If Trump Wants My Vote In 2020, He's Off To A Good Start

Coming on the heels of announcements regarding his picks for Attorney General, CIA director, and National Security Adviser (my analysis of these picks can be found here and here), Trump announced just before Thanksgiving that Nikki Haley would serve as UN ambassador—a post that would be considered Cabinet level in the Trump administration—while Betsy DeVos, a school choice and charter-school activist and former head of the Michigan Republican Party, would be Secretary of Education.

In short, I’m enthusiastic about both. Nikki Haley in particular, after two terms as governor of South Carolina, needs almost no introduction to conservatives across the country (although her Wikipedia page offers a good overview, if necessary). She’s been considered a rising star in the party for years, ever since her initial gubernatorial victory in 2010, and her criticisms of Trump throughout the campaign make it clear that she’s no blind Trump loyalist, one of the few solid arguments against the nominations of people like Jeff Sessions.

As a governor and former state legislator, she has little in the way of extensive foreign policy experience, something Senate Democrats will undoubtedly use against her come confirmation time. But she has led several important trade missions, has extensive knowledge of foreign policy concerns, and has proven herself to be both a quick study and a strong-willed individual who will stand up against America’s enemies at the United Nations—and is extremely likeable to boot. She should be easily confirmed.

DeVos I was unfamiliar with before word started leaking several days ago that Trump was considering her for Education Secretary, but as the reports on her nomination make clear, she has been a strong proponent for charter schools and school choice measures for years. About the only valid argument against her nomination from the Right is her past support for Common Core—although she has also declared that she now opposes it, and for now all we can do is wait to see what, if anything, new comes up in confirmation hearings to prove that isn’t so.

The other open question about DeVos is how committed she will be to ending the federal Department of Education, a long-held conservative dream that Trump occasionally spoke about on the campaign trail, but on which he has been silent since the election. That, presumably, is something else that will come up during her confirmation hearing if not before. In the meantime, the other points on her resume look strong, and prominent #NeverTrumper Bill Kristol didn’t hesitate to praise her selection.

Don’t get me wrong—Trump has said several things since the election to make me proud I voted for Evan McMullin, most recently his softening on climate change and the Paris climate agreement at a meeting with the New York Times. But as troubling as those statements are, they are, as of yet, only words. The only concrete actions Trump has yet taken have been his Cabinet choices, and so far they have been almost uniformly stellar.

He proved two weeks ago he didn’t need my vote to win, but it seems like he’s working hard to earn it for 2020.

#NeverTrump Is Now #PresidentTrump

Both I and others who were formerly #NeverTrump during the election, have since spoken about the need to put the movement to bed, now that he has defied all of our expectations and will be the next President of the United States. I have little more to add that hasn’t already been said, but I think it important to reiterate the need for all of us, both Americans in general and Republicans and conservatives in particular, to come together after such a divisive election and hope for the best from the incoming Trump administration.

In 2009, just before Barack Obama’s inauguration, Rush Limbaugh famously said, “I hope he fails.” Many of the same liberals who decried Limbaugh then are today expressing a similar sentiment about Trump, openly hoping for his failure. The double standard is, quite frankly, unsurprising, but one key difference between the two is the meaning behind the words. Limbaugh made it quite clear in context that he was hoping for the failure of liberalism, which would therefore (according to him, and a sentiment with which I agree) be good for the country. Liberals today, meanwhile, are hoping for the failure of a Trump presidency in general, regardless of policies or ideology, as an angry response to losing an election they were certain of winning.

Hoping for the failure of a Trump presidency, under those conditions, is hoping for the failure of the country.

I was sharply critical of Trump during the entire election. The number of articles I wrote here alone, against Trump, is too many to link individually in this post. But now that he will be the 45^th President, I hope he succeeds. I hope he truly does surround himself with good people and listen to their advice; appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; and is, in his words, “unbelievably presidential.” His previous record gave me little hope that he would govern as anything other than a big-government liberal, and through party loyalty drag the Republican Party to the left, as well.

But I wish him a successful presidency, based on his own measure of success during the campaign. After a hard-fought campaign, he deserves the benefit of the doubt until he at least enters office.

Jeff Sessions for AG; Mike Pompeo for CIA Director; Mike Flynn for National Security Advisor

As I said yesterday, there are hopeful signs for conservatives coming from the Trump transition team, but we need hard actions to begin to feel more confident in a Trump administration. And today, we got that with three major administration announcements.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions will serve as Attorney General, Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo will be CIA director, and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn will be Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Sessions and Pompeo are both solid picks who should comfort #NeverTrump Republicans still concerned about the incoming Trump administration. Both have strong conservative voting records in Congress—Sessions has an 80% lifetime score from Heritage Action, while Pompeo has an 83% lifetime score—and moreover have a long history of aggressively promoting conservative positions on many of the issues over which they will now have direct jurisdiction in their new roles. Sessions has been a vocal critic of the Obama Justice Department in the Senate, defending voter ID laws and pushing for tougher border security when Trump was still singing the praises of Hillary Clinton and amnesty alike. Pompeo has likewise been a vocal critic of foes such as Iran, as well as the current administration’s attempted negotiations.

