It’s Not Trump They Hate—It’s Us!

A storm gathers over the United States, threatening to inundate the very foundations of our civic edifice. In the heat of recriminations over the events of Charlottesville it would be easy to divert attention from this underlying reality. But the dangers are so grave that no effort should be spared in seeking to identify it and to respond to it.

It is immaterial what President Trump thinks about the extreme Right or the extreme Left, for the simple reason that the campaign to resist Trump calculates really to accomplish the fall of something far more important than a president. We will understand this best if we revisit the months since last November’s election in a clearer light. For on the morning after the election everyone faced (whether acknowledged or not) the question of how to respond to that dramatic expression of public hopes.

The looming question was not whether to support President Trump. It was rather whether to vindicate the people of the United States in their conduct in this election. This question was important not only for those who opposed candidate Trump but also for those who supported him. As one of the former, I was acutely aware of the importance of the moment. Indeed, I may go further and acknowledge that I became a “Never Trumper” before the escalator reached the ground on the day Trump announced his candidacy.

So resolved was I in my principles that, in response to those who challenged me with the prospect that I had to choose between Trump and the Devil, I replied deliberately that I had rather see my country fail than sacrifice my settled understanding of what the public good required. Accordingly, the election of Donald Trump presented me with the opportunity to measure the extent of the principles I had embraced. While it may be enticing to imagine that a country, no less than an individual, ought to prefer noble failure to base success, it is nonetheless matter of grave practical significance just what obligations would flow in one or the other circumstance.

I did not hesitate to greet the outcome of the election as the authentic expression of the hopes of the people of the United States. Accordingly, I had no need to reconsider my long-standing commitment to defend the people’s authority in this regard, no matter whether I thought they erroneously sought the fulfillment of those hopes in any particular person or measure. In embracing the necessity to defend the expression of the people’s hopes, I understood that I must be obligated to defend the authority of the incumbent in the presidency without regard to any predilections I may have had in that regard.

As a result, I have never been embarrassed by the “how can you defend that man” attitude that prevails in the sustained media narrative. Nor am I embarrassed by that attitude in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville. How much easier it is to adhere to the standards I recognize as binding in a case in which it may easily be seen that President Trump is quite correct in seeking to formulate a response that candidly acknowledges deep fissures in the society while resisting the desire to elevate “naming and shaming” into the official posture of the government. However important it is for individuals to adhere to “naming and shaming” as a necessary tool to sustain civilized relations (and I have previously written emphatically in support of that perspective), that responsibility cannot be assigned to any public office without fatally impairing its social utility in the hands of the people.

The truth, however, is that on this occasion the president is correct and his critics are wrong. They are wrong, partly, from misperceiving the character of the moment. And they are wrong partly from deliberately manipulating hatred of the president toward the surreptitious goal of defeating the public hopes expressed in the election. This is the crux of the matter. The extreme Left is unhappy with the people of the United States, and it is not too extreme to suggest that they hate them insofar as they regard them as differing in their hopes and ambitions from the future the extreme Left would project for such “deplorables.”

One can grasp this at least imaginatively if one will simply rehearse the events of the weekend of August 11-13, 2017 as they actually unfolded. Responding to a symbolically significant public action to remove statutes from a public park and to rename the park in honor of the slaves freed by the Civil War, white nationalists prepared and announced a protest. They intended that the city and the nation would behold them expressing resistance to the notion that society in the United States might close the book on the affectation that the defenders of slavery were defending honor and decency. They laid claim to the protections of the First amendment to the Constitution and to the lawful processes of licensing and permitting to stage this public demonstration. They expected a confrontation and came equipped to engage in one, including arms. They expected also, however, the protection of public authorities, whose duty it was to prevent confrontation turning into conflict.

At the same time, leftist organizers planned to assemble and protest the protesters, laying claim to the protections of the First Amendment no less confidently. They too expected a confrontation and came equipped to engage in one. Their goal was to speak not only to the municipality but the entire nation in an act of “naming and shaming.”

And the confrontation and the conflict came. Long before the murder, the scene had become one of ugly confrontation, superintended but not prevented by the local and state police.

