Many Republicans will make the case on critical issues of foreign policy that Clinton is better than Trump. Never has it been more apparent that the true heir to Obama’s foreign policy is Trump. Obama hobnobs with despicable dictators; Trump will carry on that same tradition with Vladimir Putin. Obama is content to leave allies (Ukraine, Israel, Sunni states) in the lurch; Trump sees no reason even to share security costs with South Korea. Obama is perennially convinced he is the smartest man in the room, is inured to facts that conflict with his ideological predispositions and surrounds himself with toadies rather than seasoned foreign policy professionals; Trump has not a single respected policy adviser in his circle and talks to himself about foreign policy. Neither shares the bipartisan belief in U.S. leadership in the world, nor embraces the United States as a force for good in the world.
Clinton is no Ronald Reagan, or Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) for that matter. She embraced the Iran deal, supported the president’s moves on Cuba and has not pushed to rebuild our military forces. She, however, is not about to leave NATO, understands we have shared interests with allies in Asia and the Middle East, recognizes despite the Iran deal we need a comprehensive strategy to check Iran’s aggression, will not order troops to target women and children in violation of international law and (with the obvious exception of Sidney Blumenthal) generally takes advice from mainstream experts with experience in government. She will not put us at odds with all Muslims, irreparably damaging our relations with allies and fueling Islamic propaganda. And she will not set off a trade war with China by slapping on a 45 percent tariff, essentially a tax on consumers.
As bad as her record is on everything from Libya to the Russian reset, she is superior to Trump on foreign policy. Trump is the only GOP candidate in the race who would be more dangerous, erratic, ignorant and dismissive of bipartisan foreign policy objectives than Clinton. Yes, the country would be better off from a foreign policy perspective with Clinton, who seems inclined to inch away from Obama, than with Trump who threatens to double down on the worst aspects of Obama’s foreign policy.
Foreign policy is not the only arena in which Trump has the unique distinction of presenting a worse alternative than Clinton. She is secretive, nontransparent and hostile toward the media; Trump announces he would use the law in some fashion to punish the media for stories he does not like. Only Trump could surpass Clinton in rank dishonesty and vengefulness. Clinton has many faults but using the threat of mob violence (while denying multiple, blatant instances of incitement) is not one of them.
That, you see, is how many Republicans will size up a Clinton vs. Trump election. One might argue that Trump is “better” on certain issues or that Clinton won’t really be any better than Obama on many foreign policy issues. But it is unarguable that many thoughtful Republicans will conclude Clinton is the lesser of two evils, or just stay home.
That is why Utah and many red states will no longer be safe for Republicans, and why the combination of minority voters, disenchanted Republicans and women (despite many younger women voters’ aversion to Clinton) would give her a victory over Trump more impressive than any presidential candidate since 1984. In short, #NeverTrump is no fleeting sentiment but one grounded in a clear-eyed assessment of the two party’s front-runners. RNC delegates should keep this at the forefront of their minds when they gather in Cleveland, most likely, to pick the nominee at a contested convention.
NOTE: Right Turn is on vacation. We will return on Tuesday, March 29.