And I talk about both as if their Senate confirmation is all but sealed, because essentially it is. Both are members of Congress and are unquestionably qualified for the positions, which by itself will likely broad bipartisan consensus based on the principle of member courtesy. If a member is nominated for a post, be it a Cabinet pick or in the federal judiciary, they are almost always confirmed by an overwhelming margin.

Sessions especially is well-known and liked by members on both sides of the aisle. Some Democrats may try to raise the questionable statements he has made in the past with regard to race, the Voting Rights Act, and the NAACP, but it will likely get little traction. Some of those statements are somewhat troubling, but were made decades ago and have been in the public record for just as long. Others are nonissues being whipped up by an angry and hurting Democratic base, itching for a fight. They are unlikely to get it with either Sessions or Pompeo.

And those Democrats who would vote against either are weakened by the fact that only 51 votes are required to confirm Cabinet-level appointees. A change from the historic 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, a change made several years ago by one Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats, who forgot that no majority lasts forever. Expect a sudden outcry from the Left about the tyranny of the majority.

Michael Flynn’s position requires no Senate confirmation, and his appointment is less of a shining moment for conservatives. He has taken a much-needed hard stand against Islamic terrorism, to be sure, but he has also voiced praise and admiration for Vladimir Putin and Russia on several occasions, and his new position will be sure to reinforce the president-elect’s own tendencies in that regard. Regardless, his appointment to some high level office in the Trump administration was widely expected.

So overall, two pieces of good news, along with a split opinion. Not a bad way to start Cabinet announcements.

Rebuilding The Party (Part 1)

As with much of what I’ve written over the past several days, this is not the conversation I expected to be having one week after Election Day. I bought into what so many others bought into—the prevailing narrative that Trump was going to lose; that Hillary Clinton’s win would empower and unify Democrats even further; that a Republican civil war would break out, leading to the potential demise of the party.

Instead, it is the Democrats who are suddenly faced with civil war, or at least civil unrest. There is talk of a challenge to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The race for DNC chair will feature several candidates, and put on display deep divisions over the party’s future. A sitting Democratic senator over the weekend called Harry Reid “an embarrassment”. Meanwhile, Republicans are largely unified behind the president-elect, with most members of the #NeverTrump movement taking a hopeful, wait-and-see approach to the incoming administration.

Between a surprise presidential victory, retaining control of the House and Senate, and holding a near-record number of governorships and state legislatures, the arguments from just a few months ago that the Republican Party was about to go extinct seem even more laughable today. But while it is the Democrats who have had their divisions suddenly exposed for the nation to see, the GOP still has serious challenges ahead.

While the Democrats’ loss of the presidential election was unexpected, the results from that loss—the brewing internal conflict, the increasing power struggle between various factions—is not. Democrats have been largely united for the past eight years because they controlled the White House, and because Barack Obama has been and continues to be extremely popular within the party, across nearly all factions. When a party holds the presidency, it closes ranks—it’s okay to disagree occasionally, but at the end of the day keep your arguments private and unify behind the leader of the party.

The party out of power, by contrast—for the last eight years represented by the Republicans—has no single leader around which to unite. Their agenda is often blocked. Failure follows failure, and eventually the finger-pointing begins. A major electoral loss, such as that suffered in 2012, only increases the division and debate about how to change the party’s fortunes.

From what I just described, it would be easy to assume that Republicans are now sitting pretty, with nothing to worry about, while Democrats are in deep trouble. And right now, from an electoral perspective, you would rather be a Republican than a Democrat. But the eight years of Barack Obama will have long-lasting, negative repercussions for the Democratic Party, beyond even the surface debates over liberal policy and the number of gubernatorial and legislative seats lost.

Unifying behind Obama did not magically make all of the party’s divisions go away, and its factions permanently unite. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are large national organizations, comprised of millions of members who must constantly balance the competing interests of those members. Republicans have conservatives, moderates, and libertarians; populists and defenders of Big Business; evangelicals and nonreligious voters; blue-collar and white-collar workers; isolationists and interventionists.

Democrats, meanwhile, have liberals and moderates; urban professionals and the inner-city poor; African-Americans and Hispanics; union members and the CEOs of large corporations; atheists and Muslims.

It is obviously impossible for either party to completely satisfy all of their disparate constituencies. But over the past eight years, Republicans, as the opposition party, have been able to air their grievances in the open, to the point where the narrative is tired and familiar. Democrats, in the majority and under increased pressure to unify, have not, with the result that many serious issues and fissures within the Democratic coalition have gone unanswered.

Now, the roles are reversed. In the short term, this is bad news for Democrats, who over the next few months will see a sudden explosion of the discontent that has been for the most part bottled up during the Obama era, given voice to only occasionally in primaries (Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign against Clinton is likely only a taste of what is to come). But in the long term, Democrats will (presumably) work out their differences in open debate.

Now, it will be Republicans who will be under increased pressure to unify, without dissent, behind the now-undisputed leader of their party. We saw the results of this attempted coercion of unity at the Republican National Convention, and in the #NeverTrump movement. While in the short term it could lead to much-needed conservative reforms, such as the repeal of Obamacare and the securing of national borders, it could be just as damaging to the party in the long term, as the Democrats are now learning. (I discussed a similar principle, involving the pressure of party loyalty on Republicans and conservatives during the Bush administration, a few weeks ago.)