So far, so good. There was a third party to this drama, however, and that consisted of the state and municipal authorities who were fully informed of and prepared for the looming confrontation. They had the responsibility to ensure that confrontation would not descend into conflict. The usual method of accomplishing this result is to maintain effective separation between the protesting groups. In this the authorities failed miserably. But why did they fail? Were there efforts inadequate? Or, did they not make the effort at all?

align=”right” the game here is to disorient the society, repudiate the people’s express hopes, and pave the way for a United States disconnected from the people’s legitimate authority. It is not Trump that they hate; it is us!

We begin to comprehend the dynamics of that eventful weekend when we admit one other dramatic fact that stares us in the face: two groups mutually antagonistic and well prepared with weapons to do harm to one another engaged, with violent conflict resulting but without a single weapon being fired! This singular restraint teaches a great deal about what actually transpired. Despite the wild card of a single individual flying off the leash and driving a car into a crowd with murderous effect, the overall demonstrations were colored by a determination not to proceed to extreme conduct. And this determination acted so powerfully that, even while authorities (by shrinking from preventing direct conflict) invited them to do their worst, they nevertheless did not do so. The calculation on both sides, apparently, was that it was sufficient on this occasion to garner propaganda material.

This recitation makes it unnecessary to inquire who threw the first punch. And so the president did not do so. That he became the target of reproach, then, rather than the negligent (or culpable) local and state officials, speaks volumes. Anyone might credibly imagine that responsible authorities were in on the plan to exploit this occasion in order to advance an agenda that, while blaming racism, would actually serve to undermine the credibility of the public voice expressed in the election. The drumbeat for “naming and shaming” that has followed since only amplifies this appearance. And the local and state authorities have been among the loudest declaimers!

We do not need to search for previous comparisons in order to evaluate the present circumstance. We need only pay attention to the NPR or other media focus to observe the complete absence of any attention to the question of who was responsible for allowing matters to get out of control and the correlatively intense focus on what the president’s reaction says about the nation. Then we may clearly apprehend that the game here is to disorient the society, repudiate the people’s express hopes, and pave the way for a United States disconnected from the people’s legitimate authority. It is not Trump that they hate; it is us!


About William B. Allen

W. B. Allen is Emeritus Professor of Political Philosophy at Michigan State University and a pastor at First Baptist Church in Havre de Grace, Maryland.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

66 responses to “It’s Not Trump They Hate—It’s Us!”

  1. “It is not Trump that they hate; it is us”. That pretty much sums it all up right now.

    • Many on the Left have already indicated that they would happily eliminate those of us who voted for Trump, that alone should tell you just how much they hate us.

  2. Your a rasist bigget llamaphobe! In 2020 Trump will LOOSE and Clinton will win by a lanslide! PERSIST & RESIST!

    • Had an extra helping of Roossian salad dressing, haven’t you.

      • I am not helping the roosians (one s dummy) you are!

      • Ahhhhh, so it was a triple-serving of Roossian salad dressing.

      • Yeah but they have horrible table manners…AND, they have NEVER taken a stand against racism! I don’t think we have any choice to hate llamas!

      • If Trump looses llamas on America, that will be bad. But fear not, old Mrs. Clinton won’t win by a lanslide, she’ll try to win by an unsecured lan server!

    • The word is “lose” and may Clinton go gently into that good night.

  3. Well said. The permits granted to the ‘counter-demonstrators’ (including BlackMask fascists) were for two *different* locations. However, they immediately violated their permit, moved their ‘demonstration’ to the *same* location as the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstration. However, instead of declaring the ‘counter-demonstrators’ assembly unlawful as soon as they violated their permits, the authorities declared the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstration ‘unlawful’ (likely an illegal act). After the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstrators followed the order to disperse, authorities not only guided them *toward* the ‘counter-demonstrators’ but also failed to disperse the ‘counter-demonstrators’ who continued to ‘demonstrate’ for hours after the ‘Unite the Right’ demonstrators had left the area. The sheer *uneven* use of authority in this case *clearly* suggests that the ‘content’ of one group of demonstrators was the determining factor in how the authorities treated each group. Hopefully, Sessions’ DOJ will show more spine in pursuing the authorities (and BlackMask fascists) who were involved in this violation of civil rights than he has in the ‘Russian collusion’ debacle.

