Race relations Truth

Black Lives DO Matter! Therefore Promote Faith, Family


It’s impossible to get away from the decimation going on in black communities in major American cities. The rioting and looting, the astonishing and unabashed lawlessness, the bitter racist hatred by some, and the overall lack of hope in the American dream.

The natural question is: Why? What in the world has happened?

The ugly legacy of slavery is often cited, followed by the Jim Crow laws in the South. There may well be remnants of those injustices, but American blacks were moving further away from those remnants until about 50 years ago. Walter Williams, an esteemed black economist at George Mason University, points to something much more recent, with compelling statistics and his life story.


He was brought up in the projects in Philadelphia in the 1940s and 1950s, a time when racism was certainly more rampant and Jim Crow laws enmeshed in the South. But he writes the projects that were all black were so safe that people left windows open and often went to bed with doors unlocked. He never saw a cop inside his schools the whole time. Within two generations, doors were locked and bolted and windows were barred in the very same project, and 400 police officers now patrol the hallways of Philadelphia schools. Crime stats similarly reflect this nose dive in the black community.

The wrong turns

Williams and many others point the finger of culpability at the disintegration of the black family and waning influence of the church. When faith and family fall apart, society falls apart. The advent of federal programs that take the place and responsibility of fathers through welfare combined with a societal revolution against Judeo-Christian moral norms to wreak havoc.

Since the heavy advent of both of those dynamics, the black family has gone from solid and strong to an endangered species. Illegitimacy in 1938 was 11 percent for blacks and 3 percent for whites. Today it has soared to 73 percent for blacks and 30 percent for whites. This epidemic alone creates catastrophic forces, not the least of which is young black men with no male role model, no example of what it is to be a responsible man, and just enough money from the government to keep them from having to work — stealing their purpose and hope. This toxic brew is everywhere, but shows up most in the depressing crime and prison stats for young black men.

And while the percentage of people saying they regularly attend church in the black community remains high, the church itself has become such a politicized institution that the media seek out black pastors to speak on political issues, while political candidates always make the rounds to those churches during election season. This dynamic of political involvement is true in white churches (alas, that they are thusly separated) but like the illegitimacy rate, at a lower level. Such politicization undermines the spiritual authority and power of the Christian church.

Williams is far from alone. Similar stories are told by many older, successful blacks such as Thomas Sowell, a black economist at Stanford University who grew up in poverty in rural North Carolina; Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins who grew up in of poverty in Detroit’s inner city; Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court justice who grew up in poverty in rural southern Georgia; Condoleeza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State who grew up in segregated Birmingham, Alabama; Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza who grew up in poverty in Atlanta; Larry Elder, lawyer, author and radio host, who grew up in poverty in South Central L.A., and many others.

Enter human nature

But we humans are loath to blame ourselves for our circumstances. It’s a universal truth. We all look for someone else to self-righteously blame. The rich. The boss. Bad schools. Terrible parents. And so on. And there are those who will seek to take advantage of this human nature and provide avenues for blame outside ourselves. In the case of the plight of inner city blacks, the blame has most recently fallen to cops — interestingly, including black cops. This has benefitted politicians and movement leaders while actually enabling the poor behavior. But even though there are a few bad cops, it is irrelevant to the root causes.

This explains how a city like Chicago can have 500 murders in a year, almost entirely black on black, with nary a peep from the black-supported politicians and black leaders — including the nation’s first black president. And yet Milwaukee up the road will spiral out of control with riots and violence when a black police officer shoots an armed black man trying to get away. It makes no sense — except through the lens explained above.

It also makes the solutions to the problems blacks face radiantly obvious — but politically punishing.

However, the price of doing nothing is not the occasional black man killed by police, it is the thousands of blacks killed by other blacks, a gut-wrenching number of them children. It is the absence of avenues to better lives. It is the loss of hope among so many inner-city blacks — perhaps the greatest loss to the human soul.

If Black Lives Matter and politicians will not address these root causes, then others need to.

(The cover picture of Tyshawn Lee, a young boy murdered in gang violence, represents the true, massive violence against blacks: That done by other blacks, including to children.)





BONUS: Questions for a Moderator from a Different Worldview

Tonight’s debate is being moderated by ABC News’ Martha Raddatz and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. So there is no real hope of fairness and objectivity as both have a history of listing politically leftward in their journalism — like practically every other journalist. There will be gotcha questions for Donald Trump (Lester Holt asked four) and none for Hillary Clinton (Holt asked zero.)