Of course, if Trump governs as a conservative, while giving all factions of the party a fair hearing, it will lessen the long-term damage. Solid, good-government reforms that the GOP has been talking about for years would go a long way toward healing the party if Trump were to actually help put them into practice. And the choice of Reince Priebus as chief of staff is a promising start. But the president-elect still has a long way to go, and his government will have to be dramatically different from his campaign. The upshot is that both parties will likely be facing negative repercussions from a Trump presidency.

On Thursday, I’ll focus on the question of whether constitutional conservatism will still have a role in Trump’s Republican Party, and the ramifications of the party being led by someone with no obvious ideological commitments.

This Election Wouldn't Be So Important If We Just Followed The Constitution

The strongest argument Trump apologists can muster for their man has consistently been, “At least he’s not Hillary!” Similarly, one of the strongest arguments in favor of Clinton has consistently been, “At least she’s not Donald Trump!”

Both sides say that this presidential election could be one of the most consequential in American history, and with the ideological balance of the Supreme Court, the expansion of the regulatory and welfare state, and the potential continuation of Obama-style liberal policies and executive actions all at stake, both sides have a point.

But the real question—and yet one not being asked—should be, “Why is this election so important?” Why is the partisan affiliation of the President, or his ideological background, of such vital importance? Why so much attention upon the filling of a single office?

No President, Democrat or Republican, should exert the sort of power and influence over the direction of the country that the media and popular opinion now attribute to the office. The simple fact is that no single presidential election should be so enormously consequential in the life of the nation.

The Constitution, as has been endlessly repeated during the Age of Obama, limits presidential power. Congress is designed to be most responsive to the people, and is therefore delegated most direct authority over domestic concerns. The president, while serving as the sole face of America in foreign affairs and holding significant unilateral power in matters of national security, must still consult with Congress on the direction of the nation.

On everything from health care to immigration, many of the most popular debate topics are framed as if the President has singular authority: "What would you do to fix _____?" But the president's primary responsibility is to sign or veto bills passed by Congress, and enforce those which do become law. Apart from his role as Commander in Chief, and immediate issues of national security, there is little he can do unilaterally, particularly in domestic affairs. The President was intended to be the enforcer of the law, not its author.

Nor, as Barack Obama needs to constantly be told, is there a clause in the Constitution which allows a president to assume monarchical powers should Congress fail to act on any given problem. He can encourage them to do so, but he cannot take binding action on his own. Many of the questions at these presidential debates seem to either forget or ignore this basic principle of American government—at the end of the day, while important, a single presidential election shouldn't be so impactful. It was only in the past century—a trend begun by Wilson, expanded by FDR, and brought into its own by Obama—that presidents began to drastically exceed their mandates.

Donald Trump has no constitutional power to single-handedly build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Hillary Clinton has no power to implement a public option for health insurance or “make college more affordable.” But now, thanks to Obama and the presidents who came before, they think they do, and will attempt to make it so.

Trick or Trick

This year, both major party candidates are tricking the American voter. The many lies and deceptions of Donald Trump are hardly worth repeating at this point—from his policy flip-flops to his refusal to release his tax returns, to his past praise of his supposed opponent. The evidence continues to mount that he is conducting this campaign either as a favor for his friend Hillary Clinton, or as an ad campaign for Trump TV, or both.

And Clinton herself is no better. Her own lies and deceptions have been on public record for decades, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her private email server and the pay-to-play schemes of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails from campaign chairman John Podesta show her discussing how she has a “public position” and “private position” on certain issues, and now word emerges that she may have illegally coordinated with SuperPACs. Meanwhile, the FBI reopens their investigation over the mishandling of classified information.

And the one candidate who emerges from 2016 with a “lying” nickname is Ted Cruz.

At this late stage, there’s just no other way to say it: Both Trump and Clinton are god-awful candidates, and would make god-awful presidents.

So choose neither. Look at Evan McMullin (especially if you’re in Utah!) Give Gary Johnson a chance. Check out Darrell Castle, the Constitution Party nominee, or someone else. Just remember that it’s not necessary to vote for someone who’s neither run a scam university nor stored state secrets on a private server in her basement.

Trump and Clinton backers will say that a vote for a third option is a vote wasted, that only the Democratic or Republican nominee stand a chance of winning. But that only remains true as long as the voters believe it to be true.

It's Too Late To Drop Trump From The Ticket. Good.

Despite the dozens of top Republicans now calling on Donald Trump to drop out of the race, it’s almost certainly too late—one of many reasons why so many wantedto pick an alternate nominee back in July. Ballots have been printed. Early voting has started. That ship sailed long ago.

Which is just as well. Those of us who opposed Trump from the beginning, who said for months that he would be a disastrous candidate who would hurt both the party and the conservative movement to a degree not seen in modern history, tried everything. We opposed him during the primary, getting behind any candidate who could potentially stop him. We opposed him at the convention, trying to unbind the delegates and therefore allow for the selection of a new nominee. We warned everyone who would listen, from elected officials, delegates, and RNC members to ordinary voters, how much harm would come from a Trump nomination.

And we were ignored, silenced, and in some cases even threatened. Profit was put above principle. And those who remained steadfast in their #NeverTrump convictions sought out third-party and independent candidates they could support with a clear conscience, writing off the GOP presidential ticket as a lost cause.