    • Some advice, sugar:
      Use these instead of asterisks to highlight your text. They are so much less distracting, and you even have a choice of different styles depending on if you want a little emphasis or a lot.
      I agree with your comment. I think that this incident has revealed a great deal about where the weaknesses in the American system lie, and it isn’t with Trump. Unfortunately, I think it’s probably a lost cause to expect the Republicans to grow a spine.

      • TY for the help.disqus link html tags . Just have to get some sleep to learn how to use them :)

      • I stop trying working hard at shopritte and nowadays I am generating $75-$97 each and every hour. How? I am only working over the internet! My employment did not actually make me delighted hence I made the decision to take a chance on something new…after four years it wasn’t simple to drop out my day job however right now I couldn’t be more satisfied.???Read more here.

  4. Interesting article if a bit of a sanitization of what really happened. If you view the interviews of the white nationalists and white supremacists like David Duke (who claimed they were there to “make sure” that Trump’s promises were carried out and Christopher Cantwell who said “we will fucking kill them if we have to” you will see that there is no moral equivalence between the two groups of protesters. Also, it was Donald Trump that promoted violence and racism during his campaigns which made the neo-Nazis and and other white supremacists feel like they had his endorsement to take “their” country back. It is the duty of every American to oppose white nationalists and white supremacists wherever and whenever they are encountered.

    • No, it is the duty of every American to oppose fascist thugs like “Antifa”.

  5. “It’s Not Trump They Hate—It’s Us!”

    Wrong, it’s not “hate” at all, it’s just an extra-strong covfefe fit, undoubtably fueled by an extra helping of Roossian salad dressing!!!

  6. Fortunately the media’s misrepresentations are completely transparent. This is not going to play well with the American voting public. On to 2018!

  7. As usual the dem comments are about their own hate and being pissed about losing! Sucks to be you, dem party of hate – spawned the KKK will lose big in 2018 MAGA 8 years!

  8. This site will not let you post if your comment does not fit the narrative…. sad

    • No one is saying there is moral equivalence between Nazi’s & Trump Protesters. They are saying, Trump is saying, there is moral equivalence between people who initiate and perpetrate unwarranted & unprovoked violence; he is saying there is or can be a moral equivalence between violent radicals who hurt people — doesn’t matter what flag they choose to fly or what they shout as they beat you with a club. They’re both equally detestable.

      Neither is anyone even suggesting that the beliefs of a Nazi are the same as the beliefs of someone who chooses to protest Trump as President. Clearly they are not. But equally we can say there is a rather creepy equivalence between an avowed Nazi who calls for the death of Obama (we can probably safely say such a thing was expressed during Obama’s tenure) and, let’s say, a Missouri State Senator who calls for the assassination of Trump.

      You say Trump has lost the moral authority to lead the country because he “co-opted (White Supremacists) to win an election… But let us examine that contention against what we realistically know. The number of far right extremists (avowed Nazi’s, KKK’ers, Aryan Nation types) is measured in the thousands. SPLC estimates that the Klan (probably the largest of these fringe groups) contains anywhere from 5000-8000 members. Do you really think that this tiny contingent of racists & fascists swung an election in which almost 58M people voted? Do you really believe that such a minuscule contingent (let’s say in total there are 20K of them…which seems way high, given what we know, but what the heck) which comprised only .03% of the electorate (assuming all of them voted — which seems a highly unlikely assumption) was able to impact a national outcome??

      But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re right (as extremely unlikely as that arithmetical conclusion would be). Let’s say it’s just not right that any candidate take advantage of votes from horribly biased idiots. What about all the fringe left-wing types (the Communists, the Socialists, the Anarchists, etc…. the ones who throw bricks, burn buildings, kill police, (chant “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon!”)? Does that make Hillary’s vote count equally suspect? Would you say she “co-opted” the votes of anti-Americans to contend for the Presidency? The truth is every candidate takes advantage of every vote…. and they do not care if the individual who provided that vote is an idiot or not. They count it as a vote and are glad to do so (even when they turn around and condemn or reject the type of idiocy that individual may represent).

