I have written here and elsewhere about my misgivings over Donald Trump. In particular, I co-wrote a study that was sharply critical of his ideas on trade policy. I have cringed at Trump’s off-the-cuff personal attacks on people. He was my last choice among the initial contenders for the Republican nomination. He has run a terrible presidential campaign. Yet, I am going to vote for him in the presidential election.
The principal reason is that I fear for the country if Hillary Clinton is elected. Hillary Clinton does not just want to be president. She also wants to further a radical movement, for which both she and Barack Obama are 21st century torch bearers. Obama is a protégé of the communist Frank Marshall Davis, the terrorist William Ayres and the black liberationist Jeremiah Wright. Both Obama and Clinton were heavily influenced by the neo Marxist Saul Alinskly, whose core strategy was to use any means necessary to bring down business and government institutions for the benefit of what he deemed to be the disadvantaged.
Clinton wrote glowingly of Alinsky in her senior thesis at Wellesley. She once headed the Legal Services Corporation, the purpose of which is to push tenants into bringing complaints, whether justified or not, in order to benefit themselves at the expense of their landlords. Her campaign is based on the same appeal to class envy as that made by the Sanders/Warren wing of her party. Both she and Obama see it as their purpose to expand the powers of a confiscatory state over the objections of the contemptible “clingers” and “deplorables” who would stand in their way.
The difference between Clinton and Sanders is that Sanders made the mistake of brandishing his socialist ideology for all to see. Clinton, in a departure from Alinsky, believes that, in order to gain power, it is necessary to adopt a gradualist approach and work within the system, chipping away steadily at the institutions and traditions that stand in the way of her personal agenda.
Clinton tells any lie and uses any kind of thuggery necessary to advance that agenda. Just as Obama corrupted the IRS, she corrupted the State Department, the FBI and, with it, the entire Justice Department over her email server. Just as Obama abandoned Iraq to ISIS in order to further his political future, she abandoned the men she stationed in Benghazi to Ansar al-Sharia in order to further hers. Just as Obama lied when he promised to curtail the use of executive orders, she lied about an internet video as the cause of Benghazi. The one thing she did that exceeded anything Obama attempted was to create a foundation to serve as a slush fund for acolytes whose job it was to collect bribes for State Department favors.
The political philosophy of which Obama and Hillary are the embodiment, has certain core principles. One of these is to emphasize the importance of income redistribution over economic growth, as the best way to stoke up class envy among low income earners. Another is that no one must ever question government efforts directed at reducing global warming, lest he risk condemnation by modern inquisitors masquerading as public officials.
Similarly, Christian-based institutions and practices must yield to the social values of the ruling class. Under the Obama/Clinton doctrine, girls must be made to shower with boys, Catholic nuns must provide birth control against the tenets of their faith, and Christian photographers must service gay weddings against the tenets of theirs. Under the same doctrine, late-term abortions are to be encouraged in order to maximize the retail value of the harvested baby parts.
Neither Obama nor Clinton will own up to a desire to shrink the economy, but both make an argument for economic expansion that is based on fantasy. There is no economic theory to be found that would recognize higher taxes on the rich, a higher minimum wage, paid family leave and the implementation of equal pay laws as a path to economic growth. Indeed, Clinton’s economic plan merely slices a shrinking economic pie in a fashion that is supposed to benefit the poor and the middle class without any guarantee that it will actually do so.
Hillary Clinton’s America will look much like Obama’s: continued economic malaise, a politicized Supreme Court, a hollowed out military, and a world in which America finds itself less and less respected by enemies and allies alike. For all of his faults, none of this is what Donald Trump wishes to bring about. It is too bad that the Republicans didn’t nominate someone without Trump’s many faults, but it is better to elect him than to perpetuate the radical agenda that his opponent is sure to pursue.
David G. Tuerck
David G. Tuerck is executive director of the Beacon Hill Institute and professor of economics at Suffolk University. Read his past columns here.
(AP photo) 