And now, a month before the election, those same members of Republican leadership who embraced Trump over Cruz, the last best chance to defeat him in the primaries, and who applauded the efforts to silence all dissent at the RNC, are finally looking for a way to evict the orange menace? I don’t think so. You had your chance.

You now own him. You will have to answer to the voters, for why you embraced him for months when he could have been stopped. Logistically, it’s too late. And in any case, those who once supported Trump against members of their own party deserve to reap what they have sowed.

#FreeTheDelegates Is Looking Pretty Good Right Now

Remember, at the Republican National Convention in July, how there was a movement to allow convention delegates to vote their conscience and nominate someone other than Donald Trump for President? Remember how proponents of the rule change warned that Trump was unelectable, that his nomination would hand the Presidency to Hillary Clinton, that more scandals were undoubtedly awaiting the light of day, and that he could sink Republican majorities in Congress, along with public perception of the GOP for years to come? How important it was to unite the party by having an open process and giving the duly elected delegates a say in determining the nominee?

And remember how the RNC, controlled by the Trump campaign, shut down that movement, denied even a simple request for a roll call vote on the rules, and attempted to forcibly silence all those pushing to free the delegates?

Fast forward to today, when the ranks of those calling on Trump to exit the race continue to swell, and now include everyone from the staunchest conservatives to members of leadership, from Mike Lee and Carly Fiorina to John Thune and Lisa Murkowski, and beyond. Dozens of Republican members of Congress have announced they will not vote for Trump and called on him to exit the race, in just the forty-eight hours following the release of the latest Trump tape.

If only someone had warned the RNC months ago that this would happen. If only there had been some way for the party to drop Trump back in July, then there would be a new nominee firmly in place by now, instead of dealing with this chaos a month before Election Day.

The RNC could have taken the pain and intraparty chaos in July, or in October. By default, they chose the latter, and now they are suffering the consequences.

Put simply: You were warned.

If You Abandon Principle for Victory, What's The Point of Either?

Many Trump backers—those who recognize the fact that he is no conservative, or even a moderate—argue that those of us who are still defiantly #NeverTrump must get behind the nominee so that “we can win”. The Republican nominee, whoever that person may be or whatever their statements and positions on the issues, is apparently deserving of our automatic support. “So that we can win and beat Hillary!”

This is the same set who for years as argued that conservatives must give up, or at least compromise on, certain core issues in order to win. “Then once we’re in office, we can accomplish conservative goals.”

Of course, once in office everything revolves around the next election. Opponents are already fundraising and conducting opposition research. So then conservatives must compromise a little more.

When it begins, it’s all about winning in the name of achieving conservative goals. Then, over time, it becomes all about the winning, with very little else to show for it. The professionals urge us to compromise, just this once, to win. Then we must give a little more. And then a little more. Until, one day, everything is done in the name of winning. Everything is about achieving a Republican Senate, or House, or White House, with very little thought to what comes after. What, substantively, will differentiate a Republican Congress or Presidency from a Democratic one?

Too many begin to believe that parties are just like sports teams, that we should automatically support everyone who wears the same jersey, and oppose everyone who wears a different jersey. This has been a constant struggle within the conservative movement and the Republican Party for years, but Trump has exacerbated the tension even further. He even embraces it as a core tenet of his campaign: “We never win anymore. We’re going to win so much, you’ll be tired of all the winning.” He’s talking about America, but many Trump supporters, those Republicans who have been with him since the beginning, see it as commentary on a party and a movement which never seems to notch any victories which seem to last—from the Presidency, to policy debates in Congress, to the Supreme Court and the culture wars.

So they give a little with Trump. Maybe he’s not a conservative, but he makes deals. He’ll help us win. The first step is always the most important; after that it becomes easier. Maybe we should stop talking about social issues so much. Maybe we should abandon free trade. And when they give up more of their principles for Trump, and he responds with a deal with Democrats that gives away even more, Trump’s supporters will say, “He just needs to do this to win reelection. He has to win reelection.”

The ideal of principle is superseded by the ideal of winning. And soon, winning shifts from being a means to an end to the end itself. Winning becomes its own good.

Why We Talk So Much About Trump: It's Personal

Over the weekend, Kimberly Ross, writing at RedState, posted an excellent piece asking, “Why Do We Talk So Much About Trump?” I agree completely with all of her arguments, but I think there’s an even deeper reason for why many conservative members of #NeverTrump are so obsessed (for lack of a better word) with The Donald—it’s personal.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible, awful, no good, very bad candidate, and would be the same as President—but she’s a liberal Democrat who is running as the candidate of the Democratic Party. Trump, meanwhile, is a liberal who has taken over the Republican Party, making many of its leaders and members look like fools and hacks in the process. Based on past statements and evidence, he would pursue many of the same liberal policies as Clinton, but with the added detriment of giving them an air of conservative approval. I’ve written before about how Trump can be liberal, and yet give conservatism a bad name at the same time—it’s all about perception, and merely being the nominee of what was once America’s major conservative party will be enough for many voters to see Donald Trump as emblematic of conservatism.

