Andrew C. McCarthy:
Victor Davis Hanson comprehensively outlines the conservative dilemma over the coming showdown between two non-conservative presidential candidates. Under the circumstances, examinations of Donald Trump’s fitness vel non must be measured against that of the current incumbent and the Democrat who hopes to replace him. Thus, Victor observes the irony that, even as we fear the Trump Armageddon, we are already living and must continue to dread the Obama–Clinton Apocalypse.
This thesis passes over the crucial preliminary question that is raised, and answered with great persuasive force, by Kevin D. Williamson: Is Trump so thoroughly unfit as to be disqualified from serving as president? I am very sympathetic to Kevin’s argument in the affirmative, but ultimately I cannot agree with it.
The Constitution’s threshold for qualification to serve is exceedingly easy to meet: One need only be a natural-born citizen who has reached the age of 35 and resided in the U.S. for 14 years (Article II, Section 1).
Is there more to it than that? What if the person is, say, non compos mentis? Well, for a person who already is president, the 25th Amendment provides a process for removal if the president “is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” That certainly implies that a person under such disability should not be elected in the first place. Still, the removal of a president for alleged unfitness — generally, some physical or mental disability — is a political determination, not a legal one. In that regard, it is the same as impeachment, the grounds and procedure for which I outlined in Faithless Execution.
With impeachment, the bottom line is that, legally, the House can be in a position to allege and prove a thousand high crimes and misdemeanors, but, politically, unless there is such strong public support for the president’s removal that a Senate supermajority (two-thirds) in favor of removal can be marshaled, the president may not be removed. Similarly, in cases of alleged disability, even if the vice president and top executive department officials claim that a president is not in his right mind (supported, let’s say, by a panel of independent, non-partisan psychiatrists), a president who objects may not be removed absent votes in support of removal by two-thirds’ supermajorities in both congressional chambers.
Simply stated, the Constitution puts more stock in politics than in law. A person is presumptively fit to serve as president if the public, acting through its representatives, elects and declines to remove the person. The Framers assumed the republican process they designed would weed out any candidate who was demonstrably unsuitable, and would force the removal of any president who was traitorous, corrupt, incompetent, or otherwise unable to perform the responsibilities of the office.
Even legal processes produce plenty of wrong results, yet they are more carefully geared toward producing correct results than is the political process. With the latter, convincing voters of the rightness of one’s position does not involve proving the rightness of one’s position.
I believe, as Kevin believes, that Trump is unsuitable to the office of president. I cannot say, however, that he is disqualified. He meets the minimal criteria. Beyond that, there is no legal way to deny him the office on unfitness grounds. He can be denied only if the voters find him unfit. Republican primary voters have not found him unfit, so now it will be up to the general electorate. Their conclusion could end up being wrong — indeed, an alarming number of political positions triumph in elections despite being against the national interest (see, e.g., Obama 2008 and 2012). But it is for the voters to decide.
If presidential fitness were a legal question, it would be possible to make rules about what factors may or may not be weighed in reaching a conclusion. Such rules are routine in legal determinations. You could make a rule that a candidate’s suitability for office is to be decided solely based on his own mental and physical attributes, and that these are not to be weighed against other likely candidates.
But because presidential fitness is a political determination, it does not lend itself to such rules. People may be inclined to judge candidate A’s fitness in comparison with candidate B’s. It is not necessary to see things that way, but there is nothing illegitimate about it. It is inevitable, in a matter involving choice, that many if not most people are going to compare the two candidates, weighing the deep flaws of each against the other.
On the other hand, neither Donald Trump nor the Republican party has any entitlement to votes from the #NeverTrump camp, including its Republican members.
Again, elections are often as not about unsavory choices. If Trump does not get enough votes, Hillary will win. Thus a #NeverTrump person must decide if his or her objection to Trump outweighs the harm done by failing to vote against Hillary. For me, it may not. That is why, despite being anti-Trump, I am not #NeverTrump. But I certainly see the sense, and do not question the good faith, of people who decide they simply cannot vote for a person they believe to be unfit, regardless of how unfit the opposing candidate is.
Just unfit to keep his word
Donald Trump is walking back one of his more controversial policy positions: a ban on Muslims immigrating to the United States. Now, Trump is saying that the ban was “just a suggestion” and is by no means final.
He said it had never been done.
He is also uninformed a ban was done during the Carter Administration (remember the brief hostage situation?)
But on the lighter side:
FBI Director: This ‘Security Inquiry’ Hillary Keeps Talking About Isn’t a Thing, This Is a Criminal Investigation.
@kitt:
And no one on her staff was interviewed by the FBI either and then we found out later it wasn’t the case. Of course, she also told us she didn’t have any classified material on her computer until it was revealed that there were over 2,100 classified emails. That changed to “nothing marked classified” (which isn’t a classification) which then changed to the material was “overclassified” after the public was informed of her nondisclosure agreement. She has lied and misled the public every step of the way on this issue just like Benghazi. Her only saving grace is that the political hacks in the DOJ (who have already donated over $70,000 to her campaign) along with the rest of this corrupt administration have probably already put the fix in.
