That we could get perhaps the two most unpopular candidates of all time in the same presidential election is as statistically improbable as it is depressing. Choosing the lesser evil isn't unusual, but when the vast majority of voters are voting for candidate "A" because they thoroughly despise candidate "B" and vice-versa, we are in unexplored territory.
P.J. O'Rourke said that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be "the second-worst thing that could happen to America." Many would substitute Donald Trump in the same statement with equal conviction.
For those on the political left, things are much easier--Hillary was always expected to be the nominee, and whatever reservations Democrats might have had, or enthusiasm Bernie Sanders might have inspired, vanished when Trump became her opponent. At this point the only question is whether she can reconstruct the Barack Obama coalition by turning out enough millennials, Hispanics and (especially) blacks.
What Hillary is promising is the prospect of a third Obama term, much as Bush the First promised a third Reagan term in 1988 and Al Gore a third Bill Clinton term in 2000. For Democrats, the transformation of America remains a work in progress that requires another Democratic presidency.
Which is where the rub comes in for conservatives who are as aghast as liberals are pleased by what Obama has wrought, and thus view Hillary as potentially the final step toward the end of America as a grand experiment dedicated to self-government and individual liberty.
But just as Trump has united the left in a way that no other GOP nominee could have, he has divided the right to an even greater degree. And in those divisions, visible with even a cursory perusal of issues of National Review or the Weekly Standard, the decision to support or oppose seems to be based on three variables: estimations of how bad things truly are after eight years of Obama, how much worse they might get with Hillary; and how a Trump presidency, once so unthinkable, might actually unfold.
Those who are supporting Trump argue that America under Obama is becoming unrecognizable and will be even more so after four years (or more) of Hillary, so better to hold the nose and take a chance on The Donald, warts and all.
This has been called the "Flight 93" argument, in reference to that desperate attempt by passengers to avert disaster on 9/11--prospects are so dismal that we have to take whatever chance we have, and that chance is Trump. With Trump things are likely to turn out badly, but with Hillary they are certain to.
Crucial to this position is the assumption that if Trump wins he can somehow be controlled and his worst tendencies suppressed. Foreign policy would be outsourced to an experienced secretary of state, the Supreme Court would be prevented from a radical leftward tilt, and domestic policy could be left in the capable hands of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
A Trump presidency would therefore be a conservative presidency because Trump would be merely a figurehead president--with no interest in or knowledge of policy, he would be content to fly around on Air Force One and have all the pomp and circumstance feed his ego.
The "Never Trump" camp obviously sees things (and Trump) differently. Although appalled by Obama's impact and suspecting that Hillary would be even worse, they don't believe we have yet reached a level of "Flight 93" desperation: What we've witnessed in the past eight years, and would follow under Hillary in the next four, could be mostly repaired by a President Ryan or President Marco Rubio or President Ben Sasse.
The "Never Trump" camp thinks we can not only muddle through but that the GOP, by then sufficiently inoculated for the Trump virus, would be in an advantageous position to begin the process of party and national reconstruction in January 2021. In the meantime, Republican control of Congress and all those Republican governors at the state level could work to limit the damage inflicted by Hillary.
Implicit in this scenario are two additional assumptions: that in the long run it is better for the GOP to lose an election than to win one with Trump, because in such a victory would come the discarding of its commitment to limited government and individual liberty; and that constraining Trump would be a lot easier in theory than practice--he would likely run amok and present an existential threat to not just the Republican Party but to America itself.
With Hillary we get a guarantee of further decline, but with Trump there is too much risk of permanent damage to our political hygiene and the national interest, perhaps even to the survival of the republic.
So either Obama has pushed us to the precipice and Hillary is about to push us over, or things aren't really that bad and there is no need to take the desperate risk that even his supporters see in Trump.
Then again, we could simply skip all the rationalizations and contortions, keep it simple and vote for the best candidates--the Libertarian Party ticket of Gary Johnson and William Weld.
------------v------------
Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.
Editorial on 10/10/2016