The point is that Hillary Clinton is the terrible candidate of the other side, the sort of person Democrats nominate all the time. But, for many Republicans, it feels as if Trump and his followers stole the party out from under them, all while destroying some of the party’s brightest stars in the process. The fact that many of Trump’s primary wins were the result of Democrats and independents voting in Republican open primaries makes that perception even stronger.

This was our party, many conservatives think. And now this orange freak and his cultists have stolen it. For many who had (and still have) an emotional attachment to the Party of Reagan, that anger is hard to let go of, and is the reason many still can’t stop talking about (or raging about) Trump.

A Warning To The Reluctant Trump Voter

As we reach the home stretch of the campaign, the inevitable is happening. Many Republicans and independents are beginning to forget some of the objections they had to Trump, some of the reasons they had earlier declared themselves to be #NeverTrump. The specter of a Hillary Clinton presidency has caused them to reconsider, to decide that Donald Trump is the only vehicle left to stop a second Clinton presidency. The “lesser of two evils” argument is beginning to gain greater traction.

Enough people have already stripped away the arguments for the “lesser of two evils”. Either option entails voting for evil. But there is another simple fact that all those who vote for Trump, however reluctantly, must be reminded of: To vote for a candidate means to become responsible for everything that candidate says or does. The same is doubly true for Donald Trump.

If Trump wins the Presidency, everyone who voted for him and promoted him must answer for every action, objectionable comment, and liberal policy he makes or promotes over the next four years. They will bear responsibility for elevating to the most powerful office in the world a man who insults women, ridicules and threatens everyone who dares disagree with him, and believes that Planned Parenthood does “wonderful things”. They will own it all.

Just as every person who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 bears some measure of responsibility for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and his two Supreme Court appointments, so too will every person who supports a victorious Trump campaign in 2016 be in some way responsible for his every action while in office. If not for millions of people who consider themselves reluctant Trump voters, Donald J. Trump will not be President come January 2017.

This is not to say I don’t understand their reasoning in supporting Trump over Clinton. I do. Hillary Clinton would be an atrocious Commander in Chief. But just as her supporters must answer for everything that may come of a second Clinton Presidency, so too must Trump supporters answer for anything that might emerge from a Trump administration. Both policy papers and Tweets.

Elections have consequences. Trump voters, be certain you are prepared to defend your man, his actions, and yours.

The Good Thing About Having No Candidate to Support

For the first time in my life, I truly have no candidate to support in a presidential election. I truly see no effective difference between the two major party nominees. I will likely vote for Gary Johnson, as I believe him to be the most honest, trustworthy, and overall best candidate currently running (although Evan McMullin is an appealing choice as well), but I carry no emotional attachment for either Johnson or his party, and disagree with both on a substantial number of issues. Realistically, either Trump or Clinton will be the next president, and it can be sobering and slightly depressing to stay on the sidelines.

The silver lining, however, is that I no longer feel any constraints on pointing out the flaws of one candidate or another, simply because I hope for a certain outcome. Both are terribly flawed candidates. Previous candidates I have supported, for both national and state office, have had flaws as well, but because I wanted them to win and saw them as infinitely better than the alternative I would often hold onto those opinions which could negatively affect the outcome I preferred.

This election, however, all of us who remain #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary can regain some intellectual honesty we may have lost over the last few election cycles. Neither of the two major candidates want or need our support, and most of the minor party candidates have significant flaws, as well. This election gives us a chance to truly voice our opinions, tell it as we see it, and hopefully regain some independence from the opinions and pressures of others in the process.

Why Did No Major Independent Candidate Emerge?

One of the enduring mysteries in a campaign season full of them: Why, in a year when both major parties nominated candidates who are both historically unpopular with the general electorate, did no major independent candidate emerge, à la Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996?

Sure, we’ll get our fair share of third-party and independent candidates on the ballot: Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin… But none of those command high name recognition, a particularly unique campaign platform, or the massive financial resources needed to wage a successful presidential campaign. Two of those, Johnson and Stein, are retreads from the 2012 election, doing far better this time around merely as the unwitting beneficiaries of widespread animosity toward the two major-party candidates. And Evan McMullin, while a decent man who would make a good president, is hardly a household name, even in intensely political households.

After it became clear that Donald Trump had a reasonably good chance at winning the nomination, the narrative turned from “Will Trump run as an independent?” to “Will someone run as an independent against Trump?” For a while, the answer looked like it would be yes—and someone well-known at that, a sitting or former governor or Senator (Gary Johnson, a Libertarian who last held elected office over a decade ago, doesn’t count). Rumors flew that Mitt Romney would enter the race, or Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, or John Kasich.

But no one ever did.

Many of the reasons why lie with the prospective candidates themselves, and are impossible to guess at fully. But running for president is a demanding task, even when supported by the full resources and infrastructure of a major national party. Running as an independent, and building a national ground operation and fundraising infrastructure from scratch, is doubly difficult. And, for any Republicans who were current officeholders—or who hoped to seek office again in the future—following through with an independent bid almost certainly doomed from the beginning would have seemed to be a career-ending move.

Considering all that, it seems to me that there would have been only one Republican who could have reasonably embarked on a serious independent bid for the Presidency, without risk of political suicide, and who would have had a reasonable chance at success to boot—Mitt Romney.