So in the spirit of providing a little help for the liberal side, The Revolutionary Act is offering some questions that could help the moderators balance their debate performance. These are suggested from a former journalist who covered presidential campaigns, but who lists politically rightward.

We know the first question will be based on the latest brouhaha — the video of Donald Trump using vulgar language in talking about women 11 years ago. Fair enough. It is dominating the news and social media. But this actually offers the opportunity to ask Hillary Clinton a similar question. The moderators need no help in asking tough questions of Trump, so this list is just for Clinton.

Here we go:

  • Secretary Clinton, Continuing on the question of character and sexual misconduct, the mistreatment of women has become an issue in this campaign. You are a strong defender of women’s rights. But your husband, former President Bill Clinton, has admitted to having sexual affairs and is alleged to have sexually abused women in the 80s and the 90s. In a recent, powerful interview, Juanita Broderick details what she calls your husband’s rape of her. Kathleen Willey recently reiterated that your husband sexually assaulted her. Many other women came forward over the years. While he is not running for office, it has been widely reported that you were part of what was called the “Bimbo Eruption” unit engaged in discrediting and intimidating these alleged victims into silence. Can you explain this, and how it lines up with your defense of women and stance that women should always be believed when reporting sexual abuse?
  • Secretary Clinton, Wikileaks has released a new batch of emails it alleges you sent that include speeches you gave to Wall Street firms for large payments. They allege that you dream of a day when there is “open trade and open borders.” Do you believe the United States should have open borders and open trade.
  • Secretary Clinton, Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales and what will you do to protect American’s Second Amendment right? And does protecting the Second Amendment play into who you would appoint to the Supreme Court?
  • Secretary Clinton, Criticisms of the criminal justice system stem from your husband’s time in office — including the expansion of the proactive “broken windows” policing nationwide and the passage of mandatory minimum sentencing laws. We now have the highest incarceration rates ever. You have apologized for using the word “superpredator” to describe gang members in the 1990s. Why did you change your mind and what reforms from the 1990s would you reform now?
  • Secretary Clinton, The Associated Press reported that Clinton Foundation’s donors made up more than half of your meetings as secretary of state. Can you explain that? And can you also explain for the average American voter why you had a separate, unsecured email server, multiple Blackberries and then wiped the server clean and had the Blackberries destroyed with a hammer before FBI investigators would examine? Was there any relationship to the Clinton Foundation?
  • You are proposing seven weeks of government-mandated paid family leave for parents, expanding Social Security, expanding early childhood education and so on. Each of these programs expand the size and the scope of government involvement that many Americans already say is too large. Do you believe that the federal government is not big enough now? Are there any areas of government you would cut back on or eliminate, or are all your proposals to expand government
  • You ask that the rich pay their fair share and you propose increasing the tax rates on the nation’s wealthiest individuals. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that the top 20 percent of income earners pay an average of $57,700 in federal taxes; the next 20 percent pay $2,600 and the 60 percent rest of Americans receive net transfer of payments to them of between $8,000 and $12,000. Are you saying that the wealthy are not paying their fair share? And if so, what is the ideal amount more for them to pay to be fair?
  • You want to make college debt-free? But several studies have shown that one of the primary drivers of college tuition and fee increases has been the guaranteed payments of the federal government through loans and grants. Would your proposal make college even more expensive and be burdensome to taxpayers?
  • Like most political leaders, you oppose banks being too big to fail. But the Dodd-Frank bill reforming the banking system seems to have created even fewer, larger banks, potentially meaning that the risk is greater now than before the financial collapse. Do you support Dodd-Frank?

Below are three legitimate issue questions Lester Holt could have asked in the first presidential debate based on Hillary Clinton’s “experience,” but could be asked tonight. Any one of these would suffice.

  • As Secretary of State, you chose to put a diplomatic mission in Benghazi when it was a known hotspot for Al Qaeda terrorist. And then it was given minimal security. Why was Ambassador Stevens operating there and not in the security Embassy in Tripoli? A great tragedy resulted. Does this bring into question your judgment on foreign policy?
  • Now that we see that the Syrian War has turned into a genocide, created a spawning ground for ISIS, given Russia a strong toehold in the Middle East, and resulted in the displacement of millions of refugees to surrounding countries, Europe and the United States, did you and the Obama Administration make the right decision to do nothing early on in support of the rebels against President Assad? And does this bring into question your judgment on foreign policy?
  • As Secretary, you were the architect for the Russian reset to improve U.S.-Russian relations. Yet by any measurement, our relations with Russia are at their worst since the Cold War, with part of the Crimea gone and troops in Syria. Given the apparent failure of this policy, does this bring into question your judgment on foreign policy?


