Here's the question, reluctant Trump voters

I know a great many people- you probably do, too- who aren't racists or misogynists or Islamophobes or, well.... jerks but who nevertheless plan to vote for Donald Trump in November.

The people I'm talking about either opposed or at least frowned upon him when he was running in the primaries. They do not like the man. But they plan to vote for him anyway because at this point Trump beating her is the only way of keeping (shudder!) Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Now, I shudder too. I also fear Hillary's appointments to the Supreme Court, which may determine the Court's complexion for a generation and may sound the death knell of the Constitution in any form in which the Founders would recognize it. It's just that I'm not willing to pay the price of leaving the world to the predations of every bully nation around, sending the economy back into recession, and generally putting the existence of the human race at risk by electing an unstable narcissist and probable sociopath like Donald Trump. Nor am I willing to accept the death of the conservative movement or the permanent transformation of the Republican Party from the party of Lincoln and Reagan to a reincarnation of the Know Nothings, or even to give the tinfoil hat paranoids of the Alt-Right the validation that the election of their hero would bring them.

But there's no question that the future of the Court gives me pause. It ought to give pause to any reasonable person. If the Founders had wanted the whims of nine unelected judges to function as the actual constitution of the United States, they would not have written one on parchment.

But I wonder whether all those reluctant Trump voters have considered the question of whether Trump- who, after a lifetime as an outspoken supporter of Roe v. Wade, converted to the pro-life cause very late in the game, and less than a year ago was for same-sex marriage and a single-payer national health program- would retain his newfound philosophy of judicial restraint long enough to appoint justices with any more respect for the written Constitution than Hillary would. Hasn't he displayed his instability well enough and often enough to call into question just about anything he promises?

If you have your doubts, consider this: the man who was going to build the Great Wall of Trump and who so mercilessly mocked any of his competitors for the Republican nomination who showed the slightest compassion for the saddest cases among illegal immigrants has changed his position.

He now wants the government to "work with" illegal immigrants- especially, it seems, long-term illegal residents of the United States- to work out something which sounds very much like what the most extreme of conservatives inaccurately but persistently call "amnesty."

If Trump so easily flip-flops on the centerpiece issue of his entire candidacy, how can you trust him to do what he says he'll do about the Court, or about anything else?


Popular Posts