Having run for president twice already, once as the Republican nominee, he would have already had built-in name recognition. Being retired from public office would have meant that he needn’t have worried about any potential sanctions from the RNC down the line. He would have been able to build, through his high name recognition and multitude of contacts, a national infrastructure in relatively short order. And he would have had a realistic chance at winning, or at the very least getting on the debate stage—a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted in May showed Romney receiving 22% of the vote nationally, with Clinton at 37% and Trump at 35%.

As to why he ultimately chose not to run, only Romney himself can answer that, but I assume it was basically the same reasoning that led him to pass on running in the primaries last year—he had had enough of running for President, believed it simply wasn’t meant to be, and wished to give other, younger candidates an opportunity. Whatever the reasoning, though, his passing on an independent run exacerbated the trend of major national figures turning down the chance of running against Trump in the general election—and likely deprived the #NeverTrump movement of its one real chance to actually win the election.

Clinton Isn't Entitled to the Black Vote, And Trump Isn't Entitled to the Republican Vote

It really is as simple as that.

Trump is right, although despite what his followers would like to believe, he is far from the first person to raise this point—Hillary Clinton, or any Democrat, is not automatically entitled to the African-American vote. For too long Democrats have taken the nearly unanimous support of the black community for granted, and while it has paid dividends for Democratic politicians, the overall standard of living in the black community has suffered. It’s time for that community to try something new.

Unfortunately Donald Trump is not the one to offer anything new, or to represent a clear contrast with failed Democratic policies. Meanwhile, while the Trump campaign makes noises about minority outreach, it demonizes and scapegoats those Republicans who continue to oppose Trump’s candidacy, calling their opposition a betrayal.

Until Election Day (or, with early voting, Election Month) both Trump and Clinton have exactly the same number of votes: zero. Neither candidate is entitled to the black vote, the Republican vote, the Democratic vote, or really the vote of any person at all. Not a single person in this country has taken a legally binding pledge to support one candidate or the other, or one party or the other. If Ivanka Trump suddenly decided to throw her support behind Hillary Clinton, she would have every right to do so. If Chelsea Clinton decided to vote for Donald Trump, her good friend’s father, she would be equally able to do so. Until the moment a vote is actually cast, it is truly committed to no one.

Trump, specifically, has been making the case that minority voters are not bound to any single candidate, but the same message applies equally to both campaigns, and both parties: You are not entitled to a single person’s vote. Every person is an individual, and they can do with their vote as they see fit—vote for one of the two major party candidates; or a third party, independent, or write-in candidate; or decide to simply not vote at all—regardless of skin color or party affiliation. If one group is not bound to a candidate, then no group is.

How Gary Johnson Could Win

I should preface this by saying that I think it unlikely, to say the least, that the Johnson-Weld ticket will actually win. Despite Johnson’s current polling strength, he still has a long way to go before he’s even close to being a serious contender for the Presidency. The two major parties, though weakened, still retain a near monopoly over the electoral process, and there’s a reason why no independent or third-party candidate has come anywhere close to winning the White House since 1992, or indeed even won a state since 1968.

That being said, Johnson does have a chance of winning, however remote. Here’s his most likely path to victory:

1.      Manage to get up to 15% in national polls. According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates who wish to participate in the debates must satisfy Constitutional requirements for holding office; obtain ballot access in enough states to “have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College”, and average 15% in national polls, using the most recent results from five different national polling groups. Any candidate who satisfies those three criteria before each of the three debates will be allowed to participate, and the running mate of each candidate who qualifies for the first debate (in late September) will automatically be allowed to participate in the single VP debate.

Johnson meets all age and residency requirements in the Constitution, and the Libertarian Party has already obtained ballot access in thirty-six states, more than fulfilling the second debate requirement. All that remains is achieving a polling average of 15% before late September. He has already hit 13% in some isolated polls, and currently hovers around 8% in the RealClearPolitics average. With both Trump and Clinton intensely disliked, and their numbers unlikely to improve dramatically anytime soon, it’s easy to imagine Johnson reaching 15% in the polling averages within the next six weeks.

2.      Perform well in the debates. Just showing up won’t be enough. Johnson would need to stand out and draw a clear contrast with both Trump and Clinton, while not fading into the background. (The same would go for Bill Weld in the VP debate.) He’s not the best debater or public speaker, so if he does make it into the debates he’ll need extensive debate prep. If he handles the debate effectively, however, tens of millions of voters will hear from him for the first time, and the majority who despise both Trump and Clinton will learn more about their third option.

3.      Capitalize on debate success. It won’t be enough to just have a successful debate or two and coast to November. Assuming he does have a good debate, Johnson would need to get out right away and start holding larger rallies, airing TV and radio ads, and in general take advantage of the record-setting fundraising the Libertarian Party is already reporting. He would also be much more in demand for interviews and other valuable opportunities of free air time that he should seize wherever possible.

4.      Target disaffected conservatives, moderates, independents, and Sanders supporters. Broadly, those groups represent Johnson’s best path to victory. And he’s already been reaching out to them to varying extents. What he needs to focus on right now are the conservative Republicans who are firmly #NeverTrump but aren’t currently supporting the Libertarian nominee, as well as Republicans who opposed Trump in the primary, are supporting him now only because he’s the nominee and is, they believe, better than Hillary—but could be persuaded to support a more principled choice, especially with aid from Trump himself.