History Truth

Why The Revolutionary Act? To Tell the Truth

Do you sometimes feel like we live in an upside down world, where right is wrong, good is bad, bad is good and truth is this illusory shadow we can longer grab hold of?

You’re not alone. Truth today is avoided like the black plague. That brings grave consequences and most Americans innately sense this. It why a paltry 29% of Americans think we are headed in the right direction.

As J.R.R. Tolkien’s character, Galadriel, said in the prologue to Lord of the Rings: “Some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth.” Tolkien was one of many who saw the cost of deceit in the real world, and fictionalized it.

Without truth, our lives are a meaningless series of lungings from deception to deception. But truth is driven underground as an array of cultural forces combine to suppress it and promote deception.

It’s just the way it is.

But it’s not the way it must be.

As George Orwell said: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

It should not be revolutionary to speak the truth. But today it is.

As we are not alone today in realizing the enormity of disinformation being sown and fertilized throughout our culture, so we are not alone historically.

Throughout history, there have been voices calling in the wilderness, pushing back against the rushing tide of falsehoods. From Pythagoras to John the Baptist to Augustine to Martin Luther to Thomas Jefferson to Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to George Orwell to Martin Luther King, millions have pushed back peacefully, intellectually and invariably with words of truth against the prevailing myths and deceptions of their times.

Today, falsehood is easily spread through mass media in all of its technological iterations. These fictions are more easily disseminated and absorbed as truths than ever before. They can be countered with truths through the same mass mediums.

But as Orwell said, we need to start the revolutionary act of standing up and speaking out truth. It can cost, as any revolutionary act does. But the cost of not doing so is far greater, for us and for our offspring.


The truths are known. They have not been totally forgotten as Galadriel recorded. This means we also live in times that call for telling the truth — foundational, well-defended, grounded truth that has been a part of America’s greatness, and is remembered still.

These truths are not always red, white and blue, but they are always firmly established.

We’re glad you are joining us here to help push back against the sea of falsities and fabrication.

For more background on The Revolutionary Act, go here.

In-Depth Media

IN-DEPTH: Bias is Foundationally Ingrained in Traditional Journalism

By Rod Thomson

A quarter century in the mainstream media establishment furnished me with ample evidence of how the media shades and distorts coverage in the most professional and yet opaque ways — so ingrained that the shading is all but invisible to the journalists doing it.

(IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: There is no conspiracy of bias across the mainstream media. However, there is such deeply entrenched bias that most toiling journalists do not even recognize it. They believe that their choice of stories and coverage is pure professionalism, free from any encumbrances of prejudice. So know that if you pursue a conspiracy theory, you will immediately be discarded with an eyeroll. There is far stronger ground on which to stand and expose why this bias creates inherent and accurate distrust.)

The media’s multi-generational predilection has become established journalism. The worldview defining what is newsworthy and why, and what is not and why not, is now a foundational part of journalism. That it reflects one worldview over a competing worldview is undeniable for those looking at life through the competing worldview. But this truth is invisible to those practicing journalism, because the newsworthy industry standard fits like a glove with their worldview. Of course it’s good journalism! We all agree!

Most reporters and editors I worked with were mystified at the accusation of bias, or simply chalked it up to my own conservative proclivities. That my conservatism might inform my view of journalism was perfectly clear to them. That their liberalism might inform their view of journalism was bewildering to them, because by every journalistic standard they were practicing professional journalism. The reason they could not see the bias was not a lack of intelligence or dishonesty, but that journalism was defined through the basis of liberalism and therefore they did not see any bias.


The mystery of Rush Limbaugh

My colleagues would often shake their heads incredulously at the rise of Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio in the 1990s. They simply could not understand it and ended up shrugging it off as conservatives being less educated and more easily led. Conservatives just didn’t like the truth coming out in the media.

The problem did not lie with American conservatives, however, but with the very bewildered journalists unable to grasp his popularity.

Rush Limbaugh and others were filling a void for a large swath of Americans who felt under daily assault by local and national media. Rush Limbaugh took the news of the day and explained it from a conservative point of view — the opposite of the way the media was professionally describing it — and 20 million Americans thought, ‘Finally someone is saying what I believe!’

