In the week since my last post, I’ve received a surprising number of emails (by surprising, I mean three) from people saying that while they agree with my assessment of Trump, they just can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary.
The arguments have ranged from “What’s wrong with a protest vote for Gary Johnson?” to “I want to send a message to the Libertarian Party that they could be a legitimate contender if they put up candidates better than Gary Johnson, like maybe Bill Weld” to “I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who should be in jail.”
Let me check. . .yup, that’s three.
My responses:
- Protest vote: I get it. In fact, I cast one in 1992. But that was a year in which neither of the major party candidates was a nut-job who posed an existential threat to the Republic. When there is a lunatic in the race, and this year there is, the protest vote has to wait. Job #1 is to make sure the lunatic doesn’t get elected.
- Send a message to the Libertarians: This is a great idea. And here’s a way to do it without contributing to the election of a nut-job. Just copy the following text into a letter: “Dear Libertarian Party – I would like you to know that I think you could be a serious contender, but only if you nominate better candidates than Gary Johnson. Like maybe Bill Weld.” Print it, sign it and mail it to:
- Belongs in jail: First, in fairness, that should be “might belong in jail.” Innocent until proven guilty, blah, blah, blah.
That said, I get it. Here’s how deep my desire not to vote for Hillary runs. In 2008, living in the most Republican county in Illinois, I pulled a Democratic primary ballot, which meant throwing away the rest of my votes, and voted for Obama because I believed it was the only chance I would ever have to vote against her.
Her judgment has often been weak (see my post on the email server here). Her ethics are fuzzy at best. Colin Powell uses the words “greed” and “hubris” to describe her. Remember – hubris doesn’t mean arrogant. It means “thinks the rules don’t apply to you.” That’s her (and Bill) in a nutshell.
All of that is true. But the choices we have are the choices we have, and like it or not, here they are:
- A career politician with questionable judgment and fuzzy ethics who might actually belong in jail.
- A guy who belongs in an asylum. By “asylum,” I do not mean “what you apply for after you finally make it across the Rio Grande because the gringos haven’t built that wall yet.” I mean the loony bin. If you really don’t think Donald Trump is a nut-job, please go back and read the links in my last post. We’re talking about a man who by all appearances is an ADD-addled narcissistic sociopath with a significant brain defect. A man who has absolutely no interest in facts. A man who lies like a bearskin rug and actually seems not to know he’s lying. A man who is either a sexual predator or is so insecure that at age 60 he felt the need to curry the approval of a 32-year-old entertainment reporter (take your pick, it has to be one of the other). A man who is unnerved and provoked into response by the slightest insult (imagine if the provocations came from the Iranians, or for that matter the French, and the tools of response involved the United States military instead of a smartphone and a Twitter account). A 70-year old who behaves like a six-year-old – whose pattern of behavior will be recognized by anyone who ever encountered a bully on an elementary school playground. Oh, and let’s not forget the long-distance love affair with Vladimir Putin, who is currently running a close second to Kim Jong Un for Most Dangerous Man on Earth.
- A dope-smoking crackpot whose knowledge of world geography ends at Santa Fe, and whose soul seems to be stuck permanently at a Doors concert.
- Jill Stein
I don’t like that list of choices any more than you do. But everything in life is relative, and that’s what we’ve got. Given those options, “belongs in jail” starts to look pretty good, doesn’t it?
It’s going to be OK. Really. Here’s all you need:
Trust me on this. I tried it on Friday and I’m still here.
Carp Diem 
As much as I hate to say this…Dan, you have captured the situation perfectly. Vote for someone who probably will do some things lots of us don’t think are the best things but at least the country will survive as will the world or elect someone who will definitely do insane things that lead to untold problems for not only the US but the world as a whole.
Or throw away your vote totally which means electing one or the other of the two above so you might as well choose the one whose unethical but at least isn’t totally insane. And actually knows a few things about governing.
I am so glad you said this so openly.
I don’t understand why more people haven’t called Trump on his pathological lying. The bar set for him is so much lower than what it should be. And frankly, I also believe the bar for Hillary is set much higher than what it should be.
Let’s face it. To survive in politics, you have to be at least a little bit morally compromised. It’s just a question of which poison you prefer.
My vote always goes to the candidate who has a stronger understanding of macroeconomics. Specifically how government policy (truly, not ideologically) impacts the success of the economy. From that vantage point, Hillary scores pretty high. Trump is clueless as to how international trade REALLY works on a macroeconomic scale. To me, that is petrifying.
Dan,what you said is both factually correct and existentially mandatory. I’ve been beating this drum for a while – a vote for anyone other than Clinton is essentially a vote for Trump because it’s one less vote he doesn’t have to overcome. And because your message is so smart and compelling, I’ve included a link to your post in my upcoming post on November 6 at http://jaxpolitix.com/?p=7771. You’re an internet star!