Donald Trump is a polarizing political figure. This piece on Trump is part of a series that sorts through various arguments on controversial political topics wherein I debate... myself. Personally, I’m a registered Republican and voted for Republican presidential candidates my whole adult life. Here, I’ve arduously constructed 10 reasons a reasonable person may theoretically support Trump and aggregated 10 reasons reasonable people should oppose him. Pro-Trump will be represented by “ME”, anti-Trump will be represented by “Mark”, and my actual opinion will be represented by “Mark Ellis”. Pro-Trump demanded to go first.
ME- Pro-Trump Arguments:
1. Harsh Talk. Trump’s forthright phraseology and blunt tone appease many who feel that the really bad people in the world (terrorists, criminals, etc.) are coddled or rhetorically protected by moral relativism, political correctness, and cultural sensitivity (exacerbated on college campus “safe spaces” where anti-American [also anti-Western and anti-Israel] sentiments are protected, while perceived insults to diversity, minorities, or other cultures cause ostracism, protests, and even terminations). Similarly, many believe American institutions, symbols, and authority (such as law enforcement) are disproportionately vilified and derided. Trump vehemently rejects American apologists as weak (with a particularly dour impression of President Obama), which is his version of projecting strength and embracing American exceptionalism. His willingness to verbally berate enemies would be a stark attitudinal departure from Obama’s (and likely Clinton’s) more passive approach. Trump’s strong language (using terms like radical Islam or terrorists) may not lead to harsher actions, but even the different rhetorical approach appeals to voters who want a tougher America, even if it is (or begins as) a placebo for security. And many voters appreciate Trump’s visceral verbiage (“honest”, which can more accurately depicted as “from his gut”), as a fearless aggressive attack on his and/or the nation’s adversaries.
2. Trump’s Business Background. Trump used his multitude of opportunities (and the myriad of benefits of being born wealthy), hard work, and marketing/sales skills to create, manage, or invest in some financially successful endeavors. He may be worth billions (making much of that fortune himself); and success sometimes begets further success. There is an argument (with limited utility) that Trump made good business decisions, delegated effectively, heeded relevant advice, underwent difficult negotiations, and employed salesmanship and marketing (see also, his populist campaign), which reflect transferable skills/talents (including a theoretical possibility that Trump’s radical positions are opening salvos to re-anchor debates for future negotiations). Trump has his skills; he harps on certain messages, self-promotes, and touts popular lines like: “winning”, “make America great again”, “build a wall”, etc. He may have crafted the messages, meaning he reads a room or a demographic. He could be entertaining, dynamic, and relentless. As a business person, Trump contributed to politicians on both sides of the aisle, so his political policy preferences may be more fluid than lifelong rigid politicians. And he raised a daughter, who seems to have used similar advantages and skills to succeed in her own right. Further, Trump’s business acumen and background may provide insight to expand private sector growth.
3. A Wall and Security. Trump’s first major promise was a to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Trump repeated that goal to express his intent to take seriously the terrorism/security threat, the criminal threat, and the financial complications exacerbated by our leaky Mexican border. The wall itself may have symbolic value and may make entering the country illegally more difficult (by forcing people to circumvent the barrier). Further, Trump’s Islamic aversion may lead to altering refugee quotas and immigration to attempt to lessen the future risk of importing terrorism. He also supports raising budgets for security, military (and veterans), etc. Trump is expressing that he focuses on these threats to American security and safety differently than Obama and Clinton.
4. Trade Negotiations. Trump espouses positions to transform our (comparatively limited) tariff/import regulatory system to try to to create more domestic manufacturing jobs, decrease imports, increase exports, and collect import tax revenue. Proponents argue that many countries treat American exports unfairly (with tariffs and administrative red tape) and there is room for substantive improvement through tougher stances in trade negotiations. Those goals mark a major difference between Trump and most mainstream establishment politicians (excluding Bernie Sanders). Adjustments in trade agreements with some additional protectionism may not cause trade wars or raise costs substantially on American consumers, but may improve our trade deficit.
