There are some who believe that it is still possible to stop Donald Trump’s path to the GOP nomination—and I hope they’re right! Even if such an effort is farfetched or harmful to the party's unity or electoral prospects, you can sign me up. It ain’t over until Chris Christie sings—which Trump will probably make him do at the convention.
But let’s buckle in and consider our options for the post-nomination future, if Trump indeed gets the nod. Every Republican, from the party’s leaders on down to each voter, will face a choice about whether to support Trump, or pursue some other course.
For my part, I cannot, and will not, ever vote for or otherwise support him. This is not principally because of his politics, by the way. I am not, in fact, a neo-Buchananite/America Firster, but it is also clear that some elements of Trump’s platform (such as he has one) are not only defensible, but necessary for the GOP’s future. Globalization has created a new set of winners and losers in America, and a true governing party will advocate for the interests of those who have been harmed. Indeed, some of the best minds in the conservative movement have been describing this phenomenon, if not always in these exact terms, and proposing responsible policies that address it, for years.
Of course, Trump is anything but responsible—playing footsie with white supremacists, tossing around Mussolini quotes, threatening to attack journalists by "opening up" the libel laws (whatever that means!), showing a pathological sympathy for the interests of authoritarians and strongmen everywhere—and that’s the point. Trump is unfit for high office, for any office, not mainly because of his politics, but because of his character. If he pivoted today and preached reform conservatism at home and a prudent defense of democratic values abroad, I still would not support him. His instability, childishness, ignorance, malice, and dishonesty would still make him a threat to the self-rule of the American people, to republicanism with a small "r"—a form of government already much beleaguered by progressivism, and something that Republicans, after all, are meant to value!
So what should we do? These seem to be the options:
Vote for Hillary, or otherwise go Democrat. Some who have been generally associated with the GOP in the past already seem to be taking strides in this direction. I can’t, and if you are a principled conservative, I don’t think you can either. Just as there is no place for us in a personality-cult, Front National Republican Party, I can’t identify a home with the Democrats, either. A party that supports the reckless expansion of the welfare state? That achieves a governing coalition by sorting Americans according to their grievances, then promising to pay them off, as groups, in return for their support? That has transformed from a party that supports "safe, legal, and rare" abortion to one that now seems to demand Americans celebrate the act as a praiseworthy exercise of a woman’s rights? Count me out.
Form a new party. Some, like Randy Barnett, have already tested out such a measure in print, and even this very afternoon Danielle Pletka suggested such a move might become necessary. This seems more viable than joining the Democrats, whether for one election or for a longer haul—but the problems here are many. For one, running a conservative candidate in 2016 will very likely throw the election to Hillary. I believe this would be a risk worth taking, as a Trump presidency would do graver damage to the United States than another Clinton term in office. In the longer run, the problems are even greater. Can "conservatism," absent the kinds of coalition partnerships it effectively has in today’s GOP, get candidates elected? The answer is very likely "no," or at best, "rarely."
So, take back the GOP, then! After a Trump failure in November, perhaps having temporarily bolted for another candidate—or perhaps having focused on saving the careers of conservatives running as Republicans for other offices—conservatives return and make a concerted effort to reassert themselves in the Republican Party, taking care to address the legitimate grievances that Trump’s rise has brought into the open. In the horrifying event that Trump wins in November, this effort could bide its time by working to send good men and women to Congress and to state offices, and then would primary Trump in 2020, if we haven’t all yet been killed in a nuclear exchange with Belgium, or something.
Take our ball and go home. Retire to the country. Take up watercolor. Join the Merchant Marine or, better, the French Foreign Legion. But of course, this isn’t possible for those of us who are committed to American greatness—not the kind that Trump promises to return us to by making deals, but the kind that depends on our multi-century experiment in self-rule, in government by the people.
So, then: either a new party, or a long-term effort to reassert ourselves in our own. If March 15 goes badly (and again, there's a chance it won't) we should prepare to have this debate in earnest, because in my view supporting Trump is simply unacceptable. The party’s leaders, when they condemn Trump’s bigotry but imply that, if he amends his behavior, they might make their peace with him, are being foolish. They would do well to follow the example of Senator Ben Sasse, who speaks eloquently and bravely of the stakes for the party, and the country, of a Trump nomination.
Sasse also has asserted, accurately, that political parties are simply tools. It’s the principles behind them that matter. Conservative principles amount to more than simply "power and access at any price." Clinton’s defeat, and one term of "Republican" rule, whatever that may mean with a President Donald Trump, is simply not worth doing great harm to what vestige of a republic we have left.