How Conservatives Move Forward

 

Now that the conventions are creeping up on us ever so slightly and the party nominations are almost surely decided, American conservatives face a difficult task, who, or who not
to vote for.

Now, there are really only two courses of thought one can take when applying their ideology to the voter’s booth. 1. One can vote for the person who best represents their stances or not vote. Or, 2. One can conform to the “Best of two evils” candidate because many think that voting is essential just because it is an amazing right that some other people do not possess.

Yes, voting is a right for all Americans, and one we should cherish and appreciate, but not to hold in an idolatrous way. What I mean by that is one should not just cast a vote just to vote but to vote for the person who best represents one’s said ideals and stances. In this election, we are faced with two disgusting candidates. One who is an establishment leftist, who lies to her constituents and cozies up to her big donors, and a conniving and calculated ultra-nationalist and populist, who will flip-flop on any issue to gauge the population’s reactions. The election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may just possibly bring the lowest voter turnout in decades, but this is expected because both have unfavorable ratings above 50 percent.

Now more than ever, conservatives face a daunting question. Do we vote Trump because he may implement more conservative policies than Hillary, or do we not vote because no candidates resemble the small government ideology of true conservatives? Voting for Trump because he is the lesser of two evils is a logical debate but counterproductive. If we do not stand our ground with voting, we lower our standards for future positions in politics, and also we really do not have a strong ideology. The right to vote is also the right not to vote, and that discrepancy is very important.

If we want the Republican Party to continue to hold the core staples of conservatism, we must not back Trump just because he possesses the (R) beside his name but rebuke him because true conservatives do not support the populist and racist rhetoric that he uses. Trump is the perfect candidate for the Democrats. He is everything conservatives get labeled as and try to fight against, and a strong grass roots conservative movement is absolutely paramount to counteract the barbaric alt-right super-nationalists that confide in Trump. If conservatives back Trump, he may win and be not as “bad” of a president as Hillary, but all hope is lost for a true conservative movement in the Republican Party.

And always remember, a vote not for Trump is not a vote for Hillary, but a vote for the future of conservatism.

– Andrew Skibbie

16 Comments

  1. I have to disagree. When you don’t vote, yes you voice you opinion of hating both candidates, but at the same time you just watch either of the two become president without any personal say. It’s not like a smaller voter turnout from republicans will make this nightmare go away, it will just give more votes to Crooked Hillary. Sometimes u have to swallow the facts in order to give your country a better future, even if it isn’t exactly the way you want it to be.

  2. “And always remember, a vote not for Trump is not a vote for Hillary, but a vote for the future of conservatism.”
    Are you brain dead? This makes absolutely 0 sense. Sure it is always good to keep strong to your principle, but not voting for Trump is giving Hilary the white House thus further killing off any hope of conservatism ever returning to the White House.

    • No Solu,
      It is braindead to think that Trump betters the conservative movement. He is not conservative, and by him being in the White House may kill the conservative movement, at least in the Republican party. Besides his lies on securing the boarder, he stands for almost no conservative policies, and even stands to the left of Hillary on some issues.

      • -Trump wants immigration reform to prevent immigrants from coming in illegal and even stated he wanted a mass deportation of them? Not conservative?
        -Second Amendment rights? Very Liberal indeed
        -Decreasing taxes? I sense the rise of totalitarianism….
        -Punishment for killing babies? Bernie Sanders would be proud!
        -Repealing Obamacare? Reeks of a Democrat
        -Given benefits to our military? Yikes conservatism has disappeared.

        You vote to make a decision on who would do the best job as a president, not out of principle. You know what policy that is called? Common sense.

        “Lets give Hilary Clinton the White House to preserve conservatism”–Andrew Skibbe
        Keep your abundant stupidity to yourself, utter disgrace of an article. Tommy Redmond would never write something like this.

      • Solu,

        Donald Trump has either been publicly against all of those things in the past and is now just paying lip service to conservatives or he has actually made a flip flop back to his old stance, like on taxes. By the way, punishment for the mother for having an abortion is not conservative.

        Most importantly, no matter what his assistants write on his website and no matter what memorized line his advisors tell him before he goes out to debate (like his insistence on “getting rid of the lines” without having any other policy position beyond that on health care), he is and always has been a believer that government is the solution to our problems instead of THE problem, as Ronald Reagan famously believed. True conservatives will never be able to get over the fact that Trump has no respect for the Constitution, limited government, or any understanding of what the responsibilities of government are. This is the guy who thinks that the Supreme Court justices write laws.

        I understand why, as an enthusiastic Bernie Sanders supporter, you might find Trump appealing because both Trump and Sanders are authoritarian (oops I said it) leftists from New York who are also isolationists and protectionists. They are the two most similar candidates in the race.

  3. It was a well written article, and I applaud the passion Andrew has on this topic. Nevertheless, this article doesn’t make much sense. Not voting won’t make the problem any better, and if you believe this you are an arrogant fool. Closing you eyes doesn’t make the world around you stop, it is you civic duty to vote in each election.