5. Lower Taxes. Trump is constantly re-working his tax plan (and it’s open to negotiations), but his plan will likely include lower tax rates than Clinton’s plan - particularly after she felt the Bern. Trump has not indicated many spending cuts he would make, so assuming he is budget-conscious or deficit/debt savvy is speculative, but the likely lower tax rates is appealing to fiscal Republicans (for personal benefit, personal aspirations, or a belief that lower taxes are beneficial to the economy).
6. A different perspective on foreign policy. Trump has two largely divergent visions on foreign policy: one diminishes American intervention internationally and the other extends American might. Trump’s unpredictability may lead to altering alignments, such as a more amicable relationship with Russia (if he allows Russia’s sphere of influence to grow) and/or a lesser alignment with our traditional allies in Western Europe and others who largely depend on us for some measure of protection. Trump announced that he would stop freely protecting or funding other nations’ militaries, such as South Korea, Japan, and financially delinquent members of NATO. He also ambivalently declared that he would renegotiate the Iran deal and Cuban American relations. If Trump opts for his Ameri-centric goals, it would allow America to shoulder less financial and military responsibility for the world’s problems. If Trump opts for his interventionist goals, like increasing efforts to stop ISIS, then seizing their oil, America could have more access to resources and even more influence on the world stage. While we don’t know which way he will go, either one would likely be different than Hillary’s apparent intent to continue most of Obama’s foreign policy strategy.
7. Big Banks, Business, and Energy. If Trump stands by his position of claiming oil from nations we defeated and continues his Climate Change denials, then he may create a more flexible and open energy policy (which might create energy production jobs in America and help gas prices). While Trump has vacillated on treatment of banks and big business and railed against lobbyists and his freedom from lobbyists (although he hired a lobbyist to run his campaign), Clinton as influenced by Sanders, may have to at least front a more restrictive approach to big business and the banks. Similarly, while Clinton has embraced unions and supports increases for minimum wage, Trump has historically opposed unions. So, surmising that Trump will be comparably favorable to big business is understandable speculation.
8. Socially conservative positions? Trump espoused varying positions from moving towards universal healthcare to disassembling Obamacare and increasing privatization. Trump has loudly and proudly recently espoused gun rights and pro-life positions, so Trump winning makes it somewhat more likely that there will be socially conservative policies enforced. He may select a conservative to the Supreme Court (he submitted names for consideration); and if you’re a social conservative, this appointment is a major goal. Hillary winning likely leads to at least four years of liberal policies and lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Similarly, Trump also submitted contradictory positions with Planned Parenthood, a somewhat understanding position on transgender bathrooms, a maternity leave policy, and other recent liberal positions, so you can argue that Trump is centrist who may have pivoted to pander to the right. Either way, he may govern in a socially reasonable manner, as you perceive it.
9. Sticking It to the Establishment. While Trump benefited from government involvement, he counts as an outsider because of his lack of political experience, his difficulty raising substantial sums or gaining acceptance from segments of the leadership of his party, and his willingness to contradict (or be vindictive to) political figures within his party (including media). So voting for him is an entertaining protest vote to scoff at the ingrained politics as usual of the two-party gridlocked establishment and a series of seemingly insurmountable problems. A vote for him is a shock to a stagnant system, which is perfectly represented by the idea of Hillary - a nepotism candidate, a long-time overly ambitious politician, embroiled with special interests and lobbyists, laden with scandal and contradictory positions, a carpet-bagging senator in the do-nothing Congress, who served as Secretary of State for the current (ineffectual?) president, and who is off-putting for her policy-wonkishness, robotic political-speak (refusing to say she will not lie to the American people, rephrasing it as she will “try” not to lie to the American people), and elitism (referring to half of Trump supporters, generally people without college education, as a “basket of deplorables” for allegations of racism, misogyny, xenophobia, etc.). Voting for Trump is voting against the system Hillary Clinton represents.
