think they can just let things like this happen, and when the moment comes, some Trump boy or other tyrant can make life better for them. That’s not how it works.
The US military might not be ready to support Hussein’s 3rd time, but the next President might be capable of using the same thing. That’s the benefit of being able to use the Democrat’s mind control results. It doesn’t matter what Party you belong to, anyone can use it if they have the triggers.
I will not vote for Trump, and if Hillary is elected I will accept no part of the blame. Trump and his supporters were aware of the problems the electorate was having with Trump’s candidacy. If they chose to ignore those warnings, it’s their own fault.
“Electability” is an actual thing.
Moreover, I consider it a moral duty to stand for my principles and to punish those who offend them. If Trump supporters mistook conservatives for the cynical burnouts that Trump supporters are, the more fool them.
Ann,
I only directly referred to Hillary’s “supporting forces”, i.e. the massive network of leftist, activist orgs.
Trump does have a ‘mob’ made up of individual Americans behind him, thus my acceptance of Kagan’s “mobocracy” as a working definition. In no way do I see Trump as connected to conservatism. Nevertheless, if he greatly restrains, if not stops, illegal immigration* and Muslim migration (given that they are mortal threats to a floundering republic) he will have done this nation a great service. Which is not to suggest that he will not almost certainly do great harm in other areas, as well.
*Trump values results, going after employers with the laws already on the books and using his regulatory powers to derail federal benefits for illegals is an obvious methodology for stopping illegal immigration. No jobs + no benefits = self-deportation.
OM,
I am ONLY comparing Trump to Caesar in two ways; Trump’s bent toward authoritarianism and, his acting as a fulcrum that leverages the further decline of the republic, through his almost certain continuance of Obama’s unconstitutional use of executive orders.
Frankly, given the forces sure to oppose him (if he’s at all sincere on his major issues) I don’t see any constitutionally legal way for him to effect the changes he claims to support.
BTW, that same set of obstacles would have confronted a Pres. Cruz as well. I can’t recall anyone even asking much less answering how Cruz envisioned a constitutionally legal means of returning America to Constitutional governance. The federal bureaucracy would have mightily resisted, Congress would have danced the Potomac two-step and the judiciary is infested with activist judges.
And with what 53% of Americans approving of Obama’s handling of his job, implies and portends…
‘What’s more, we can probably never know if they were right or wrong to do so, because if Hillary is elected it will remain a mystery whether Trump would have been better, as bad, or even worse’
It is what comes next which is the most crucial. Can we not start thinking past a single election cycle? That will clarify.
What happens after Hillary? What happens after Trump.
What happens in 2032? The blood chills.
We know Hillary will continue the Long March of the Left, the main enemy of the Republic. Trump is a one-off, an egomaniac with no coherent ideology and no entrenched forces in the bureaucracy, media, education etc. That is sufficient clarity for me to see a difference in degree for destructive potential.
If we can’t make a U-turn we will at least be on the slower side roads, off of the highway to hell.
We aren’t rolling over out here in WA.
http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/05/22/whoa-washington-state-gop-awards-delegate-spots-cruz-presumptive-nominee-donald-trump/
OM Says:
May 21st, 2016 at 8:33 pm
The problem I see with your Caesar analogy is that Caesar had many significant achievements in service of Rome before he crossed the Rubicon. DJT isn’t in any way comparable.
&&&&
At the top of Caesar’s “achievements in the service of Rome” — was the genocide of 400,000 souls in one afternoon — to benefite Caesar’s purse.
THAT’S where Caesar ‘found’ the money to challenge the Roman Senate.
Caesar looks like the bloody tyrant and pervert he was — once you take off the blinders.
You think Donald is sexually prolific? Caesar screwed — physically — every subordinate general in his crew. Caesar famously preferred to be on the receiving end. His homosexual orgies totally eclipsed those of Alexander.
I guess that’s how male bonding worked in the age of guile and sword.
Caesar’s 400,000 victims had been lured into this epic massacre — from Switzerland — by the mechanism of Caesar giving them permission and ‘protection’ to pass. They were migrating away from Rome — to the north west when they were waylaid. Something that Caesar intended virtually from the first.
{ “Resettlement” in the north west ? }
Adjusted for the relative populations around back then, this epic atrocity exceeds any of the 20th Century genocides.
The astounding figure comes from Caesar’s OWN TALLY.
Like the SS, Caesar was murdering for profit.
Trump is neither a homosexual, murderer nor traitor to his nation.
So, you’re right, there can be no comparison.
BTW, Rome was outraged about the above mentioned genocide. IT was the primary reason that the Senate told him to not cross the Rubicon.
I’m hardly a Trumpist…
But I fully expect Donald to quash a slew of Barry’s edicts — should he be sworn in.
I don’t see Donald spewing out a flood of edicts, himself.
He’s not an attorney and simply does not run his organization like a judge handing out rulings.
With Barry we ARE witnessing rule by attorney — activist attorney.
Trump simply does not run his empire by edicts. How could he? He keeps many balls in the air and never really wants to get pinned down until the end game.
He will not change his stripes — any more than Barry has.
Barry has ALWAYS embraced Marxist rhetorical forms, which are — at base — always pretty — and pretty fuzzy:
“arc of history”
“bending”
even:
“leading from behind”
The homo-erotic imagery is consistent with the assertions out of Chicago’s gay community.
We’ve had an adolescent psyche occupying the Oval Office.
&&&&&
For those muting Barry’s astounding 53% approval rating — remember, it’s crafted by the Ministry of Truth.
