I've read the case. I've considered the arguments' merits. And after it all, I firmly stand by this moral conviction:
A person can lay legitimate claim to the title of conservative and not cast a ballot for Donald Trump this November. A person cannot lay legitimate claim to that title and cast a ballot for Kamala Harris.
Yes, I'm backhandedly referring to the work of New York Times' writer, and their most recent convert from conservatism to paid critic of conservatism, David French. Last week, French admitted publicly he would be voting for a staggeringly far-left presidential candidate in order to stop Donald Trump populism from coming to define conservatism.
The man's reasonable contempt for Trump himself notwithstanding, his article is one of the least persuasive I've seen from French in some time. Its glaring holes and clumsy leaps of logic truly make me wonder if French is trying too hard to be something he's not - the "reasonable" and "not-crazy" conservative that liberals can be comfortable around. Perhaps he is beginning to realize what he should have always known - the only way to attain that title is to brazenly prostitute your convictions and abandon conservatism completely.
By announcing his intention to vote for Kamala Harris - a woman committed to enacting price controls, driving up home costs with artificial and utterly ineffective subsidized down payments, and pursuing one of the most aggressive liberal social agendas in history - French appears to at least be in the process of walking down that well-worn path.
Denying your vote to Donald Trump is certainly a decision that can be born of conservative principle. It's saying, "This is my vote. As a conservative I have certain non-negotiables for who earns it, and Trump fails that test." Perhaps it's the softening on abortion, the "follow your heart" approach on massacring life in the womb. Maybe it is his willingness to compromise on 2nd Amendment rights or on the foundational element of family and society in general - the man/woman marriage. Or maybe it's personal character issues. Whatever the case, it's logical.
But voting in favor of Kamala Harris, who from a conservative perspective, is demonstrably worse on every significant political issue, cannot be construed as conservative in any reasonable sense. Take the issues I just mentioned.
Abortion? Harris promotes abortion to the moment of birth, and her vice-presidential pick favors legalized infanticide (outside the womb). A conservative can logically deny their vote to both, but cannot justify voting for Harris if Trump isn't pro-life enough.
Guns? Harris is on record supporting what would be civil war-initiating gun confiscation efforts. A conservative can logically deny their vote to both, but cannot justify voting for Harris if Trump isn't pro-gun enough.
Personal character? Harris' life story is full of rank profligacy. A conservative can logically deny their vote to both, but cannot justify voting for Harris if Trump isn't moral enough.
In other words, whatever conservative conviction you hold that disqualifies Trump from receiving your vote, would necessarily disqualify Harris from the same.
Whatever is causing your vote against Trump and for Harris, it is not your ideological principles. In fact, you are violating them.
In his article, French attempts to justify this obvious conflict by saying conservatives and Christians voting for Harris will, in essence, send a "message" to the Republican Party that they must wrest control away from Trump's populist faction and listen to them.
That's so weak for an accomplished writer like French. Erick Erickson explained it beautifully:
Voting for Kamala Harris to stop Trump or save conservatism only tells Democrats that they need to do nothing to earn your vote. They do not have to moderate their position because no matter how extreme they are, you'll vote for them if you have allowed Trump to radicalize you against him.
The better option for evangelicals and conservatives is to show up and vote and leave that line blank. That registers your disgust and makes you a meaningful demographic that both parties will want in order to win. That will force change. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate who will advance far-left positions just because you think the other side is bad will only ensure the side you vote for keeps moving left. They'll treat your vote not as a vote against Trump but as an endorsement. You'll be their cheap date.
That's what the Frenchian approach will yield: a disaster to the efficacy of the conservative movement in America.
