I just read an article posted by a family member whose basic thesis was that, because both major party presidential candidates are irreparably morally flawed, the only choice a principled Christian (politically) conservative voter can make is to hold their nose and vote for Trump, because he is the only major party candidate with a slight chance of enacting the type of policies important to such a voter.
Often times in American presidential cycles, the two candidates who rise to the top of the major party primaries are viewed in this same "lesser of two evils" light (though arguably this year is exponentially more stark). And normally, I'd agree with the general thesis of this article. You disagree on a fundamental level with personal attributes and histories of the candidate, so you choose to focus on their expressed policy statements. It makes a lot of sense. The policies are what is supposed to be important anyways, so just forget all the political noise and personal chaff and vote based upon record and policy-focused statements.
In any other election cycle, I would have zero qualm with that thesis. I've done it myself in the past. You almost never get a perfect candidate. So you can either focus on the personality and personal history stuff, or you can focus on the professed policy platforms of the candidate and ignore the rest of the noise. Many would argue that the latter is the better way to go as an informed, educated voter. And normally, I wouldn't say anything to the contrary.
But there is something fundamentally different about this year, about this choice.
There is a very false equivalency being raised in both the article that spurred this post and in much of the media narrative around this race.
Donald Trump is an incredibly flawed candidate and so is Hillary Clinton. You could even make a list of the personal flaws of these candidates and these lists may be in the same ballpark in length. So why not just chalk up the whole thing as a draw and focus elsewhere, right?
But there are two major flaws that Donald Trump has that Hillary does not. And these two major flaws cannot be compared in any logical way with any of the many perceived flaws of Hillary Clinton.
First, Donald Trump is not just clueless but dangerously, willfully ignorant on policy.
Take for instance, Trump on nuclear weapons policy. During the NBC Presidential Forum hosted by Matt Lauer on NBC last month, Donald Trump had no clue what the "nuclear triad" (air, land, and sea nuclear weapons) was. Now, neither did I, but I'm not running to be the person with exclusive control over America's nuclear weapons. Donald Trump is. And, okay, the dude might have just been caught off guard and hadn't been paying that much attention to the basic of America's nuclear weapon system. That happens. And if Trump's cluelessness on nuclear weapons policy was only evidenced by this forum, I would just chalk it up to a momentary lapse. But at the first Presidential Debate, the basics of America's nuclear weapons policy came up again. This time, Trump was asked if he would continue to support the American "first use" policy (meaning America is willing to use a nuclear weapon offensively, as we've done in the past). In response, Trump initially said he would not use a nuclear weapon first, and then literally within the same sentence said that he would never take anything off the table. That one sentence is fundamentally contradictory, telling me that Trump still has zero idea what the very basics of America's nuclear weapons system entails. And Donald Trump has not shown himself to be the type of person who actually cares to do the homework and figure out those basics.
I was recently listening to the Vox podcst, "The Weeds," and they were talking about Trump's apparent unwillingness to even try to be prepared. They were talking about how, throughout history, there have been plenty of presidential candidates who didn't come into the race with a complete understanding of the basic functions of all the different policy areas on which they may be asked to address as either a presidential candidate or, potentially, as President. But, historically, candidates who have done well, who have gone on to be major party nominees and then Presidents have always shown a willingness to do the homework, to become educated about a subject that comes up.
Take, for instance, President Obama and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. When he took office, Barack Obama didn't know much of anything about deep water drilling or capping a leaking oil rig. But when the 2010 oil rig explosion and subsequent spill happened off the coast of Louisiana, Obama gathered people together who were knowledgeable and figured out the basics of the issue. He then was capable of making a policy decision about what to do. But before Obama could make any decisions about what to do in the aftermath of an issue for which he had no preparation, he had to do the work and understand the basics of that issue. You or I may not fully agree with what he chose to do in the aftermath of that spill. But we can know with certainty that he was making an informed decision. How can we know this? Because when then-Senator Obama showed his lack of knowledge on issues during the 2008 primary, when the same issues were brought up later, he had a much more well informed answer. To me, one of Trump's unforgivable flaws is that he either refuses to or does not know how to become better informed on issues fundamental to the role of President of the United States.
We don't know what issues will face America from 2017-2020. We can pretty much guarantee that there will be some completely non-partisan crisis that will arise (e.g. terrorist attack or natural disaster) that will require the President to make some decisions and show leadership. In these instances, partisan policies don't matter very much, if at all. What matters is that the President is capable of educating his/herself on the basics of the issue presented before moving forward. Donald Trump has shown himself over and over again to be the type of person who can bluster on for literally hours on end without a single accurate substantive statement about how the topic on which he is blustering fundamentally operates.
In politics at large, but especially at the Presidential level, we have become so used to the candidates already knowing the basics that we only ask the candidates about their positions at the contested policy level. But there is a whole system of knowledge that goes into making those policy evaluations. Think of it like a tree. The policy differences are the leaves that you see. But those tree leaves do not exist on their own. For instance, different health care propositions (the leaves) grow out of a vast root system that is a basic understanding of how private insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, hospital billing practices, current regulations, and a whole host of other health care related things all work.
If a president doesn't have any current understanding of or willingness to understand those root systems, they cannot be trusted to pick the right contested policy choices. While someone behind the scenes at the Trump campaign may have filled in Trump's policy platform with policy leaves that look to be in line with a traditional Republican bloc of voters, Trump himself has no knowledge about the basics of the policies themselves. When asked by Chris Matthews during the primaries if he supported the punishment of women who have abortions, Trump said "yes," even though that has never been the stance of Pro-Life individuals, and he later back-tracked saying he didn't mean that at all.