The same faction that has flipped our unemployment rate down from 22% to 5%.
Blert:
For a non-trumpist you certainly have many excuses for him. And I didn’t comment to praise Caesar but to note that Trump’s accomplishments are in two realms – real estate and self promotion, not in government, not in foreign affairs, non in the military.
Regarding your history blog, congratulations on searching the internet! Roman foreign policy, Roman warfare, and treatment of non-Romans were a trifle “harsh.” Look up “decimation” and Carthage. Then go back to Thucydides, Athens and Sparta, if you want to bring more wisdom to the masses. Whatever.
OM…
Sorry.
Straight from memory.
AFter the Munich Betrayal of 1938, when the lying British and French decided NOT to fulfill their prior promises to ally with Czechoslovakia, it would have been a noble but likely doomed effort for the Czechs to fight against the superior Germans. Fighting to the last man to stop evil is noble, but not wise.
The Slovaks, too, were given a choice by Hitler. Leave the Czechs and be independent, or get split between Hungary & Poland. The Catholic Priest leader, Tiso, made a call to the Slovak pariliament who agreed with the idea of independence, with about a third of Slovakia being lost to Hungary.
Tiso’s acceptance of alliance with Hitler saved many Slovak lives — far more Slovaks died in WW I than in WW II, possibly the largest percentage difference in Europe. Tiso was anti-Semitic, like FDR, but was also mildly against the deportations of Jews to German work camps. When reports came that they were death camps, he shut down the trains. There was a pro-commie plus anti-Nazi National Uprising in 1944, quickly and brutally repressed by now-occupying Nazis, who restarted the trains. Tiso did not support the Death Penalty, so those captured were not executed by Slovaks (many were killed by Germans in fighting and some executed).
Many Slovaks have good memories of Tiso — who was demonized by the commies and the Czechs after the war. Tried and executed for treason by Czechs, not for his treatments of Jews, he is often called a Nazi War Criminal, wrongly, by the anti-Catholic press.
This year, a more fascist Tiso follower was elected to the Slovak parliament, a small scandal. But the wrongful demonization of Tiso helps to create the feeling of injustice which allows support for stronger figures to fight back against the injustice/ unbalanced negative views.
Tiso did a far more admirable job for the Slovak nation than most European WW II leaders. His acceptance of sending Jews away, his biggest post-war “crime” in the media, is curiously considered far worse than the post war Czech ethnic cleansing of Germans, without the allies pushing the Czechs to do so. (Slovaks were more part of Hungary with the Czechs more part of Austria in the pre WW I Austro-Hungarian Empire, so there were few Germans in Slovakia.)
It’s important to be fair when judging the past. That often takes more time.
Glad you’re doing interesting such posts.
Trump+Reps better than Hillary.
Tom G
The VERY first Jewish victims at Auschwitz were adult males from Slovakia.
The tempo of atrocities ( at that kamp ) then spiralled away.
See: “Little Red House.”
Tom G
The British had virtually NO SAY WRT protecting the Czechs.
The ONLY force able to march on Berlin was that of France.
Britain didn’t even have a common border — and it didn’t have a continental army, either.
Its contribution to the peace always came by way of the Royal Navy. That was universally understood.
Somehow, such an obvious reality is lost on modern Americans… and many others.
Paris, not London, made the Big Decision.
And that was that.
Blert. I suppose Paris, assured of Brit help, might have made a different decision. But, since they’d let the Rhineland occupation go…maybe not.
Thing about the road not taken is that it’s always presumed that it would work just like it says in the shiny manufacturer’s brochure.
That’s one aspect of historical counterfactuals: Country 1 does, call it Plan A in real life. In the alt-hist, they do Plan B. In real life, Country 2 did response-to-A. In the alt-hist, Country 2, faced with Plan B….does response-to-A and is easily defeated.
“I don’t see Donald spewing out a flood of edicts, himself.
He’s not an attorney and simply does not run his organization like a judge handing out rulings.”
Obama rules by edict not because he’s an attorney, but because he can. Because it’s the quickest way to get things done. His only risk is being denied after a long lawsuit.
Trump bills himself as a “doer” and he doesn’t seem to really understand how government works. Couple that with his risk-taking, his bucking of traditional political mores, and the way he truly enjoys jacking with people . . . I think we’ve not seen anything yet. Obama set the precedent. Trump is going to try and executive order/presidential memoranda everything he can. WAY easier than trying to work with congress. He also has supreme confidence in his ability to hire the best attorneys. He may not be one himself but he certainly uses a lot of them.
In other words, assuming Trump won’t be as bad Obama when it comes to extra-constitutional shenanigans is, I think, being way too optimistic. I think he might be worse.
Bill:
I think you are correct. These are the indications Trump has given, both in his life and in his candidacy.
Blert believes Trump won’t do this, but at least blert thinks it would be wrong for Trump to do it (at least, I’m pretty sure that’s what blert thinks). Most of Trump’s supporters think it’s perfectly fine, just as most of Obama’s supporters thought it fine when Obama did it.
neo,
“Most of Trump’s supporters think it’s perfectly fine, just as most of Obama’s supporters thought it fine when Obama did it.”
Yes, it seems as long as the guy subverting the constitution is “our guy” who’s doing things we like it’s OK.
I just want a boring president who presides over the executive branch in accordance with the constitutional framework for the office. Too much to ask? 🙂
Bill:
That would be find with me, too, but apparently it is indeed too much to ask.