10. #NeverHillary. While people take issue with Trump for his immorality, frequent lying, flip-floppy decision making, corruption and fraud, and history of bad judgment, similar allegations have been directed at Hillary Clinton. Inasmuch as many don’t not like Trump, nearly as many don’t like Hillary. There are standard political differences on issues, but people also object to decisions she has made from her days as a first lady (e.g. healthcare, kissing Suha Arafat right after she falsely accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian children) through her actions or lack thereof as Secretary of State (e.g. failure to support democratic movements during the Arab Spring). More importantly, Hillary has been linked to a myriad of scandals from Whitewater to lies about an unlawful email server (stemming from a Benghazi investigation), and hiring the DNC chairperson after the DNC unfairly tilted the scale for Clinton... with plenty of allegations of financial impropriety peppered along the way. She has also been tagged with a number of flip-flops including NAFTA and gay marriage. You can write off any of the scandals individually as tenuous or unfair and any of the flip-flops as evolving (nuanced) opinions based on new information, but altogether, her unfavorable polling reflects an unpalatable candidate. While sexism plays a role in her perception (her appearance, her sound, her friendliness, authoritativeness, assorted personal and prejudicial stereotypes, and historical discrimination), so do her actions and lack of transparency (recently failing to disclose pneumonia until she nearly collapsed in public - to minimize speculation about her health - which backfired onto discussions of her health AND her campaign’s honesty). Hillary’s depiction as a robotic, dishonest, corrupt, overly ambitious, entitled panderer, rather than a smart, capable, loyal, caring, skilled politician, is wrought by heavy resistance to the concept of President Hillary (whether that might mean a third term of Obama’s foreign policy weakness and/or a third term of the Clinton immorality). And while public opinion is swayed by radical conspiratorial rantings (of people like Trump) for the last 30 years, there is also enough smoke in some of these allegations to merit investigation, suspicion, and some level of skepticism. And if you look at this election solely as a referendum on Hillary, you may seek her primary challenger. While Trump has many of these same foibles, he has yet to disappoint the nation from within the Government.
Mark- Anti-Trump Arguments:
A. Trump and Volatile Temperament. A volatile temperament is tantamount to bad judgment; losing your temper can lead to illogical actions and terrible consequences. Trump espoused violence in his own rallies, declaring he would have punched protesters, encouraging others to hit them, promising financial support for assaults, defending his violent followers as “passionate”, and declaring he wanted to punch speakers at the Democratic convention. Unsurprisingly, violence ensued. Trump is also undiplomatic in moments of “candor” (e.g. when questioned about how Mexico would pay for the wall, Trump ostensibly threatened Mexico with war... and he threatened war with Iran over gestures). This fury and penchant for violence increases the risk of Trump starting a war (or using nuclear weapons), but may also escalate tension with foreign leaders who may themselves start a war, end/alter negotiations, or minimize an alliance. While some opponents back down from Trump’s hostile demeanor with lasting enmity, others (who are narcissists themselves) may raise the stakes. Trump’s quick temper applies to any criticism: deriding Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle, Sen. McCain’s heroic military record, and a reporter’s disability; he also refused access to many legitimate news outlets, and refused to attend a primary debate. He berated Iowans as “stupid” (for voting against him), the Pope as “disgraceful” (for questioning his immigration stance), and the parents of a slain Muslim American hero veteran (for criticizing him). When Hillary claimed that Trump can be baited with a Tweet, he took the bait and issued a tirade. Hillary Clinton has an acceptable temperament; Trump has a historically terrible one.
B. Trump and Authoritarianism. Trump espoused support for dictatorial leaders (including Hussein, Putin, Kim etc.), kept Hitler’s works in his bedroom library, and tweeted a Mussolini quote because he admires strong leadership. Trump suggested he would force the military to obey his illegal orders including torture or attacking innocent relatives of terrorists. He supports loosening libel law protections to avoid journalistic criticism and he refused access to several periodicals that questioned him. Trump’s life reflects: (i) a spoiled rich kid who got his way, (ii) a CEO and celebrity diva expecting to be obeyed, and (iii) a campaigner with an evident contempt for Congressional inefficiencies. The chasm between his positions and mainstream views (and his tenuous relationship with those he insults) leaves Trump with a difficult path to accomplish goals and a likely expansive use of executive action, which is dangerous when the president has a terrible temperament (and it sets a bad precedent). Finally, Trump and/or his surrogates (including his possible future attorney general) state that if he wins, his opposition will be jailed or shot; and if he doesn’t win, he hinted that gun owners can prevent Hillary from accomplishing her goals with their guns. Clinton may continue many of the current president’s (objectionable) policies, but they are in line with prior presidential actions. Trump’s election may mark a stark disconcerting departure toward a more authoritarian government.