There are many conservative sites dedicated to pointing out the daily media leftist bias. They have been so successful, that some have popped up on the other side, focusing primarily on Fox News. That, in itself, is telling that they only have one news source to hit on. But we can simply let the market of millions of Americans speak.

In a recent Gallup Poll on media trust — which has been taken since 1972 — the media has sunk to its lowest level ever. Only 32% of Americans consider the media trustworthy. That’s not good, but the political party breakdown tells the real story:

  • 51% of Democrats consider the media trustworthy;
  • 14% of Republicans consider the media trustworthy.

Does the media reflect on why there is such a stark difference? Here is the response I have heard from colleagues over the years: “Well, those are conservatives pulling the numbers down. They’re just angry.” Exactly! One worldview trusts journalists at nearly four times the level as the other worldview. That’s the blind spot, spelled out in rock solid numbers by the consumer market of news. And yet, that glaring reality remains largely obscured to the working media because proper journalism is interwoven with modern progressivism determining what is news.

In all my years, I only came across one working journalist, an editor and a friend, who was forthright and clear enough to admit the bias. He went further, however, with his normal bluntness and confessed proudly that he thought it was right for journalists to be biased in favor of helping the little guy against the big guy. Indeed, much of journalism stems from that, which is laudable from an individual’s point of view, but deeply problematic for a media struggling with the public trust.


The media’s telltale sign: Story choice

Think about it. The exposés on the homeless, the poor, single mothers, imprisonment numbers, income inequality, plight of minorities and so on are virtually endless. There are also legions of stories on environmental issues and the greed of CEOs. All of these are legitimate topics and should be covered, at times in-depth. They are also favorites of the leftist, progressive ethos and are only half of the set of excellent story ideas.

Story choice matters because that is the first step in coverage — those stories that journalists choose to cover, and just as importantly, those they choose not to. These choices are reflected in a perspective that journalists see merely as good journalism, independent of their personal politics. But it’s not. Media consumers instinctively know that, as demonstrated by Gallup.

To see just how warped is the sense of news judgment, here are some examples of what journalists do not spend much — if any — time and resources on, but which are as legitimate as the story topics listed above.

  • Exposés on the trials and tribulations of being a cop in a high-crime neighborhood. This story not only humanizes cops in the same way that stories on the homeless and poor humanize them, but could also shed light on some root problems of the high level of crime while creating public support for better solutions. But these stories are rare and will never win major journalism awards.
  • Exposés and regular coverage on the struggles of small businesses and the difficulty of creating a successful business with a high level of government costs involved. The humanization of the small business owners’ struggles to stay afloat would be hugely educational to the majority of people who are employees their whole lives — or unable to find work. Such stories — routinely done as the list above is — would create a much better understanding of how well-meaning government rules just add more and more difficulties for businesses to succeed, and workers to get good jobs.
  • How about exposés on the size of the federal debt and the weight of taxes now and on future generations? There are endless stories on the difficulties of making ends meet for our elderly citizens living on Social Security, Medicare and other transfer payments. Again, legitimate stories. But they are done in the contextual vacuum of emotional heartstring-pulling. Compelling stories on individuals’ struggles without context result in encouraging public support for more money to go to those people. The context is $20 trillion debt. What if just as regularly journalists did stories on the cost per millennial of the current debt? Talk to young people and do the same emotional stories on how they feel about being burdened to pay off debts that previous generations incurred. They can’t afford rent, but they have to send more and more money to people who are not working. That could really change the conversation. But those stories are as rare as stories on the importance of fossil fuel to a local economy.
  • Speaking of which, how many emotional heartstring-pulling stories are done on the plight of the “hard-working middle class” — a favorite phrase for all politicians — in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere on the decimation of the fossil fuel industry for political reasons? Those are rare as a sighting of stories on the costs of environmental regulations on new development driving up housing costs for the middle class and millennials, also a legitimate story.
  • Exposés and continuing context on the forces driving college costs? There are endless stories on the how the high costs and the ensuing college debt are worrying young students. So much so that it was a central plank of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. But they are done in a huge vacuum of “Why?” rarely being addressed. Where are all the cojoining stories on why college costs are so high? Those are rare as the story on how the lumber industry has paved the way for responsible resource use.

This list can go on almost indefinitely. If you are a conservative you can think of a ton more. If you are liberal, or a mainstream media person, you are probably shaking your head in disbelief. Again, that is exactly the point.

The matter is ingrained at every level.


The problem of journalism schools

The indoctrination begins here. Of course, it is largely not intentional indoctrination, so perhaps not the best word. It is merely repeating the formula that a liberal ethos equals good journalism — not stated in words so much as in the daily classroom teaching of journalism.

