Robert Stacy McCain has a favorite gag he pulls on his feminist blog posts. After dissecting the arguments, or perhaps more often the irrational screechings of Tumblr feminists, and showing them to be quite literally based on a fruitless and dangerous view of reality, he adds a little bait on the hook to pull them in. They never see it that way, of course. They see his photo of an adorable box of kittens labeled “Feminist Starter Kit” as a hateful attack. But Stacy’s goal isn’t to anger and humiliate them; he actually cares about them more than that. He’s out to push the one button that will make them question their trajectory through life in a way that even they can’t deny.
Stacy knows that, from his adversarial position, nothing he says will avoid their anger and indignation. But he also knows that, after they calm down, the “Starter Kit” might still transmit a truth to them. That true message is this: “Your position on this is going to extract a heavy toll on you, a catastrophic toll (no pun intended), so you better be right about it.” Following Stacy’s example, I intend the cat graphic above, and the others below, as a way of gently reminding our #NeverTrump friends that the Devil does not only tempt us to abandon our principles. He also tempts us the other way ’round: to cling to invalid or misapplied or no-longer-applicable principles out of pride or prejudice. Either way, the risks of being wrong are frightening, so we need to be quite sure that we’re objectively right and not just being stubborn.
It’s a little ironic I’m using Stacy as an example here, because he’s not completely on board the Trump Train, as far as I know, though he has technically endorsed him. I’m quite sure his blogger sidekick, Smitty, thinks it’s morally wrong to vote for him, as do others in their circle, as well.
But unlike Stacy or Smitty, other writers have made their anti-Trump principles quite clear, and I particularly like the way Angela Nelson (Angelaisms) laid out her objections to persistent Trumptista persuasiveness in her RedState essay.
Of course, all of Ms. Nelson’s objections are only legitimate so long as she’s absolutely, factually, morally and clairvoyantly correct about her central premise, that Donald Trump is far more immoral than Hillary Clinton and will make a bad President.
This last one isn’t mine, of course, but I think it makes a good point – an unassailable point. It’s a point that David Horowitz has made repeatedly and effectively, and I respect his argument more than I respect anything that Angela Nelson wrote or, for that matter, anyone at the National Review or the Weekly Standard. If you persist in rejecting the legitimate landslide people’s choice for the Republican candidate for President, then you should stop pretending that the principles of self-government or consent of the governed mean anything to you.
And you should embrace Hillary Clinton as your de facto candidate. Deny it all you want for now. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to know with certainty how bad Trump will be while simultaneously claiming uncertainty about (and denying responsibility for) the result if you don’t vote. Ultimately, you will be judged for it, if not by God, then by the rest of us who are on the train. And while we may be gentle judges, you’ll still be isolating yourself from the action for a very long time.
So, choose wisely. Though dissent can be honorable, as with Pascal’s Wager, it only counts if you’re right.
Cross-Posted at Hardnox & Friends.