C. Trump and Bigotry. (1) Trump’s father was arrested in connection with a KKK rally; (2) Donald delayed condemning his White supremacist followers including David Duke; (3) he kept Hitler’s works in his bedroom; (4) the justice department alleged Trump practiced racial discrimination multiple times (he also joked that he does not want Black accountants); (5) Trump frequently re-tweets bigoted accounts with fake stats like Black people are responsible for 81% of murders of White people and a Jewish symbol with the words, “Most corrupt...”; (6) Trump ranted for years that Obama is an African-born Muslim to discredit him; (7) he added Obama founded ISIS literally and implied Obama intentionally supports ISIS; (8) Trump stated illegal immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists; (9) he promised to deport all illegal immigrants (see Operation Wetback); (10) he stated Islam hates America (implying war with America); (11) Trump planned to ban, profile, monitor, and/or register all Muslims (see Japanese internment); (12) he declared he will bomb innocent family members of terrorists’ (not Timothy McVeigh’s family); (13) he advocated torture based on terrorist reciprocity; (14) he blamed American Muslims for not revealing what “they know” about terrorists; (15) he wrongly claimed he saw thousands of American Muslims cheering 9/11 on TV; (16) Trump asserted that a judge of Mexican descent (and Muslim judges) cannot do jobs such as judge Trump (because they are incapable of impartiality)- some of his Republican supporters agreed this was racist; (17) he insinuated that the Muslim parents of an American military hero support terrorism and that the hero’s mother was not allowed to speak because she is a Muslim woman; (18) Trump refers to an Indiana born judge he does not like as a Mexican, a New York born terrorist as an “Afghan”, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas” to racially code his statements; Trump’s campaign slogans “Make America Great Again” and “America First” reference historical White supremacy; (19) Trump’s first major political gesture was publicly demanding the death penalty against several Black youths who were later exonerated in a well documented Central Park jogger attack; and (20) Trump’s outreach to Latinos involved eating a taco bowl on Cinco de Mayo and his outreach to Black communities involved ranting about how Black communities are in the worst shape ever (forgetting slavery, Jim Crow, et al.) and advocating a nationwide stop and frisk policy. And this is aside from his history of belittling women and others (see Native Americans). Trump’s lifelong pattern tends to indicate these examples are not mere errors or fleeting pandering, but even if they were, the more he encourages prejudice, the less his potentially benign/race-neutral intentions matter. And wouldn’t he enact policy reflecting viewpoints of the demographic that elected him? Even if he takes no race-based action, but continues inflammatory rhetoric, wouldn’t the vitriol in Trump’s increasingly violent society fuel his more ardent followers and detractors (the disenfranchised on both sides of the Trump divide) to violence? If he stops pandering, how much would his previous sentiments paired with his election affect race-relations, foreign relationships, and terrorism recruitment? Americans would have elected a president who unapologetically aired bigoted views because many agree with his statements and/or enough people are ignoring his bigotry for some other issue(s) like tax breaks.