    • I understand the point that closing your eyes doesn’t fix the world and make it stop, but deciding between two heaps of trash is also hard to do, especially if one of those heaps of trash has infiltrated your party. Donald Trump, as of today, is not conservative, and I am not saying I would necessarily not vote, I would probably vote for Austin Peterson, a libertarian who holds many conservative views that coincide with libertarianism, as of today. Also, see Ben Shapiro’s article in the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435235/donald-trump-conservative-voters),
      which better describes what Trump needs to do to show the Republican parties’ constituents that he will make conservative changes. Right now, I would rather keep the Republican Party conservative than have a populist liberal call who calls himself conservative tear the party down with a presidency, and if another Obama-esque term is necessary to combat this (Hillary), then that is what needs to happen.

  4. Perhaps I need to make myself a little bit more clearer…
    My point is this in a nutshell: There are two electable candidates yes?(Austin Peterson doesn’t count as there is a higher chance of pigs flying than him winning) One has spent most of their life on the left side and is pushing towards more and more by the day, and has proven to be a vastly incompetent at her job. On the other hand, you have an enigma that is rather flexible on many views on the issues in the life, but somewhere in that realm of unpredictability lies the values of conservatism. Are those values a majority of his said views? I didn’t say that and truthfully nobody knows, but is it more than the other said candidate? Definitely. So therefore using the recently discovered policy of common sense, who should you get behind to preserve those said values as something that would be used to govern this great nation for the next 4 years?….Probably the guy with the most values of conservatism included in his political agenda.

    Lets get something straight. My views are strictly based off of what is best for the country. So, agreeing with Bernie Sanders on two of his ideas does not make me a supporter, never mind an enthusiastic one. I think voting for Donald Trump is what should happen because it is BEST for the country. If Mitt Romney was running do you think we would even be having this conversation? I don’t think so.

    Pro-life=Conservative

    • Trump’s unpredictability does not ever land on him being a conservative. If there is one thing that is predictable about Trump, it is that he will come down on the side of government and not on the side of liberty. So the choice between the two major parties is between two New York liberals. Personally, I don’t care who wins between the two New York liberals, and I won’t support either of them, the side note being of course that Trump represents my party, and if he wins, he will successfully destroy it is a conservative party. Trump will also run to the left of Hillary on trade and foreign policy and will use just as much unilateral force as Hillary. The republic will be destroyed either way, and I will not be responsible for it.

      Not sure why Mitt Romney ties into this. The reason why we wouldn’t be having this conservation about Romney is because Romney is many times more conservative than Donald Trump. At the same time, Romney was not a true conservative and invented Obamacare, and many people DID have this same conversation about Romney for that reason.

      Pro life = conservative. Punishing mothers for having an abortion is not pro life.

      • Looks like I have to approach this in a different way as you are missing the point.
        Who is MORE(key word MORE) conservative, Hilary or Donald Trump?

        You basically proved my point on Mitt Romney. Donald Trump is not the best candidate, but who is more conservative and overall the better candidate? Mitt Romney?

        Pro LIFE= Conservative
        Punishing mothers for having an abortion is a radical pro life policy seeing as the definition of pro-life means opposition to abortion…

      • Solu,

        Obviously you see Trumps tactic of taking a radical stance and walking it back to where he gains favorability as an, “enigma that is rather flexible on many views”. The alt-right super nationalists love that Trump is so “flexible”, cough populist and calculated cough, on issues because he voices the anti-establishment fervor against establishment candidates. Mentioning Mitt Romney makes absolutely no sense because he was way more conservative than Trump, but still pretty moderate. Punishing women for abortion is NOT a conservative policy. Pro-life conservative policies try to make abortion illegal on the ground that the thing that grows inside a woman’s chest is not a cluster of cells, but a life. Also, it seems you still do not understand our argument against Trump. At the end of the day, he may possibly implement more conservative policy than Hillary (Maybe) but that is still totally unpredictable. First, he is going to do whatever gets him over 50 percent of favorability on said policy, because he has no rooted ideology to which he bases his policy off of. Ted Cruz was by no means an amazing candidate, but at least he rooted his views in constitutional conservatism. Trump says whatever helps him with favorability, all he cares about are the polls, not human decency. (Like having Corey Lewandowski apologize to Michelle Fields). Trump is way more toxic than Hillary because he is a New York leftist who has infiltrated the Republican party to promote hate filled Trumpism. At least we would expect Hillary to do what she does, but keep the leftism to the left, not where a future of conservatism should be held.

  5. Andrew Skibbie once again, your profuse ineptitude and conspicuous idiocy never ceases to amaze.

    Please kindly refrain from responding to my comments. Anything you have to say can be transmitted through Trevor Louis or Tommy Redmond.

      • Very funny,
        Listen, I understand that this is simply a matter of principle, and waiting for the man who represents all the values of conservatism to represent the Republican Party, but are you willing to let the country endure 4 years of suffering from Hilary Clinton, an incompetent ass who can easily be compared to a horrific combination between George Bush and Barrack Obama. Why would you want to endure so much turmoil for a long term action that may not even be successful? Principle is a very important necessity, but at what cost?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*