Alexander, How will you vote?
By Mark Alexander
Over the last six months, I've been asked by hundreds of colleagues, "How will you vote?" To each of them, I responded much as I have in every presidential election since I cast my first vote. More on that in a moment...
The contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has created an extraordinary level of contentiousness, most notably not between political parties but rather between differing constituencies on the right side of the political spectrum. Conservatives, especially voters of strong faith, are divided over support for Trump. That division is evident even among our staff. In 2012, millions of conservative and faithful voters were divided over the Romney-Ryan ticket, and abstained — thus handing Barack Obama a second term.
But never has a national party candidate created as much intra-party discord as Trump, and it's notable that the only way Clinton will win this election is because of that discord. She's the weakest candidate the Democrat Party has fielded since Walter Mondale lost 49 states to Ronald Reagan in 1984. (A mere 2,500 votes in Mondale's home state of Minnesota denied Reagan a clean sweep of the Electoral College.) I hasten to mention that Mondale was far more honest and qualified than Clinton, who is, arguably, the most corrupt and inept Democrat candidate since the party was established.
Astoundingly, and almost exclusively because of the aforementioned Republican infighting, Clinton leads in most media polls.
That being said, however, I've always argued that most media polls are outcome-based, which is to say they're designed for a subjective outcome, which is then promoted as an objective outcome in order to propagate and expand the subjective goal. Years ago I dubbed this disingenuous media polling cycle the "Pollaganda Effect." It is for this reason that The Patriot Post rarely reports polling unless it meets our very high standard for objectivity.
How ironic it is that media outlets refrain from exit polling on Election Day, ostensibly to ensure that they don't influence those who've not yet voted and, thus, the election outcome. However, they report their outcome-based polling incessantly up until the last minute before Election Day polls open, and they do so precisely to influence the voters and, thus, the election outcome.
So, how am I going to vote?
As I've responded every quadrennial election since I cast my first presidential vote, "For our Constitution — for the candidate who is most likely to nominate constitutionally constructionist judges to the Supreme Court, those who will promote Liberty over tyranny."
Recently, my friend Cal Thomas, who's been an astute political observer and advocate of Liberty longer than most of today's crop of politicos have been alive, penned his opinion on this election in "At Stake: The Constitution." Cal wrote, "This election is about a lot of things, but it is fundamentally about the U.S. Constitution and whether federal judges will adhere to their oath to 'faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under the Constitution and laws of the United States,' or dilute, attack and destroy our founding document."
Cal also noted, "The Constitution is on the ballot in the persons of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who hold differing views of it and have pledged to appoint radically different judges to federal benches." He concluded, "This election will ... decide whether the Constitution remains a self-authenticating document, protecting our liberties from encroaching government, or something that ... can be shredded along with our liberties."
As Thomas Jefferson warned about the "despotic branch," "The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Like Cal Thomas and many other elder observers, I believe that Donald Trump is much more likely than Hillary Clinton to nominate constitutional constructionist judges to the Supreme Court — judges who'll promote Liberty over tyranny.
For the record, I could not have imagined a year ago that Clinton, who has a lifelong record of lies" along with a prolific record of corruption and catastrophic failures in partnership with her husband, could beat any Republican contender. Today, I'm much less certain.
While I understand well the nature of presidential character as exemplified best by our first commander in chief, George Washington, and while I believe neither Clinton nor Trump even register on those character scales, I also understand that the outcome of the November election will not only determine our president for at least the next four years, but also the composition of the Supreme Court for the next quarter-century. Think about that before you decide to stay home or to cast a "protest vote" for a third-party candidate.
I would state emphatically that those who choose to sit this election out or "choose neither" are making a choice. If you're reluctant to vote for Trump, then at least vote for the Supreme Court. And make no mistake: A vote this year for a third-party candidate in any state where the Clinton v Trump contest is close constitutes a vote for Clinton and a third term for Obama. Period.
After the conservative congressional advances across the nation in 2010 and again with historic gains in 2014, despite the needless presidential loss in 2012, throwing this year's contest to Clinton will prove a disastrous blow to Liberty.
In the final debate between Trump and Clinton, she asked, "What kind of country are we going to be?" If her legions of low-information voters have their way, ours will be a country that continues slouching toward tyranny.
And a final note regarding the contentious debates about Trump: Hillary Clinton's MO has always been to ignore the message and "shoot the messenger," sometimes literally. This has been her response to all of the leaks of her concealed communication files as secretary of state and at her other adjunct organizations. Her default pivot is to blame Russia for hacking into their communication servers (if Russia did indeed hack accounts) rather than address the corruption exposed by the contents of those communications — because she has no defense for that corruption.
However, over the last six months, we've received strenuous objections from "conservatives" who have also been shooting the messenger. We've had donors withdraw their support while claiming we haven't been critical enough of Trump. At the same time, we've had donors withdraw their support claiming we've been too critical of Trump.
The fact is, our editors across the country do a very good job of providing analysis that genuine conservatives need to stay well informed. Our steadfast commitment to Liberty and the truth, and our clarity regarding the distinctly different worldview of those on the left and on the right, have sustained support for our mission and operation budgets through our 20th anniversary on the Web.
This is the most challenging quadrennial election I've ever witnessed, but our mission to advance Liberty is timeless — and not tied to any political cycle or candidate.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.