Competing for Cruz and Sanders supporters simultaneously may seem counterintuitive, but there are ways Johnson can reach out to both camps without contradicting himself. Cruz voters will find Johnson’s stances in favor of limited government and free markets appealing, while Bernie bros will like his support of same-sex marriage, a dovish foreign policy, and attacks against a political system rigged in favor of the two major parties.

5.      Target specific states where Libertarians have the best chance of success. This will pose the most difficult problem for Johnson, as unlike a standard Republican or Democratic nominee he would essentially need to compete across the country, taking no state for granted. On the other hand, if the Libertarian ticket does become a serious threat, both Trump and Clinton would need to do likewise, as Johnson could put many reliable red and blue states in play, either by winning them outright or by serving as a spoiler and enabling one of the other major candidates to compete strongly.

The closest thing to a geographic base for Johnson would likely be the Mountain West, an area in which both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders thrived during the primaries. Utah in particular is turning out to be highly competitive, and with a large number of undecided voters it could be especially receptive to a third-party message. States like Colorado, Montana, and the Dakotas also have strong libertarian bents. And in other parts of the country, Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota have shown a willingness to support independent and third-party candidacies for state office in the recent past. All could be fertile ground for Johnson to make the case for a Libertarian President.

I want to stress once again that I don’t think Johnson will actually win the Presidency. (For some perspective, no Libertarian nominee has ever won more than 1% of the vote.) This is just what he would need to do if he’s to have any realistic hope of winning.

But a year ago, no one would have expected Trump to be the Republican nominee, or Hillary to struggle to the very end of the primary season against Bernie Sanders. This is the year anything can happen, and there would be no better way to highlight that fact than to see a no-name third-party candidate win the White House.

Some Overdue Praise for John Kasich

Ted Cruz has received effusive praise from many corners since his defiant, rousing speech at the Republican National Convention (along with more than his share of anger and hatred from the Trumpkins), but less attention has been given to John Kasich. He may not have given a primetime address in the middle of Trump’s coronation and pointedly refused to endorse, but Kasich has been no less critical of the Dear Leader.

He angered many during the primary campaign, and with good reason. Beyond his moderate policies, his christening of himself as the “Prince of Light and Hope”, and his holier-than-thou admonition of critics of Medicaid expansion, his presence served to split the anti-Trump vote for most of the primary season, costing both Rubio and Cruz several crucial victories and won only Ohio in the process.

This in turn led many to believe he was secretly in league with Trump, sabotaging the efforts of the #NeverTrump forces in return for the vice presidency. But since he dropped out in May we’ve all been proven wrong. He reportedly declined the VP nomination after it was specifically offered to him, criticized and pointedly refused to endorse Trump in several media appearances over the past couple months, boycotted the Cleveland coronation in his own backyard, and has now angered Trump enough for the God King to pledge up to $10 million to defeat him in a future election (Trump has also pledged up to $20 million to defeat Cruz’s 2018 reelection campaign).

You still aren’t the best presidential candidate in history, John Kasich, but we had you wrong. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for your beliefs.

Evan McMullin and Write-In Presidential Candidates

In case you haven’t yet heard, former CIA officer and House Republican policy director Evan McMullin has launched an independent campaign for President.

I’ll just go ahead and state the obvious—McMullin doesn’t have a chance of winning the election. Filing deadlines for ballot access will have already passed in roughly half the country by the end of the week, and even if he wanted to mount a legal challenge to those deadlines his campaign would be spending a crucial part of the election bogged down in court. The most likely result will be that he will be waging a write-in campaign in the majority of the country, a tactic that almost never ends well.

(There are exceptions—Lisa Murkowski won reelection as Alaska’s senior Senator in 2010 through a write-in campaign after losing the Republican primary, but she was already an incumbent with high name recognition. Almost no one had heard of McMullin before Monday. If an independent effort by a first-time candidate with no name recognition was to have a chance of influencing the election, it would have had to begin months ago.)

In addition, he has yet to earn any high-profile endorsements or significant financial backing. If people like Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz, or the Koch brothers were to become seriously involved with the campaign, McMullin might begin earning more votes and making a bigger impact, but until something changes that looks unlikely.

This isn’t to say that any vote for McMullin is automatically a vote wasted because he can’t win—although Gary Johnson has a better chance of making an impact on the race, he has almost as little a chance of winning. This election, every voter needs to chart their own course and follow their conscience. And I’m sure McMullin has better principles and character than either Trump or Clinton (not, admittedly, a very high bar).

But when a candidate will likely only secure ballot access in a handful of states, has no significant backing, and enters the race only three months before Election Day, the question needs to be asked: Why does this candidate deserve my vote more than one of the third party candidates already on the ballot, or even one of the countless other possibilities for write-in candidates? Is this a serious effort to win, or just the addition of one more name to the nearly infinite list of choices to write in?

Of course, circumstances can always change. But for now, despite my issues with him, I’m sticking with Gary Johnson.

I'd Rather Have Mike Pence for VP, But...

…But I’d still rather vote for the Johnson-Weld ticket over Trump-Pence any day of the week.