I graduated from Michigan State University’s School of Journalism in 1982 and the professors were uniformly liberal. I was too, sort of, because that is what college will do to you if you are not well-grounded otherwise. I accepted what I was taught and dutifully took it out into the world of daily newspapers with me until I slowly began forming my own set of beliefs.

But Michigan State is simply like all the rest. In addition to all the media people I have worked with, I’ve hired out of J-Schools around the country and the cookie-cutter products of those institutions are impressive from an efficiency perspective. It’s almost impossible in the major journalism schools to find a graduate with a conservative worldview who might look at good journalism from a different perspective. Truly, such a student probably could not have earned a degree if they had.

A journalism degree is necessary currency to get in the door of mainstream media outlets — and a lot of new media. So navigating journalism schools and learning the proper definition of newsworthy journalism creates a gatekeeper effect for the liberal journalism professors dominating schools. And it means they are well-prepared on the worldview level to fit into modern media — even if they are not well-prepared to actually practice. Much of that is learned on the job, making journalism schools all the more a place whose primary role is to mold “proper” political views.


The problem of journalism awards

Like all human beings, journalists love winning awards, being recognized for their efforts. I sure did. Iowa Young Journalist of the Year in the late 80s. Inland Press Association’s Reporting Award, a dozen Associated Press Awards and so on.

Yeah, it was great. Here’s the thing, though. Naturally enough, journalism awards are judged by other journalists. I know. I sat on a few judging committees. Makes sense. But the now-established deeply ingrained worldview kicks in at this point. Practically every judging committee will be made up of people whose worldview is somewhere between center left and radical left.

The story lists mentioned above that are viewed as important through that leftist prism will be the ones awarded.

Then how did I win awards? For many years as a younger reporter, I did not see the bias. I fully understand being blind to it. I was practicing good journalism. As my worldview matured and I began to see things more clearly through conservatism and biblical standards — and as I began voicing my opinion in the newsroom — the reality of how deeply rooted the predisposition was and is became clear. It created a lot of friction. And it exposed a lot.

One revelation was on journalism awards.

Journalists tend to write and produce stories for their next editor or producer at the next paper and television station on the career ladder. Or they write with the aim at winning awards. I worked for a paper whose publisher said the stated aim was to win a Pulitzer Prize, which the paper finally did. Guess the politics of the Pulitzer Prize Committee.

So even after the solid indoctrination received in every major journalism school, the reinforcement sets in at every level, at every institution. While in the field, the newsroom hierarchy is uniformly somewhere left of center. As mentioned previously, that worldview uniformity goes to story selection, story angle, story content and story play. And then all of those decisions are affirmed and rewarded through awards outside the newsroom. Again, this is not to say those are not worthy coverage topics. But it is to say that those are the ones rewarded and therefore reinforced as good journalism.

Unless you become a columnist — as I did for several years — there is no career track for a journalist writing from a conservative worldview without just caving to all the liberal story topics.


Solutions are dicey

Perhaps the largest obstacle to correcting this problem is that the vast majority of practicing journalists that I know and have known do not acknowledge the problem. As explained, they merely see solid journalism by professionals who set aside their personal politics and biases.

I don’t think that is possible. For anyone. We all see the world through our prism of life experiences and belief system. That’s inescapable. So in practice the only way to make media newsrooms function with balance to accommodate a sea of views is to populate them with a diversity of perspectives, political beliefs and backgrounds.

There are only two pathways I can see to creating balance in the profession. The best one in my opinion seems highly unlikely. The other one is what the market is slowly grinding towards.

The best solution would be to hire based on worldview. This would mean shifting from the leftist v of diversity in hiring based on skin color and gender to a diversity based on a multiplicity of viewpoints that is colorblind and gender blind. Right now, an executive editor would gaze out over a newsroom with female liberals, black liberals, Hispanic liberals, lesbian liberals, Asian liberals, transgender liberals and handicapped liberals and smile approvingly at the wonderful diversity — totally missing that they are all some stripe of liberal producing the same kinds of stories with the same angles.

While working for a daily newspaper within the New York Times, I made a pitch to generate a policy to recruit journalists based on a diversity of worldviews. We could have liberals, conservatives, libertarians, greens, Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews and so on. This would provide the natural check and balance on everything from story selection to coverage to play. It would be cutting edge and a start towards restoring trust. (Of course, it would also ultimately require a change in the lock-step liberalism of journalism professors to a worldview diversity. Given tenure, that would only be possible over a couple of generations and require university administrators with spine.)