The bar for fitness to be POTUS has already been lowered with Obama having been elected and re-elected. Hillary isn’t much better and neither is Trump. She belongs in jail and he talks before he thinks. What is boils down to is that of the three, Trump is the least unfit. That is how low our standards have become.
@another vet: The office of the POTUS has become an old Rodney Dangerfeild joke http://www.rodney.com/
I understand the “never Trump” position but I disagree with it as strongly as possible. Trump is not close to being perfect but he has had success and failure in the real world-something neither democrat can claim. Real world experience can change anyone and cause them to grow. If Trump selects good people to work under him, amazing things can happen. If we get the hildebeast, the current trajectory will be unchanged and the country is done especially after she gets done destroying the Supreme Court. I am willing to gamble on Trump’s people over the certain destruction of my country under either democrat.
I do not subscribe to the premise Trump is the better choice because he’s better than Hillary. His presumed flexibility is that one needs to be flexible in that office. When other presidents have asserted the need for flexibility, the general opinion is that they do not know their own mind. If having maximum flexibility is such a desirable trait, then why the objection to the manner of how Obama is running the country? He’s using maximum flexibility. Then why adversaries and potential adversaries, and friends, see maximum flexibility as a weakness? (Think Iran, think Israel.)
Also, I do not subscribe to the premise Trump only hires the best. If he hires the best, then what happened to Trump Airlines, Trump Water, Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Casino, etc. which all failed mightily? Did he not hire the best? Did he not do proper due diligence on those he did hire? Paul Manafort, his convention manager, is a K Street lobbyist, but who has the reputation of an influence peddler. Manafort is also investigation as an unregistered foreign agent. Steven Mnunchin, the Trump national finance chair is a known contributor to Democratic campaigns (including Hillary’s), a George Soros supporter, and has a reputation as the foreclosure king. We all know politics is dirty affair with the unsavory here and there, but is Trump worth the gamble? Most of all, Trump has done the same in supporting candidates, primarily Democratic ones, in the hope of gaining access (better known as trying to buy influence).
Does one support Trump because he’s the least “unfit”, the lesser of two evils? I would not change my mind. Both he and Hillary are craven opportunists. Neither gives a rat ass about anything except for themselves and their cronies. They are both Obama’s third term. I would vote for neither. I would vote for any of my animals (cats and horses) first.
@David: When you think about it, no matter how it shakes out, we’ll have a minimum of 12 straight years of the bottom of the barrel in the WH. If nothing else, the GE should be quite entertaining with the negative ads etc. Welcome to reality TV.
@another vet #6 –
That’s very true. But if one doesn’t want to watch the attraction in the center ring, one can take a gander at the sideshow in the next ring over – it appears Bruce Jenner doesn’t want to be Caitlyn anymore. Good thing, he/she didn’t have the operation yet.
I’m past looking at the Presidential race. I know I won’t vote for Trump and may not vote Hillary either.
I think many here are in denial of how Trump is destroying the GOP. As Harry Reid pointed out today, if McConnell buys I to Trump, he must buy into the concept that “women are pigs and dogs”. And the list goes on. And dems have only started.
Republicans and the tea party have really royally screwed themselves. Bigly.
Those of you who are refusing to vote for Trump because he is not the perfect candidate will have the destruction of the country under the hildebeast on your heads. You may want to notice that he at least is talking about the things the electorate is interested in. Considering the condition of the country, I could care less about gay marriage, trans bathroom rights, and the like. I am worried about muslim immigration and terrorism, illegal aliens, and the unpayable debt. I personally feel Trump will do a better job on these concerns and we can worry about the small stuff IF we can save the country, something I am not at all certain is possible.
A PS to my comment-if the establishment fools that run what is left of the Republican Party had noticed WHY people were for Trump and started talking about those points, we would not be here. They did not and Trump did. End of story.
Trump has the support of the majority of the base and is bringing more minority over to the GOP (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, etc) to a greater degree than the GOPe could even dream of. He has also energized discouraged Republicans (who quit voting because under the establishment leadership the RINOs stopped caring about what the base wanted over courting fellow elite globalists.). Your claim that this is ‘dividing the GOP by growing the party makes no sense. If the establishment RINO’s take their ball to join Hillary, then I say good riddance and don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out. For the whiny #NeverTrump #OnlyCruz crybabies; You are living in a delusional world if you think that all of your fellow conservatives supported Cruz. More so, if you are so clueless as to think that moderates and independents would have voted for Cruz.
Why should Republicans give a damn about the rantings of that lying weasel Reed? If you are draw-in by Reed’s partisan bullcr*p, you can’t possibly be a conservative, (although it makes me suspect that you are an establishment GOPe loyalist. If you are then by all means stay home, because we’d just as soon not take the chance that you will vote your ‘establishment conscience’ and pull the lever for Hillary.)