No one can argue with any intellectual honesty that Bill Weld is more conservative than Mike Pence. On nearly every issue, from abortion and gun control to taxes, foreign policy, and the size of government, Pence is by far the more conservative of the two. Weld endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, praised Stephen Breyer and Merrick Garland as ideal Supreme Court justices in a recent interview, and has supported a number of liberal causes throughout his career. Even many in the Libertarian Party, both before and after his nomination, questioned whether he truly believed in a libertarian vision of government.

Mike Pence has his own flaws, to be sure. Most recently, and of most relevance to his potential service as Vice President, has been his repudiation of his own past statements and policy positions merely to earn the approval of Trump and his closest supporters. He has proven himself unwilling to stick up for his beliefs and for what he knows to be the right course of action, a key requirement for anyone wishing to serve as the Vice President of Donald Trump.

But comparing his flaws and policy positions with those of Bill Weld, Pence would still be the better, more reliable VP. If given the opportunity to vote separately for the next Vice President, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

Of course, that’s not the way national elections are conducted in America, and the top of the ticket has to be the prevailing concern. Considering the options put forth by the organized political parties, Gary Johnson is by far the best choice for the Presidency. Allowing the running mates of each nominee, candidates for an office which holds little formal constitutional authority, to significantly influence the choice between the nominees themselves, is foolish.

So I will happily vote for Bill Weld for Vice President, because every ticket is a package deal, and Gary Johnson would be an infinitely better President than Donald Trump.

Why I'm Not Leaving The Republican Party

After last week, the pace of Republicans, conservatives and moderates alike, leaving the GOP has quickened. The nomination of Donald Trump for President, coupled with the egregious denial of a roll call vote on the rules package, has led to a mass exodus, and everyone from convention delegates to National Review columnists to ordinary voters across the country have joined in.

I sympathize with all of them, but I won’t be following.

For all its mistakes and outright abuses of power this year, and especially last week, the Republican Party remains the best vehicle available for instituting conservative reforms, at all levels of government. The reality is that the American political system as it is currently constituted effectively allows for only two political parties to be viable over the long term, a liberal party and a conservative party. The Democratic Party became uniformly liberal years ago, and now tacks further to the left with every election cycle. This leaves the Republican Party as the only one of the major parties where conservatives can realistically find a home and hope to have their voices heard.

Whether they will be heard is a different matter entirely, as the events of the past week have proven. What is certain, however, is that a voter separate from both major parties will not have a voice in the affairs of either. In many states, they are barred from voting in primary elections. For Republicans disgusted with the nomination of Trump, that means that, should a Trump-like candidate run for office in a future election, those voters would have no opportunity to vote against that candidate until the general election.

Whether the Republican Party can long survive as it now exists, deeply split by both the Trump nomination and other issues, is another question entirely. I’m inclined to believe it will, for the simple reason that any party which has survived being shut out of all national power for twenty years, a literal civil war, and numerous convention walkouts and third-party efforts over its century and a half of existence is by nature hard to kill. But if it does not survive, the foundation of a new party to carry on the fight for conservative reform would obviously be vital to the nation’s future.

But until then, working within the framework of an existing party is infinitely preferable to building a new, competing party from scratch. For now, fighting cronyism, liberalism, and Trumpism from within the party is a better strategy than fruitlessly standing outside the party looking in.

I Was Wrong. And Ted Cruz Is Officially The Most Courageous Politician Ever.

A couple weeks ago I wrote that I expected Ted Cruz to eventually give Trump some kind of tepid, “he’s better than her” endorsement, similar to what Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have already done. The pressure would become so great, I predicted, and the stakes for Cruz’s political future so high, that either at the convention itself or soon after he would be forced to support the party nominee.

I forgot that you don’t force Ted Cruz to do anything. And I’m proud to be so wrong, and to be a member of the Party of Cruz.

Last night, in case you missed it, Cruz gave an impassioned primetime speech at the convention on freedom and the importance of the Constitution. An epic defense of conservative values, but what caught everyone’s attention—and started the Trumpkins booing—was toward the end, when Cruz told voters to “stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates…who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

The full video is below, including Donald Trump himself appearing in the audience at the end.

As you can tell, encouraging voters to “vote their conscience” didn’t sit well with Trump loyalists, who recognized the phrase as code for opposing Trump—similar to the proposed “conscience clause” rule change from earlier in the week, which would have unbound the delegates and on which Cruz had refused to comment.

Ted Cruz is incredibly brilliant, but anyone other than the most dim-witted of Trump cultists would have known going the full implication of using the dreaded c-word. He knew the reaction in the convention hall would be riotous, but he decided to make a stand. He knew that the delegates were deeply divided between Trump and Cruz loyalists, and that the crowd’s reaction would be equally divided, but he also knew that in such scenario the best course of action was to tell the truth, stand for principle, and leave everything on the field.

It’s worth watching again what Cruz said about Trump on the last day of his primary campaign.

And lest people think the pressure will cause him to crack, Cruz is doubling down today.

I said last week, regarding Mike Lee’s principled stand in favor of unbinding the delegates, that I had never been more proud of a politician. Ted Cruz’s speech last night doesn’t diminish Lee’s bravery in any way, but by going on stage before a crowd of Trump loyalists, refusing to kneel before the Dear Leader even in the face of jeers and boos, and instead taking a lone stand for principle, honesty, and self-respect, Cruz just did the most courageous thing I’ve ever seen in politics.