      As for “letting the fascist ideas back into society” — they’re here already. They were here before the War; they’re still here; they will be with us forever. And that is, in reality, a very good thing. It tells us that here, in the United States, it’s not illegal to have an idea. It’s not illegal to believe what you want to believe (as nutty as that may be). You can be as much of a fool as you want to be — as long as you don’t perform illegal acts — and no one will care. You (all of us) as an American citizen have that right.

      And finally, as far as condemning Self-Professed Idiots (be they the Klan, the Weathermen, the BLM’ers who are anti-police (chanting in Charlottesville, “No cops, no KKK, no fascist USA:) — Trump did that. He said, “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,”

      • “No one is saying there is moral equivalence between Nazi’s & Trump Protesters.”

        If you think that, then you haven’t been listening. Those who call themselves Antifa are replicas of Nazi blackshirt thugs.

    • The farther you get from individual rights and an economy unfettered by government the more fascism you have. The Democrat party is the repository of fascism here in the United States.

    • I can’t remember Obama calling out bigotry within his own supporters.
      Rather, Obama promoted it. And no, I’m not falling for your lame Leftist
      attempt to pretend that you never called “Bush or McCain” Hitler or
      shunned any of your Leftist comrades who did.

      Repent your sins, tonyclifton69, and accept Trump as your penance for your past misdeeds.

  9. What baloney, why is the right wing so insecure? No one hates you, hate is an exaggerated word even. What those who believe in the American dream put forth in our preamble is a refusal to accept racism and intolerance. Robert E Lee should have been tried as a traitor and not glorified given how cruel he was to his slaves and the fact he wanted to destroy the United States over owning people. Slavery may be part of our heritage, but secession is not. Sad that this is even argued.

    • You are unfamiliar, evidently, with both American history and the Constitution.

      No, the “preamble” is not a “refusal to accept racism and intolerance”. The preamble actually says very little which is, here, pertinent; rather it speaks to promoting the General Welfare and Securing the blessings of Liberty. Now the Declaration sets forth the “self-evident truths” which form the foundation for our government, among them that all men are created equal….but neither it nor the Constitution “refuses to accept racism and intolerance”.

      We might look to the Constitutional Amendments, of course. There we would find the fundamental right to free speech (which implicitly requires free thought), freedom of assembly, freedom of religion. Further down we’d find the abolition of slavery and the establishment of voting rights (and associated restrictions). But again, there is nothing which says the United States refuses to accept racism and intolerance.

      Even the Civil Rights Acts speak only to behavioral discrimination for or against someone because of their race, creed, color, etc. (outlawing same).

      So nowhere do you find any Federal effort which “refuses to accept racism, hatred, or intolerance” as a form of human thought & feeling…rather you find only those things put in place to prevent its active exercise in the state or economic market. We can go further, though & say that, in fact, the guaranteed right to freedom pretty much guarantees that we all have the right to love & hate whom & what we wish to love or hate for whatever reason we choose to hate (rational or irrational, reasonable or incredibly biased). That is one of the great things about America — we are free to think & act as we see fit (save as those actions are specifically constrained by law).

      As for Lee being tried as a traitor… you misunderstand completely the nature of the Civil War and specifically how the Union sought to end that war. Certainly we could have imposed the same kind of post-war burdens upon the South as we did to the Nazis and the Japanese. We could have forbidden any and all depictions of Confederate heroes; we could have buried the traitorous dead in unmarked graves, their names forgotten. We could have consigned what the Confederacy wrought into the dustbins of history — refused & rejected any and every attempt to recognize or memorialize the fallen.

      But we didn’t. We dealt with the South, the defeated, those who killed over 365K of us not as enemies but rather as brothers, who used to be lost but now are found. We (despite all the difficulties & pain & suffering associated with Reconstruction) welcomed them back to the Union; we recognized them as Americans. And so we allowed, even encouraged our former enemies who had been traitors, to sing their songs, to memorialize their dead, to recognize their heroes. We recognized, as Lincoln himself noted, ““They [the slaveholders] are just what we would be in their situation.” As he said during his 2nd Inaugural Address just weeks before his own death & the War’s end, speaking of the Confederacy and the Union…. “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged.”