Clearly you seem to have bought into the MSM/Huffington-Post/ProgressNow propaganda. Trump is not a chauvinist nor a racist, and every woman and minority employee who has spoken to the press agrees that he isn’t, and he has promoted women and minorities to high positions in his companies. On the other hand, he was (to be blunt) absolutely correct in stating his opinion of Rosie O’Donnell as being a ‘pig and dog’. Are you also one of those nut-jobs who actually believes Rosie’s tin-hat conspiracy theories and anti-Republican BS? Are you a fawning Rosie Fan?
@another vet:
Yes I agree that of the three he is the most fit. At least he is a successful businessman, Hillary or Obama have neither one ever succeeded at anything. Obama failed as a community organizer and failed to go to college. Hillary has failed as a woman.
@David:
Very few self made billionaires are considered as failure’s and Trump is not a failure. anyone that doesn’t like him, just doesn’t like him. Vote for the alternative and get a liberal supreme court forever.
@Redteam:
To be fair, Hillary has succeeded wildly at selling her political influence out to foreign nationals for millions in bribes. Obama too has done surprisingly well in trampling the Constitution and in his attempts to destroy and discredit the US. And to his credit, Sanders has proven to be a bigger threat to the Democrat establishment’s chosen Wicket Witch of Washington DC.
Yet, as a highly capable CEO with experience managing multiple profitable businesses, Trump is much fitter than the what progressives have offered us.
@Ditto: You and I share the same frustrations with the GOP establishment and usually agree on most everything especially the number one lefty troll who frequents this site. Allow me to be devil’s advocate for a minute. If someone like McCain is a RINO and Trump’s views on Iraq and 9/11 are way far to the left of McCain’s, what does that make Trump? Normally he’d be an appealing candidate for me- independent, non-PC, and won’t roll over and played dead for the likes of Hillary the way McCain and Romney did for Obama. But his statements on 9/11 and OIF have put him on my s-list which is probably why 21% of the military personnel in the poll you referenced on the other thread said they won’t support either candidate. Any of the other 16 who ran against him probably would have had most of those 21% sewn up as well.
I still look for reasons to trust Trump enough with my vote. Most of the crap he was stirring up, he is backing off on. Him being vastly rich doesnt impress me at all in his company he is king, hey guess what, as President he becomes a servant, that aint gonna fly with the Don is it.
I know the politics of Ryan not endorsing him, Ryan is up for re-election in a state that Ol Donny boy got his ass kicked in. Not a single conservative talk radio personality has changed their tune here, to them Donnie is a lying liberal imposter that pandered his way to the top spot and can tell everyone who voted him there to f-off, and is in the process of doing so. I think he needs a full psych eval there is an obvious mental disorder, but because he is wealthy they will call him eccentric.
I’ll keep looking for a platform or sane policy from him but not holding my breath.
How can he be any different that the progressive batshit crazy asses that already occupy the seat and the ones fighting to take it? ;p
@another vet:
McCain would have had information that Trump as a civilian doesn’t. Trump, like many of us has depended on the media to keep him informed on the war, so he is only reflecting on what the MSM has reported. With not having the strait poop, and being busy running multiple businesses, Trump may not know the actual facts. Being an intelligent man, Trump would certainly change his opinion after having been giving the actual facts provided to him. McCain however has no such excuse.
@kitt:
If you would rather have your vote (or lack of it) elect Hillary or Bernie, that’s your choice. I think it’s a pretty darn stupid one, as with Trump you at least have a chance he will do as he promises just to keep his word as a businessman. Look, I’ve been holding my nose and voting for lying establishment GOPe jackasses since after Reagan. Trump is somewhat moderate (yes, liberal on some issues, conservative on others,) however he is definitely not establishment. That is why I’m willing to hold my nose and vote for him.
You pouters can do what you want, but don’t in your foolish pride think that by staying home you are helping our nation or “saving the GOP” by not supporting the Republican nominee. You aren’t. All you are doing is increasing the chance we will have Queen Hillary or Herr Sanders. Do you really think you can “trust” either of those socialists would end up to be better for the country than Trump? Really? You’d rather stay home and allow a possibility for one those two vultures to get in office just to prove a point? Are you that eager to be a slave to the State with one of the Democrat candidates as the oligarchical overlord?
Trump is not my favorite choice for President. I would rather Sessions would have run. But we have what we have. My main reasons for voting Trump is because I truly think he loves what this country was, and that he want’s to bring back the “American Dream.” and he want’s to get a handle on this out of control illegal immigrant problem. Exactly what flipping problem do you have with that?
The problem is he repeated the Bush lied about Iraq and was responsible for 9/11 b.s. during the debates despite all the evidence to the contrary. The lefties who post here make the same comments.
I concur on that point. Unlike Obama, whom I believe truly hates this country, I do think Trump has its best interests at heart.