(The addressee’s name has been changed and the text slightly revised)
Dear, dear Vicki,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful and compassionate words—the very qualities that I have always found to define you. And sure, there is a feeling of disappointment here. But it is not a mere political disappointment like it was for Bush’s Electoral College victory and re-election or as it would have been for a McCain or Romney victory—all three honorable men who did not in any way threaten the very pillars upon which the nation stands. I do not wish to re-litigate any of this with you, and of course my wish is that any reply from you will not do so either; but against all my better judgment, I reluctantly enter the arena with you one last time and will then be silent.
It is true that I am more politically engaged than I was in my young adulthood or even fifteen years ago. And it is certainly true that a draft-dodger Commander-in-Chief having the temerity to call my father a “sucker” for choosing a career military life in the United States Marine Corps is hardly endearing to me. Nor is calling men of high integrity like John McCain and all service men and women who died in the line of duty “losers” any more so. President-elect Trump’s little caper at Arlington National Cemetery this year, just a month or two after I took my son, daughter, and grandson to visit my father’s grave there and see the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, was beyond repugnant.
But please do not infer that my fierce opposition to this man is merely personal. I will not offer a long bill of particulars, but since I am this far in, I will offer a brief few. First I would note that many of his first term’s inner circle including Milley, Mattis, Kelley (all four star generals), McMaster (three-star), Bolton, Barr, Tillerson, Esper, and even Pence have publicly warned of some variation of Trump’s unfitness for office. I know of no precedent for this almost unified opposition from a president’s former high-level staffers, and their warnings should be heeded. He has made clear that he would abandon a democratic ally to fend for itself in its fight for survival against a man he admires, Vladimir Putin. Notably during his debate with Harris, Trump would not answer the direct question from David Muir of whether he even wanted Ukraine to win its war with the same country (though then called the USSR) that the Republican Party once rightly regarded as our philosophical if not wartime enemy—what Ronald Reagan called an “evil empire.” In fact, he lamented the deaths of Russian soldiers, but did not mention the deaths of Ukrainian civilians.
Character was once a foundational principle for the GOP, and for that reason among others many conservatives could not support the Republican candidate this year. Some, like Liz Cheney and former Republican presidential speechwriters David Frum and Peter Wehner, consider Trump an enemy of conservatism itself. McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt called Trump “the most dangerous American who has ever lived.” Even his vice-president-elect J. D. Vance, in the days before he sold his soul, called him “cultural heroin.” In response to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, The Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 issued a “Resolution on the Moral Character of Public Officials” in which it “urge[d] all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.” Certainly Southern Baptists do not reflect the views of all conservatives, and today’s SBC apparently would not reflect, or at least not state publicly, such a view now. But I hope that even liberals could embrace the SBC’s 1998 sentiment. And if the Resolution were true then, it is even more so now given what we know about Trump. I borrow the quote from Wehner, who wrote a fascinating article which portrayed Trump as an enemy not of liberalism (though presumably that too) but of conservatism. For him, Trumpism is antithetical to conservatism, an abandonment of—indeed an attack on—its fundamental principles. I do wish Fox News could have aired conservatives like him who could make a case against Trump from the conservative side.
Finally I must state clearly that my vote was not just against Trump and Trumpism. It was an enthusiastic vote for a woman who I think is strong, ethical, patriotic, honest, competent, and absolutely supportive of traditional American values. For me not to affirm that would be to suggest that I think that she is merely the lesser of two evils. Not at all. In fact I believe she would have been a very good president, though I might have disagreed with her on this or that policy. But I absolutely know, in the approximate words of conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg speaking of Nikki Haley as compared to Trump, “at least I would still be able to recognize my country at the end of her term.”
Again, it was not my better judgment to re-litigate any of this with you. A “Thank you, Vicki” should have been my reply. But the devil gets ahold of me every now and then and this is the result. The election is done, over, and you (and Bill) and I (and Val) will no doubt agree to disagree and move on. And again, your thoughtfulness in offering a word of consolation to the losing team is appreciated and wonderfully characteristic of Vicki Smith.