D. Trump and Lack of Integrity. Politicians are not known for their integrity. But Trump ran an alleged Ponzi scheme in Trump University. He has been involved in eminent domain scandals (trying to evict an elderly woman to build a private parking lot). Trump encouraged Russia to hack (possible) national security secrets from Hillary’s email server. He admitted bribing politicians to get his way and he unlawfully gave his charity’s money to an attorney general’s campaign (and hosted a fundraiser for her) when she was deciding not to pursue Trump University; and he hid this unlawful transaction. He donates a small percentage of his alleged wealth to charity and then uses the charity to acquire Tebow merchandise, giant paintings of himself, pay personal and/or corporate expenses and settlements, and fund his businesses (further publicizing his brand and falsely claiming generosity). Trump’s campaign also raises money to pay his businesses. He also claimed money earmarked for 9/11 affected buildings, though his building was unaffected by 9/11. He lies about his wealth, circumstances, history, businesses, charities (including related to veterans), and his false identities. 70% of Trump’s campaign statements are lies or misstatements (far more than any other candidate) and an hour of Trump-speak yielded 70+ misstatements. His lies include: seeing NJ Muslims cheering on TV after 9/11, being vocally against the second Iraq war, retweeting false White supremacist stats, false autism studies, and wild speculation about Ted Cruz’s marriage and Cruz’s father’s involvement with the JFK assassination. Trump has been sued for fraud (and breach of contract) thousands of times, frequently refusing to pay bills as a negotiating tool against people who expected/needed payment (including the USA Freedom Kids). His definitive pronouncements belie contradictory stances. He disingenuously flouts illegal immigrants despite employing illegal immigrants in construction and modeling; and he hypocritically protests a plant’s move to Mexico when all of his (and Ivanka’s companies’) factories are in Mexico, China, et al. Trump blames Hillary for allegations of Bill’s sexual infidelity, whereas Trump famously cheated on his wives (after a sworn accusation of rape by his first wife, which she has since retracted, Trump’s attorney claimed men cannot rape their wives). Aside from immorality, Trump financially supported both parties, changed parties many times, flipped positions rapidly, and he even complimented Hillary’s competence and personality in 2012 before recently denigrating her for political expedience. Trump decided to pursue campaign donations (and use a teleprompter) after disparaging them for months. He demands apologies (or withdrawals) from others for their Trump disparagement, but does not apologize for his false vile statements (e.g. Obama, Clinton, Cruz, Rubio, etc.). He demands Obama’s birth certificate (questions it upon release, and five years later accepts the truth, takes credit for ending his scam, and falsely blames Clinton for the scandal), his VP’s tax records, and Hillary’s health records; and refuses to release his tax records, health records (submitting poorly written letters signed by a specialist without explaining why he sees a gastroenterologist), or other documents. These may reveal governmental fraud, campaign lies, or something sinister like financial support from foreign nations or organized crime. However little integrity Hillary has, Trump has significantly less. Trump’s factual inaccuracy has blunted the press and has exponentially increased the level of dishonesty in politics.
E. Trump and Stupidity. While Trump received unlimited opportunities from his oligarchic father’s guaranteeing massive loans, providing him with wealthy (and governmental) contacts, and vast financial assistance, Donald also may have added wealth. But financial success is a product of seizing opportunities, skills, work, and luck, not transferable intellect. Trump makes up his finances, so his level of success is illusory. Trump led enormous failures from Trump Air, Trump Mortgage, Trump the Board Game, Trump University, and dozens of other failed ventures/bankruptcies. Despite being the candidate of a robust party, his campaign has difficulty raising funds. His convention was highlighted by plagiarism, providing a prime spot to Ted Cruz without securing Cruz’s endorsement, and dire unpatriotic tirades; these range from mismanagement to incompetence. Trump’s acclaim came from firing people on the Apprentice; more recently, he fired two campaign managers in two months for fundraising failures (unrelated to alleged assault) and for involvement in Ukranian (pro-Russian) scandals. These debacles debunk the theory Trump would hire good people. Kasich refused an offer to be Trump’s VP and act as de-facto president, which underscores that many competent people refuse to work with him (and undermines his credibility as a competent leader). In Trump’s campaign, he publicly contradicted sobering advice about letting go of the Khan controversy (debunking that Trump would listen to his advisers.) He is a conspiracy propagandist railing against critical vaccines and hiring a conspiracy theorist (Bannon) to lead his campaign. Trump is ignorant of relevant knowledge and terminology and lacks intellectual curiosity; he repeatedly claimed our GDP was 0 when in it’s over $16 trillion (rather than recognizing Trump’s ignorance of GDP, this was mischaracterized as a misstatement about the change in GDP, which actually grew at 1-2% per quarter), he didn’t know what the nuclear triad is, and Trump had to be told three times why using nuclear weapons is a bad idea - most people would understand after one time. His claim for political judgment is predicated on unproven opposition to the Iraq War II - belied by his own statement of support. His public opposition to the war began only after the war effort faltered, but the media often accepts Trump’s pre-war opposition without question to move on to other topics. Trump uses the language skills, grammar, and vocabulary of a fourth grader. And he has the confidence of a maniacal child, so he does not fathom the limits of his knowledge and would trust himself as an adviser. He doesn’t understand nuance or consequences (secondary, collateral, or long-term). Trump has accumulated as many gaffes as Quayle, Biden, and Palin combined; he spews deplorable vitriol in monosyllabic increments. Despite all of these factors, many assume that Trump’s success indicates he is a mastermind, rather than a good salesman. Intelligence may be an overrated presidential quality, but a lack of understanding could affect judgment and Trump’s ignorance paired with his temperament could be exploited by manipulative leaders. Unlike Trump, Clinton’s intelligence and understanding of relevant issues is evident.