      I commend to you his closing words: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

      So from that massive, bloody effort arose in their own time & place memorials and recognitions which we, the victors, accepted and even ourselves embraced. These memorials are not and were not a celebration of traitors or an endorsement of slavery, rather they stand (then & now) as a symbolic recognition of our national Union, of forgiveness, of charity, and the sacred sacrifice of the dead.

      If those whose fathers, sons, and brothers were killed by Lee’s armies were able in their pain to accept this symbolic recognition when the wounds of that conflict still bled, surely we can & should do the same today?

  10. Wow. That was beautifully stated. It’s a shame that such men of integrity, intelligence, and grace are so few in number nowadays.

  11. Good piece, full of truth. I also opposed Trump when the campaign began, supporting Rubio first, and when he faltered, Ted Cruz. Ultimately, I voted for Mr. Trump, since a vote for Hillary would have been just about the most irresponsible thing I ever did. I love my country far too much to have done that.
    Since then, I have been impressed with Mr. Trump’s actions, if not so much his behavior. But more than that, the hatred directed at him by the Democrats, the media, the universities, and the far left have made me a powerful Trump supporter. The more they hate him, as you said Mr. Allen, the more they hate us, and that makes me support him all the more.
    I have many friends who feel exactly the same way. I think the gross irresponsibility of the media is making President Trump stronger, not weaker.

    • I agree with everything you said, except that my path was Scott Walker, then Cruz, and I did not vote for Trump (I will never know whether I would have if I hadn’t lived in a state where my vote didn’t matter anyway).

      • Except that it did matter. Too much of your course of action allowed the Left to claim that Hildebeeste “won the popular vote”. Add to that the absolute refusal of Left dominated areas of the country to investigate even well proven examples of organized voter fraud such as this one, and you provided all the “justification” antifas and “alt-right” needed to proclaim the law a weak reed.

      • Well, yes, they’ve TRIED to claim that, but every time one of them has tried it, I’ve pointed out to them very bluntly that if we had been using a popular vote system mine would have gone in the Trump column.

        (I have no idea whether I actually would have, but it gets the point across)

      • I live in California, where my vote did matter either, but I voted for Trump anyway. I hope others will do so, no matter where they live.

      • I, too, live in California. I, too, voted for Trump, even if I knew my vote wouldn’t count.

  12. There is one thing in Mr. Allen’s article that needs to be disputed – James Alex Fields Jr has been accused of second degree murder but has yet to be convicted. Using the term “murder” does not do well for those who use it. Only one person knows what was in his mind and that has yet to be revealed – and won’t be until the matter goes to court. Bear in mind that there is a photograph that has gone virile that shows plainly that his foot was on the brakes when he went into the protestors milling around in the intersection. Incidentally, that particular march was illegal and those who participated had no permit. I’ve seen video of it from start to finish and there’s not a police officer in sight, no barricades had been erected and they were blocking cars trying to proceed along 4th Street. Incidentally, that group was marching under the black flag of Antifa and the red flag of a communist workers group.

  13. The GOP and your fellow NeverTrumpers are just as involved in bringing down Trump and thwarting electorate.

  14. The left is in desperate need of an effective white supremacist force in american politics and culture. Most sensible people know that the KKK and Nazi movements fell into the dustbin of history long ago. This pathetic state was acceptable as long as funds could be raised and reliable votes garnered based simply on accusing Republicans and Conservatives of racism. Since it’s obvious enough Americans don’t believe there are any Nazis, to maintain the gambit (see Trump’s election) they need a bigger more relevant boogeyman. Not finding one they have to build the old decrepit one up again.

  15. Professor Allen: Thank you for your clarity and your honesty. We seem to be living in a time
    where naked partisanship has become the norm. Your honesty gives one hope. May The Good Lord bless you and
    your family with health, happiness and long life.

    • Naked partisanship is not the norm; if it were, clashes like Charlottesville would have happened every time a university’s officials and/or students shut down or denied a speaker’s right to be heard, to name just one obvious example.

      Those who expected to win the last election are simply not prepared to concede defeat. Period. If the entire nation were as partisan – as willing to swing bike locks – as this small group, and the equally small or smaller group ready and willing to be partisan “right back atcha”, we’d be having a civil war right now.