John
John Rachal's Blog
To a Trump-Supporting Friend, Afterward
November 9, 2024 at 5:17 pm (Political Commentary)
(The addressee’s name has been changed and the text slightly revised)
Dear, dear Vicki,
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful and compassionate words—the very qualities that I have always found to define you. And sure, there is a feeling of disappointment here. But it is not a mere political disappointment like it was for Bush’s Electoral College victory and re-election or as it would have been for a McCain or Romney victory—all three honorable men who did not in any way threaten the very pillars upon which the nation stands. I do not wish to re-litigate any of this with you, and of course my wish is that any reply from you will not do so either; but against all my better judgment, I reluctantly enter the arena with you one last time and will then be silent.
It is true that I am more politically engaged than I was in my young adulthood or even fifteen years ago. And it is certainly true that a draft-dodger Commander-in-Chief having the temerity to call my father a “sucker” for choosing a career military life in the United States Marine Corps is hardly endearing to me. Nor is calling men of high integrity like John McCain and all service men and women who died in the line of duty “losers” any more so. President-elect Trump’s little caper at Arlington National Cemetery this year, just a month or two after I took my son, daughter, and grandson to visit my father’s grave there and see the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, was beyond repugnant.
But please do not infer that my fierce opposition to this man is merely personal. I will not offer a long bill of particulars, but since I am this far in, I will offer a brief few. First I would note that many of his first term’s inner circle including Milley, Mattis, Kelley (all four star generals), McMaster (three-star), Bolton, Barr, Tillerson, Esper, and even Pence have publicly warned of some variation of Trump’s unfitness for office. I know of no precedent for this almost unified opposition from a president’s former high-level staffers, and their warnings should be heeded. He has made clear that he would abandon a democratic ally to fend for itself in its fight for survival against a man he admires, Vladimir Putin. Notably during his debate with Harris, Trump would not answer the direct question from David Muir of whether he even wanted Ukraine to win its war with the same country (though then called the USSR) that the Republican Party once rightly regarded as our philosophical if not wartime enemy—what Ronald Reagan called an “evil empire.” In fact, he lamented the deaths of Russian soldiers, but did not mention the deaths of Ukrainian civilians.
Character was once a foundational principle for the GOP, and for that reason among others many conservatives could not support the Republican candidate this year. Some, like Liz Cheney and former Republican presidential speechwriters David Frum and Peter Wehner, consider Trump an enemy of conservatism itself. McCain campaign manager Steve Schmidt called Trump “the most dangerous American who has ever lived.” Even his vice-president-elect J. D. Vance, in the days before he sold his soul, called him “cultural heroin.” In response to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, The Southern Baptist Convention in 1998 issued a “Resolution on the Moral Character of Public Officials” in which it “urge[d] all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.” Certainly Southern Baptists do not reflect the views of all conservatives, and today’s SBC apparently would not reflect, or at least not state publicly, such a view now. But I hope that even liberals could embrace the SBC’s 1998 sentiment. And if the Resolution were true then, it is even more so now given what we know about Trump. I borrow the quote from Wehner, who wrote a fascinating article which portrayed Trump as an enemy not of liberalism (though presumably that too) but of conservatism. For him, Trumpism is antithetical to conservatism, an abandonment of—indeed an attack on—its fundamental principles. I do wish Fox News could have aired conservatives like him who could make a case against Trump from the conservative side.
Finally I must state clearly that my vote was not just against Trump and Trumpism. It was an enthusiastic vote for a woman who I think is strong, ethical, patriotic, honest, competent, and absolutely supportive of traditional American values. For me not to affirm that would be to suggest that I think that she is merely the lesser of two evils. Not at all. In fact I believe she would have been a very good president, though I might have disagreed with her on this or that policy. But I absolutely know, in the approximate words of conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg speaking of Nikki Haley as compared to Trump, “at least I would still be able to recognize my country at the end of her term.”
Again, it was not my better judgment to re-litigate any of this with you. A “Thank you, Vicki” should have been my reply. But the devil gets ahold of me every now and then and this is the result. The election is done, over, and you (and Bill) and I (and Val) will no doubt agree to disagree and move on. And again, your thoughtfulness in offering a word of consolation to the losing team is appreciated and wonderfully characteristic of Vicki Smith.
John
Leave a Comment