A consultant who was in town, a former New York Times executive, ran it up the flagpole when he returned to Manhattan. The answer was “No. Our people are professionals. We don’t need ideologues.” Again, the blind spot is sort of astonishing — if you are not a liberal.

A second solution is already happening: market-based alternatives. This is a model that is actually similar to what has been the case in major European cities for years. Media outlets there are overtly politically-based. In London, for instance, everyone understands that the London Guardian and London Independent are the liberal newspapers and the London Telegraph and London Times are the conservative organs. The tabloids break down similarly. Consumers then choose their media accordingly.

In the United States, the modern history was of at least an attempt at a centrist, fair, non-partisan media. That has failed. And because of the blindness of that failure within the media establishment, there is no willingness to make the necessary corrections. Therefore, the advent of new technologies have opened the door to competing media.

The Drudge Report was an early online portal for conservatives. Matt Drudge linked to stories in the mainstream media, emerging alternative media and, importantly, international media. His site exploded in size and popularity with…conservatives. Like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, the Drudge Report was filling the worldview vacuum left by the media being blind to its daily inclinations.

Now there is everything from Townhall, National Review Online and Real Clear Politics to Newsmax, the Daily Caller and the Blaze. Listening to reporters from some of these conservative news outlets talk on podcasts is almost identical to listening to conversations in newsrooms over the years — except flip the worldview.

This is ultimately the future of American media. There is not balance. The big media outlets continue to dominate, although they are diluted. As the traditional media is unwilling to reform itself, the American marketplace is reforming it and the grand journalism of the mid-20th century that everyone trusted — whether they should have or not — will be consigned to history.

And like most great institutions and nations, their undoing will be from their own doing.



Making Sense of #NeverTrump vs #NeverHillary

There is a principled conservative opposition to Donald Trump that has nothing to do with being sore losers or finding Hillary Clinton acceptable.

First, there is no denying that this is a binary race. Not voting for one candidate in the party you would normally support is giving aid to the candidate from the other party. Bernie Sanders’ supporters have coalesced around Hillary Clinton, so why can’t the supporters of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and others get behind Trump? Well some have.

That is where #neverhillary comes from. They may not like or trust Trump. He may have been their 18th choice out of the 17 GOP candidates. But they know exactly what the country is getting with scandal-ridden Clinton and so they will vote Trump as the lesser of two poor choices.

But some conservatives simply cannot have their hands on a Trump presidency. This is not an invalid position. Here’s why.

The reasonable argument by Trump supporters and conservatives who will vote for him is that not voting for him — voting for someone else or no one — is essentially a vote for Hillary Clinton. So when #nevertrumpers choose not to vote for him, #protrumpers make the case that they are casting a non-vote in favor of Hillary Clinton. Therefore, they argue, they are in part responsible for a Hillary presidency. That is a compelling case.

However, just as compelling is that by voting for a candidate, there is the sense in which your fingerprints are directly on their presidency. You have more direct responsibility for their actions than does someone you did not vote for. Also compelling.

Think of it this way for the #nevertrumpers. Your choices are Hitler and Stalin. (Neither of these are Hitler or Stalin, so let’s not lose focus.) Stalin is your party, Hitler the other party. You’d never vote for Hitler. But how can you vote for Stalin? How can you have your fingerprints on the deaths of millions. But if you don’t, and Hitler wins, then are you partially culpable for his deeds? This is what #nevertrump conservatives face. They don’t find Clinton acceptable at all. They aren’t sore losers. They just cannot make themselves vote for Trump.

This has resulted in an open civil war in the GOP — one that will not end after the November election. There was the obvious split during the primary, when people supported different candidates. But many Trump supporters figured the party would unite behind him after the nomination.

But it has not, at least nothing like happened in the Democrat Party. #NeverTrumpers include conservatives such as Mark Levin, Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg and libertarians such as Glenn Beck, along with several members of Congress and the Senate. They are attacked mercilessly by conservative Trump supporters such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich and others for torpedoing Trump’s candidacy and potentially aiding in the election of Clinton. And they may be right; it could be the practical result. But it stems from a principled stance. They don’t find Clinton acceptable. They just cannot be directly responsible for Trump.

This is not a small rift. This could change the GOP in completely unpredictable ways.

Learn How to
Decode the Media.
Download your free copy now!

3 Keys to Decoding the Media by Rod Thomson

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.