F. Trump and Inexperience. There are potential benefits of an outsider untainted by corruption, stagnancy, and minutia who can reform the system and fix problems caused or exacerbated during the reign of the establishment. But like with any other job, there is greater benefit to have someone with relevant experience. Also, Trump is mired in Washington scandals as an admitted contributor to corruption. While the election of Trump would be a shock, he presents no concrete plans to course correct, improve the process, or eliminate vitriol. The establishment is not a bad word; as opposed to populist movements like Occupy and the Tea Party, it was built on compromise to gather voters with some common ideologies, to try to accomplish mutually agreed upon goals. And the existing system is the product of centuries of those compromises. Despite the inefficiency and corrosion, there are also working relationships and slow, rocky progress. And to the extent people want an outsider who is not tied to the gridlock, voters tend to prefer an outsider with relevant governmental experience (e.g. Reagan wasn’t just an actor - he was a two-term governor). Trump’s lack of experience (highlighted by his rookie gaffes) is particularly jarring in the face of Hillary’s extensive experience as a senator and as Secretary of State. She built an impressive resume with at least 12 years of relevant experience in contradiction to Trump, who is among the least experienced political candidates ever. Trump has all the negative attributes of a politician, and none of the positives like diplomacy or understanding government.
G. Trump and Unpredictability. Trump has no political record besides his erratic statements- making him unpredictable. He prefers unpredictability even stating he might use nuclear weapons in Europe. But it’s not clear what Trump believes; whether he’d be pensive or audaciously bitter; whether he’d compromise or be a bully; whether he’d veer right or left on social issues, isolationist or hawkish on foreign policy issues, or even where he stands on many economic issues. I’d argue that allies prefer steady fortitude, enemies are more concerned with a credible threat than meandering bluster, and markets prefer constancy to the unknown. And perhaps more importantly, we’d like to know who we’re electing. Perhaps there’s a related problem with Hillary because she shifts positions regularly, but with Trump, he wildly shifts moods and positions depending on the color of his hat. Trump shifted from liberal to conservative over the years (gun control, taxing the wealthy, level of religiosity, abortion rights), but if Trump is secretly socially liberal, it virtually guarantees eight years of liberal social policies as it will be difficult for a Republican candidate to oppose Trump in four years. Over the last year, Trump espoused and then backtracked on the following outlandish positions: punishing women for having abortions, encouraging new countries to obtain nuclear weapons, lowering national debt by re-negotiating with creditors or by printing more money, systematic use of torture, retaliating against families of terrorists, demanding military obedience to illegal presidential orders, deporting all illegal immigrants, and registering and/or banning entry of all Muslims. He also publicly asked Russia to hack Hillary’s email server to find what he believed would contain national security secrets, which encouraged a foreign nation to commit cyber-crimes (cyber-war). And after announcing the system is rigged against him, he hinted to gun enthusiasts that there are fatal options to prevent Hillary’s policies. These “rookie gaffes” are more akin to portentous behavior. When many believed Trump would pivot (toward sanity) for the general election, Trump doubled down by choosing an Alt-Right conspiracy theorist as his new campaign manager. Trump may cut off funding to all foreign nations, leading to the erosion of South Korea and/or Israel and he encouraged more nuclear nations, which would make the world far more dangerous and less stable. He may start printing money to pay off the debt and/or start a trade war with China or Mexico, leading to inflation that renders your current salary and savings useless or far less valuable. One of Trump’s only steady positions during the campaign has been a dislike of Hillary Clinton, and even that dramatically changed since 2012 when he said she was a good secretary of state and a terrific person. Maybe his policies are better or worse than we think, but the fact that they are unknown is negative. Whatever you believe, there is a good chance that Trump is NOT with you.
