It was unsurprising to see the Never-Trump movement make a comeback in last week’s Collegian. The lack of political art and judgment both articles displayed was even less surprising, especially in their failure to consider the political consequences should Clinton become President.
In the first piece, Dietderich and Millius attempt to make the case that we should vote for Gary Johnson. They argue that a “conscientious citizen is obligated to vote for the candidate that best represents their beliefs.” The authors brush off any responsibility for Trump losing because polls show Johnson drawing the same number of voters from both Trump and Clinton. How that information is relevant for an article printed in the newspaper of a conservative college is unclear. Even though I hold The Collegian in the highest esteem, I doubt many Hillary supporters will read Dietderich and Millius appeal in its pages.
They concede, although not explicitly, that Johnson has no chance of becoming President anytime soon. Their hope is that a Johnson candidacy will have enough votes to “remove the chains of the two party system.” Perhaps they would care to tell us how this benefit outweighs the costs of a Clinton presidency; of a liberal Supreme Court for the next few decades; of any possibility of repealing the Affordable Care Act; of the loss of religious liberty (which Johnson does not seem to be bothered by anyway); of the loss of natural rights that will certainly take place if Clinton is elected President. It is doubtful that a Johnson candidacy will rid us of a two party system, and it is an error in judgement to hold that the benefits of ridding ourselves of this system outweighs the costs of a Clinton presidency.
In regards to the “vote your conscience” argument, I will simply direct our authors and their readers to Dr. Schlueter’s recent article “Moral Truth and the Ethics of Voting: How Should I vote?” where he argues that we should not allow a false view of moral purity “undermine our ability to act for the good as citizens and human beings.”
In the second piece, Lucchese attempts to convince us that the possibility of having a conservative court is not reason enough to vote for Trump as he would be an “abject catastrophe.” Even though Trump has taken the unprecedented step of releasing a list of 11 judges he would consider for nomination, a list I have yet to hear a conservative criticize, he is not to be trusted as he in unprincipled. While Lucchese’s distrust of Trump is understandable, his disregard for the certainty of far-left justices Clinton will appoint is not. Somehow we are to be comforted by the Senate’s ability to block judicial nominations because, after all, they have successfully blocked Obama’s latest nominee, Merrick Garland. It is astounding that Lucchese is skeptical of Trump, but has faith that the Senate will block Clinton’s nominees for the next four or eight years. The only reason our weak Republican Senate (with a long track record of caving at every opportunity they can in order to avoid political risks) has blocked Garland’s nomination is because Obama is a lame-duck president.
Finally, Lucchese’s esteem for a neoconservative foreign policy exposes why he believes Trump has “no real commitment to conservative principles.” However, considering that Trump has called for stricter controls on immigration, cutting the regulatory state, cutting taxes, cutting the federal budget, repealing Obamacare, and making sure the government serves American interests first, it is hard to see what Lucchese is talking about. He would have done well in defining what he means by “conservative principles” and why the elements of Trump’s platform mentioned above are not within his definition.
Perhaps it is time for our Never-Trump friends to finally face reality, especially considering the imminent threat the federal government is to Hillsdale College. The choice in November is between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The former may be a wild card but the latter is not.
Dåvalos is a graduate student studying statesmanship.