      • You are experiencing what is called a “cold” civil war. It’s been 160 years since we’ve had a “hot” civil war but it seems like we are moving slowly in that direction.

      • Unfortunately, I think you are correct.

        Trump was correct to condemn violence from both sides in Charlottesville. For the most part, the mainstream media refuses to report that there were violent Antifa/Anarchist/BLM agitators in Charlottesville that were the other side of the voilence. The white supremacists weren’t fighting with themselves or peaceful counter-protestors.

        If the mainstream media continues to incite hostilities by severely biased reporting, the United States will slowly march into a “hot” civil war.

  16. Indeed, they do hate us, and they also feel empowered by that hate to throw rocks and bricks to kill us.

    Which is why more and more of us go out armed, and prepared to send a .380 toward anyone throwing harmful things at us.

    It is not that the war is coming. It’s already here.

  17. Pastor Allen nailed it. By not keeping the two groups apart, in spite of the lesson of prior mash-ups between the two groups elsewhere, the local authorities absolutely must have been planning to use the event to attack PDT.

    That said, to have refrained from shooting the Antifa protesters when they were hurling cement filled soda cans was notable.

  18. When you say extreme left and extreme right you need to be more clear and explain that this is on the scale of socialism, not all politics. The extreme right (alt right) want strong central government with controls over people, business, borders, and national identity. The extreme left (alt left) buy fully into the global open society communistic order of the world with weak nation states only to provide healthcare, welfare, and social justice. Both side hate freedom!

    • Strong national government vs. strong world government. Got it.
      IOW, what went down in Charlottesville was a battle between two
      quarrelling factions of Strong Government Socialists.

      • Kind of a reminder that Nazis were NATIONAL socialists and Communists were INTERNATIONAL socialists.

        Nothing has changed. Except that they are here now.

  19. Regarding the attitude of The Left, they remind me of Hitler in is bunker as the Red Army approached and he knew he was kaput, that he gave orders that Germany be utterly destroyed. Hitler actually had the Hoden to say that the German people had let him down and therefore they didn’t deserve to live. And so The Left will try to destroy America if America doesn’t accept the Marxist program.

  20. Well, it’s about time you start getting what’s happening.

  21. I have a question for Professor Allen (or any reasonably similar person).

    There’s little likelihood, I suppose, that William B. Allen will reply to this question, but I wish that he, or someone with a perspective similar to his, would do so.

    Here is my question:

    Why is it that some persons who…
    (a.) thought Donald Trump was bad president material, but
    (b.) thought Hillary Clinton was even worse,
    …didn’t go ahead and vote for the lesser of two evils (in this case, Trump), as a way of strategically denying the office to Hillary?

    I’m asking, why did anyone who held Trump bad, but Hillary worse, follow the (to me, inexplicable) path of either not voting, or voting for some third person who had no chance to win?

    This path doesn’t make sense to me. (I think of most elections as “I am voting for the lesser of two evils.” For me, thie 2016 Presidential race was another instance of that.) But the “throwaway protest vote” decision seems to make sense to some persons, including apparently rational, sensible ones.

    So I’d like one of them to explain it to me.

    NOTE: For the purposes of this question, I am going to pretend that the president is elected by a competitive nationwide popular vote, since that is how most folk (including, I believe, most of the Never Trump conservatives) think about it.

    Yes, of course I know that’s not how it actually works. I understand and support the Electoral College system. But in order to “get at” the thing I don’t understand, I have to stipulate this caveat, because I suspect that some non-Trump conservatives voted for McMullin (or whomever) because they thought, “Well, my vote wasn’t going to matter anyway since I live in a Deep Blue state, so I felt free to make a protest vote against an awful GOP candidate, instead of voting strategically to block the worse of two calamities.” I understand that approach. In a Deep Blue state with a winner-take-all Electoral College vote, I myself might operate according to the same logic.

    But that kind of reasoning distracts from the whole point of my question. So, please, if you’re a Blue State conservative voter who thought Hillary was worse than Trump but voted for someone-other-than-Trump purely because you knew your state wasn’t in play, please don’t jump in to explain your reasoning. (I already understand THAT reasoning just fine.)