H. Trump and Bullying. Much of Trump’s “politically incorrect” talk is just plain incorrect and much of his “honesty” is Trump being mean to people he doesn’t like. Trump is hateful to individuals who question him such as: John McCain (Trump mocked his military service and belittled his torture), Megyn Kelly (he mocked her mercilessly for days), Rosie O’Donnell (he mocked her for years), and Serge Kovaleski (Trump mocked his handicap). He is hateful to women whom he repeatedly demeans and mistreats, which is in stark contrast to potentially electing the first female president. Trump’s mistreatment of adversaries is particularly egregious in the political sphere. Every challenger was an idiot, a liar, or “Little”. Trump was particularly merciless with his false criticisms of Cruz (attacking Cruz’s wife and father with wild speculation, for which Cruz declined to endorse Trump), Bill and Hillary Clinton (for outlandish speculations of sexual assault and murder and he intimated that an option to avoid her from appointing conservative judges is for gun enthusiasts to kill her), and Obama (whom he accused of being an African born Muslim who founded ISIS and surreptitiously supports terrorism because Obama avoids the term “radical Islam”). This level of discord damages political relationships, but also corrodes the process by setting a terrible precedent for future candidates. When Trump realized that reality show antics amass free media attention (and support), he escalated his practices rather than opting for decorum. Trump’s coarse language precipitated Rubio’s jokes about Trump’s small hands, which led to a debate about Trump’s genitalia (belittling critical discourse). Threatening a political opponent with imprisonment (and execution) is a particularly dangerous precedent that, if it works, will be magnified in the future. And where he is losing, he claims indignation at “rigged” systems designed to stop him. Trump’s tone and attitude is terrible for compromise and encourages divisiveness. While the rift may have been growing between people with opposing viewpoints, electing Trump would be a disturbing escalation towards divergence.
I. Trump and Policies. Trump has no policy history, so we rely on his proposals and statements. He suggested: punishing women for having abortions, encouraging additional countries to obtain nuclear weapons, retaliating against innocent family members of terrorists, the systematic use of torture, punishing the military for not acquiescing to illegal orders, printing money (or renegotiating) to pay off our debts, immediately deporting all illegal immigrants, and various methods of banning or violating the rights of Muslims. While Trump backtracked these illegal, impossible, and/or dangerous views, he stated them (meaning he meant them and/or other people could reasonably believe he meant them). And overreaction is often worse than inaction. His intention to stop providing American protection or aid for the defense of other nations (such as Israel or Saudi Arabia or South Korea) is short-sighted and may have disastrous global consequences. Republicans tend to have pro-Israel policies, but Trump has opted for a neutral position between Israel and the Palestinians. Similarly, Trump is isolating us from our other NATO allies by threatening to abandon delinquent nations. Trump’s proposals to renegotiate trade agreements with protectionist economic policies, coupled with isolationist rhetoric, may lead to damaging trade wars (which historically contributed to starting actual wars) and inflation. In contrast, the bipartisan globalization trend stems from a desire to limit inflation, which devalues our money. (Inflation has been relatively low over the last 30 years.) The Mexican wall will not solve America’s over-stated immigration problem, but will waste $20 billion; it is geographically imprudent, conceived largely on private property, and only a marginal impediment to illegal entry. Similarly, Trump’s grand pronouncements like a deportation force and growing the military are very expensive; and Trump only described vague minimal decreases to the budget. So Trump is not fiscally conservative or responsible as his proposals increase the deficit and the debt. And he demonstrates no coherence on monetary policy. If you’re hoping Trump will opt for conservative social policy, he may not even appoint socially conservative Supreme Court justices (his sister is a pro-choice appellate court judge he admires) and Trump’s views on issues like abortion and gun control were liberal a decade ago. Also note, that Trump’s recent pro-gun policy is especially dangerous in light of his support for a culture of discrimination and violence. For those hoping for a centrist Trump, he preached an end to gun-free zones even at schools (temporarily), called climate change a Chinese hoax, advocated a national stop and frisk policy, and fights against unions and raising the minimum wage. His recent socially conservative stances along with his choice of VP Pence may also inform us on Trump’s current views on issues like abortion and civil rights. While many of Clinton’s policies - from high taxes to weak foreign policy - give cause for serious concern, many of Trump’s initiatives are relatively apocalyptic.