So if you think that there's some chance Trump will actually enact policies in line with your beliefs, you need to also realize that whatever he enacts will almost certainly be bastardizations of the true policy ideas you hold. It will be whatever Donald Trump can spin off the top of his head based upon what he thinks the policy's name means. He can't be trusted to do the work and figure out the basics of some new domestic or international challenge that arises during his potential presidency. He'll react on gut instinct and then bluster on as if he actually understands anything that he's talking about, even though, through his bluster, it becomes painfully obvious that he doesn't.
And that brings me to the second fundamental flaw in a Trump presidency: Donald Trump's narcissistic and retaliatory temperament is too big of a risk when it comes to foreign policy.
While Trump's egotistical belief that he can single-handedly transform entire industries and his tendency to retaliate at the smallest personal slights can be fairly easily tempered or even reversed on the domestic side by the checks and balances known as the legislative and judicial branches, there is no build in check on executive diplomatic power. And a Trump presidency would very likely have disastrous international effect.
Theoretically, if Trump were to unilaterally take America into a pointless personal war, Congress could potentially refuse to fund the conflict. But if Trump's actions or temperament lead another nation or non-state actor to attack the U.S., no Congress would deny funding for a defensive war.
Trump fawns over compliments from the former-KGB operative and current President of Russia. His ego cannot stand the idea of attacking someone who complements him, and Vladimir Putin knows it. You better believe that Putin would play President Trump like a fiddle, which would then give Russia a free pass to continue their acts of aggression and even annexation of sovereign former-Soviet bloc nations.
Foreign policy is the one area the President of the United States has nearly unchecked power. And not only does Donald Trump not understand the players or the issues, but he would allow his foreign policy to be guided by his own ego. If a country sucks up to him or complements him personally, Trump will change his stance towards that country. Trump has openly said that he would not stop North Korea's dictator, Kim Jung Un, from visiting the United States (drawing an arbitrary line at hosting a state dinner for some reason). Conceivably, Kim Jung Un could stroke Trump's ego just the right amount for Trump to lift sanctions on North Korea, enable their further nuclear development, or even just in any way legitimize the brutal dictatorship in the international arena.
Conversely, what if Trump plays with fire by engaging with a dictator who strokes his ego just right, only to become offended when the ego-stroking ends. Or what if the head of government for a stalwart ally like Great Britain, France, or Germany refuses to play to Trump's ego, insults him, or criticizes him? It's not too far fetched to imagine that normal diplomatic relations with our closest allies would become strained, if not irreparably damaged, under a Trump administration. And there's nothing that Congress or the Courts could do about it.
So why are these two Trump flaws so much different from the character flaws and policy disagreements of Hillary Clinton? Because these two areas are both fundamental to the role of President of the United States and cannot be mitigated through legislative or judicial checks and balances. You disagree with Hillary's views on abortion issues? Make sure the Senate is strongly Republican so she can't nominate anyone pro-choice to the bench. Don't want her to enact immigration or tax reform? Again, elect a Republican legislature to check her ability to do anything.
There are so many ways to curb a President's effectiveness on the vast majority of contested, partisan issues in a Presidential race. Especially on domestic issues, a President can almost never act apart from Congress. So having a President who agrees with you more than disagrees with you on the big domestic policy issues is not nearly as important as we make it out to be. Or at least it doesn't have to be if you split your ticket (i.e. vote for one party for the presidency and the other down ballot).
But when being a President really matters, when a President's power cannot be curbed or balanced or changed, is when the unexpected happens, the stuff a President can't plan for but on which they need to be able to get up to speed relatively quickly. That's where a President has the opportunity to save lives, comfort a hurting nation, and curb mass anxiety. Is Donald Trump capable of that type of empathy? Can he be trusted to make thoughtful, rational choices in the aftermath of some disaster? Can Donald Trump be trusted to delve into a briefing binder on some unexpected national crisis and come out an hour later having gleaned enough to even ask the right questions of his advisers? If Trump himself won't do any of the reading, does he know enough to get the right people to explain things to him? Donald Trump fired his campaign policy staff three campaign shake-ups ago and hasn't bothered to hire anyone else. Would a President Trump react to a 9/11 or a Deepwater Horizon oil spill or a Hurricane Katrina based solely on his gut reactions?
If the Army Corps of Engineers had sat down with a President Trump in the days before or after Katrina, would Trump have even listened? President Bush's response to Katrina was disastrous enough. I can't even imagine what a President Trump's response would've looked like. What about to 9/11? Would a President Trump have had the grace and courage and integrity of George W. Bush to remind the nation that this wasn't a religion that attacked us? That there is no reason for mass fear of all American Muslims? Or would a President Trump falsely claim that he saw Muslims celebrating on the White House lawn?
The Presidency of the United States is about more than just checking off a list of issue agreements versus disagreements. It matters in huge ways that cannot be measured through an evaluation of policy platforms. And normally, the individuals who get close to that office, the people who win major party nominations, without a doubt have those qualities needed to maintain international relations and manage unexpected crises. No matter our policy disagreements with them, Al Gore, John Kerry, George W. Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney all had these nonpartisan qualities essential to the role of President of the United States.
Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump does? Would you trust him to comfort the nation and represent it abroad?
This is an argument about the realities of the Presidency, not about the "moral" questions regarding particular partisan political arguments. But this is also a moral argument. I cannot help but feel that it would be not just civically irresponsible but morally bankrupt to allow someone totally unequipped for the real and important role of President of the United States to win this election simply because that person has recently claimed that they agree with you on more partisan political issues than their opponent. That's saying that you care more about the outward signs of compliance with your own belief system, no matter how obviously contrived those outward signs are, than you do about the welfare and future of the nation as a whole.