    No, it’s a different group of people that I don’t get: The people who’re in competitive states (or who didn’t factor-in the electoral math of their state when deciding). When THOSE people, thinking that Trump is better than Hillary, and knowing that nobody but Trump or Hillary had a chance, still refuse to vote for Trump, THAT is what confuses me.

    I’m not here to heap scorn, BTW. (A first for a combox posting, eh?) I am here to understand.

    THREE HYPOTHESES: I have three hypotheses why these “Hillary is objectively worse, but I’m still not voting for Trump” persons exist. I do not know how likely these hypotheses are, because I am only guessing and can’t read minds. Here they are:

    Hypothesis #1: Some persons decide “Hillary is objectively worse, but I’m still not voting for Trump” because they believe that a vote for a candidate represents a personal endorsement of both the bad and good attributes of the candidate. Since they cannot endorse the bad attributes of Trump, they refuse to vote for him, even when doing so increases the odds of defeating the worse of the two possible options.

    Hypothesis #2: Some persons are looking to sway future long-term party-leadership/primary-voter decisions by not voting for the GOP candidate when he is particularly objectionable to them. They are trying to “teach” the GOP leadership and/or the GOP primary voters “not to nominate someone like that, ever again.”

    Hypothesis #3: Some persons were afraid that Trump, if victorious, would take over the GOP party apparatus, long-term, and remake it along Trumpian lines they can’t accept, leaving them politically homeless in the long-term.

    Those are the only three possible explanations I have been able to imagine, for someone to say, “Hillary is worse but I still won’t vote Trump.”

    But maybe there’s an explanation I haven’t thought of?

    If so, please fill me in.


    P.S. Please, pro-Trump folks, let the persons I’m asking about speak for themselves. Please don’t clutter the thread with, “Because they’re all irrational dickheads” or “Because CUCK” or whatever. I’ve heard that side. I’d like to hear the other side, now.

    • I am one such individual. I am right of center, and traditionally vote R”ish”. I could NOT vote for either of the main candidates. D was just not an option given what I perceive as an integrated web of corruption and deceit. For the R, I simply did not like, “the man”. Far to many times, the promises of Presidential candidates, are ridiculous. Mainly because they do not have the Constitutional power to unilaterally execute such promises. The only thing then Mr. Trump had going for him, he was from outside the beltway, given the stagnation of the government over the previous 6+ years. So I looked at his “business” acumen. I was not impressed as others had been. While able to “remake” things, I didn’t see it all being done through just his “talents”. Some of this is vague, because business at that level has a lot of complexities, that I just didn’t see him as the only contributor. Of course business is not my forte. And each of us needs to do the research to make our own decisions. So I looked third party. I found one that I liked and he even had made dents in the false percentage levels set by the debate commissions. I went through the whole, your throwing away your vote, and the other deluge of point counter point that droned on. For me, the fact that supporters for either candidate couldn’t come up with a single positive thing for their side, and only talked negatives about the other, told me a LOT. To the point of revulsion for either candidate.

      So I had to find out what I really believed about my own vote. The pressures to stick with main stream candidates was crushing. Then for me, I remembered what a vote means (from my perspective). I had to vote my conscience, because of all those that sacrificed so much, for me to have a choice in the first place. And sticking to one of only two options, for me, violated those sacrifices. Not because a two party system is necessarily bad, but because the two options provided were totally unacceptable to me. ANd with everyone talking out of fear against, rather than conviction for, I could NOT vote out of fear. I had to vote for someone I felt was the best choice. I voted my conscience.

      This is a little different then your hypotheses, but it made and makes perfect sense, to me. If only “We the People”, would has a whole vote our conscience, rather than party lines, or out of fear, I really wonder what would happen in this country. Just a few thoughts.

  22. Professor Allen: Your sentences are unnecessarily complicated. There are some good sentences in here but I wouldn’t forward this kluge to someone.

  23. As the smoke clears, what is evident is how fascist the American Left, including the Democratic party, have become. If you live by accusations of fascism you will finish up being judged by the evidence of your own fascism.

  24. Oh my goodness, what a joy to read. A reasonable and fair perspective of Trump and the electorate and the events in Charlottesville. Thank you, sir!! Now I pray for your protection against the backlash.