Where are we supposed to draw the line?
If Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination it’s almost certain that he’ll be running against Hillary Clinton. Such a scenario has produced the inevitable lesser of two evils approach to voting. “A third party or protest vote is a vote for Hillary,” they tell us.
So to be fair, Trump voter, I’d like to know where you would draw the line on that approach. Please don’t take this as me trying to be a jerk. I’d really like to know the answer. It’s a serious question.
Let’s assume that Jeb Bush, the face of establishment GOP politics in this campaign, had gotten the votes that Trump has gotten. What if it was Jeb against Hillary, Republican establishment versus Democratic establishment this November? Would you still vote for Jeb just to keep Hillary out?
Perhaps you would not. After all, Jeb represents a lot of what’s wrong with American politics. He’s been in it for too long. His family has disappointed a lot of conservatives. Bush against Clinton would seem a little too much like pro wrestling where two people pretend to hate each other on TV but go out for a nice meal together on the public’s dime when no one is looking.
So what if another political outsider had decided to run for the GOP presidential nomination? Suppose it was someone who is just as flamboyant as Donald Trump. Someone who had experienced success in the real world as well as in the fake world that we like to call reality TV, just like Trump. Someone who leans to the political right but not so much that it turns off the general public. Someone who has quite a few admirers from outside of the world of politics. If, this November, Hillary Clinton ran against the athlete formerly known as Bruce Jenner, would you still vote for the lesser of two evils. Would a third party or protest vote still be a vote for Hillary.
Here’s another question.
If you’ll still vote for a womanizing, Planned Parenthood supporting rich guy who has questionable alliances with the Klan and the mafia just to keep Hillary out of office, where would you then draw the line? What candidate would it take to make you say, “You know what, I can’t figure out which evil is the lesser so I’m voting for Pedro this time”?
Several years ago, those in favor of a limited federal government were told to just hold their nose and vote for John McCain, that cycle’s lesser of two evils.
Four years after that, we were told that the author of his own version of government-funded healthcare who didn’t seem to have that much of a problem with abortion was the lesser of two evils.
And in 2016 we’ve regressed to the point where a loud mouth beauty pageant organizer is supposed to be our selection.
At our current rate, that guy in North Korea who keeps threatening to nuke everything will have a legitimate shot to win the 2020 GOP nomination, just as long he’s smart enough to put (R) behind his name and “tell it like it is.”
There is no reason to believe that Donald Trump will do anything to protect the unborn, protect your Constitutional rights, keep your kids and grandkids out of meaningless wars or let you keep more of your money when it’s time to pay taxes. But hey, he’s not Hillary.
However, there is plenty of reason to believe that Trump will use the office of the presidency for his own personal benefit rather than the good of the country. There is sufficient evidence that his bent toward corruption and big government will take priority over your constitutional rights. If you’re paying close enough attention, that sounds an awful lot like Hillary.
Maybe that’s where the line can be drawn.
Maybe we could finally stop voting for the so-called lesser of two evils if Hillary Clinton somehow managed to rig the election so that she could run against herself in November.
Maybe that’s exactly what we’re seeing happen right now. The male version of Hillary Clinton is running against Hillary Clinton.
So where do you draw the line now?