J. Trump and Trump. Trump stated: only Trump can fix our problems, he knows more than the generals, he’s the king of debt, he trusts his brain, he’s the smartest person he knows with the highest IQ, he has the best words, and he’ll be his own adviser. And, he quickly, inappropriately, and incorrectly congratulates himself after major tragedies, whether it’s proclaiming his building is the new tallest downtown tower after 9/11, or being right on the dangers of immigration, refugees, and gun control because a citizen shot his legally procured gun and killed nearly 50 people, or being right on crime, civil rights, and his popularity among Black voters because a famous basketball player’s cousin was killed. Trump obsessively touts his brand (placing his name on things he is vaguely associated with); he supports anyone that perpetuates it and attacks anyone who belittles it. He compliments anyone who compliments him (even if Trump misinterpreted Putin’s benign observation of Trump’s flamboyance as a compliment of brilliance). Foreign leaders can manipulate Trump’s vanity (aside from his anger). As president, Trump will have to serve others and comfort them in times of need or loss, even if they criticize him like the Khan family. Trump lauds his own skills even though many of his businesses are defunct totems to losing, weakness, and incompetence. And Trump derides investors in his failed projects (and whines about the cities where the projects failed), while bragging that he lost less money than those who trusted him. Trump doesn’t apologize. An apology is a useful tool to accomplish a goal or mend a relationship. Perhaps most importantly, President Trump will continue to have his surrogates run his affiliated organizations and his personal interests will not always align with presidential interests. And Trump loves Trump. So, while most politicians are likely ambitious narcissists, Trump’s name, logo, and image draped in gold everywhere make him less like prior presidents and more like a tyrant or Bond villain.
Mark Ellis
I’m sorry for the length of this piece, but bottom line: Trump is much worse than Clinton. While Trump has mercifully been portrayed as a carnival barker or a clown, he is far more dangerous than a circus act. His vitriol based on ethnicity/race/nationality/gender is reprehensible, his vehement anger at political opponents, press, or critics is dangerous, and his level of discourse is poisonous. Before we recoil from one terrible Trump statement, he makes another one avoiding some deserved scrutiny and disdain; and many applaud every moment in which he exceeds constantly diminishing expectations (e.g. a speech without racism/misogyny leads to discussion of a new presidential tone). While I have serious critiques and reservations about Hillary’s judgment, integrity, and fortitude, she is clearly intelligent and has demonstrated over the course of her career, a willingness to work with opponents. Trump has all of her negatives and many more. Even if you’re a single issue voter (or weigh one of the pro-Trump arguments above heavily), I ask you to consider how Trump may not even be on your side on that issue and how his many negatives (moral and intellectual) may lead to an increased risk of nuclear war, conventional war, civil war, race riots, martial law, trade wars, inflation, unemployment, and general rage.
This race obviously has many candidates, but given the low probability of the success of other challengers and the tight polls, the opportunity cost of not voting for Trump’s primary challenger (particularly in a swing state) is great. And the message of the voting margin against Trump should be clear and unequivocal. While I harbor no illusions that Hillary will be a great or good president, I think she’d be far better than Donald Trump. So, I feel a moral imperative to vote against my interests, against many of my formative positions, and against my dislike of Hillary, to support Hillary Clinton for president.