I am publishing excerpts here of my letter of resignation to
the Berks County Republican Committee:
Dear Executive Committee of the Berks County Republican Committee,
[The first part of the letter pertains to resolutions I offered for the Committee’s consideration to advise the Republican Convention Delegates, which were not debated by the full Committee. They did not pass, but did attract some support.]
Resolution
#1 . . . if adopted by the Republican Convention Delegates, would simply have
protected the Party by requiring its presidential nominee to pledge to divest
himself of his business holdings sufficiently to eliminate a conflict of
interest, while Resolution #2 would have also protected the Party by vetting
the nominee more adequately by requiring disclosure of his federal income tax
returns. Both practices are not legally required,
but have been customary.
Resolution
#3 would have allowed the Republican Convention Delegates to exercise their
best judgment, in keeping with representative republican principles that are
the foundation of the “Republican” Party, in accord with their good conscience,
as has been the practice at nearly every prior Republican Convention. [Here I noted several typical arguments that had
been raised against such a rule].
The first such argument is that the
results of the primaries and caucuses represented the “will of the people.” The results represented the will of only a
plurality of those who participated in voting in these contests, even including
the many non-Republicans who participated in them. The primaries and caucuses are supposed to
represent the choice of the members of the Republican Party, not the “people”
in general. A record 17 million voters cast
ballots for candidates other than the Republican nominee, who won an
extraordinarily low 44% of the vote, despite the lack of contests for the last
several primaries. Therefore, Trump was
not the choice of Republicans, or even of a majority of those who voted in the
Republican primaries and caucuses, let alone of “the people.” Even in states with closed primaries, like Pennsylvania, the
primary participants included tens of thousands who simply checked the
Republican box on a voter registration form at least thirty days prior to the
election without necessarily any loyalty to the Republican Party. Furthermore, many who did vote for Trump
subsequently had changed their minds by the time of the Convention, as new
information had become available. Polls
have suggested a growing majority of Republicans prefer a different nominee.
Another argument is that Trump won
“fair and square.” He did not, as he
apparently misrepresented himself, in terms of his businesses success and promise
of self-funding of his campaign . . . .
Furthermore, his campaign was aided by the Republican National
Committee’s . . . violation of its neutrality by declaring a “presumptive
nominee” while there was still a major candidate campaigning and before the
Convention Delegates had voted or the Convention had even convened.
Like Resolutions #1 and #2,
Resolution #3 would not necessarily have resulted in a different nominee than
Trump, but Resolution #3 would have at least allowed a free choice, which would
have been better politically for the nominee and more unitive for the Party. Because of the lack of a free choice and the
vindictiveness of Trump and his supporters and their dismissal of those who
have concerns about and moral objections to his candidacy, Trump has failed his
responsibility to unite the Republican Party.
My
opposition to Trump is not because I am part of the “establishment” (which is a
meaningless term that seems to be applied as a typical ad hominem argument to
anyone who opposes Trump) who is interested in personal benefit or power, as I
am not affected directly by or have any personal interest in federal policies
any more than other ordinary citizens and have little power. My objections are about morals and
principles.
My
opposition to Trump is not because of my preference for another Republican candidate. The Republican field of 17 major candidates
this year was unusually large and strong.
I had preferences, but liked nearly all of them and, although I had some
concerns, was open-minded to Trump. As
he campaigned and more information was learned about him, I began to favor the
other candidates more in order to oppose him, not the other way around. It is not, therefore, that I am a sore loser,
unable to support the Republican nominee who was not my preferred candidate, as
if such a situation has never happened before over my 24 years as a Republican
Committeeman, but . . . Trump is uniquely unfit and not representative of the
Party’s platform—the platform of conservative principles that drew me to the
Republican Party in the first place.
Indeed,
contrary to another argument that Trump is like previous recent Republican
presidential nominees, Trump is not like those nominees. They were fit and, although not as
conservative as the Party’s platform, were at least more conservative than the
liberal Democratic nominee and, therefore, preferable to the opposing party’s
nominee. There are both moral and political
principle objections to Trump because he is manifestly unfit, and lacks the
temperament, knowledge and understanding to be President, and has authoritarian
proclivities.
The moral
objections to Trump are numerous . . . .
They extend far beyond his personal insults, to his pride, narcissism, and
vindictiveness, to his lack of remorse, humility or empathy and to his
willingness to believe in and spread absurd conspiracy theories. Trump’s character flaws are exhibited from his
questionable evasion of military service, to his dishonest business practices
to his boasting of committing adultery with many married women. Trump’s flaws have been evident in his
campaign and policy pronouncements. By
nominating Trump for the highest office in the land, the Republican Party has
forever—and for every elective office—forfeited character as a campaign issue.
To the extent that Trump has any
consistent political beliefs, he deviates from conservative ideals of the
Republican Party, such as violating personal property rights through eminent
domain abuse, and through his populist, nativist and isolationist beliefs. His authoritarianism is revealed, in addition
to his admiration for foreign authoritarians, in how he seldom speaks about or little
understands liberty, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, federalism, the
Separation of Powers or the independence of the judiciary. In short, Trump does not grasp what makes America great. He admires President Barack Obama’s abuse of
executive orders and would govern by decree through them even more than
Obama. The Russian influence on Trump
and his campaign and his sympathies for them are alone disqualifying for him to
receive intelligence briefings, let alone to be Commander in Chief.
I am not opposing Trump because of
any support for Hillary Clinton. The
argument that Trump is a better alternative to Clinton is not convincing, as they are both
unfit and both not conservative. The
Republican nominee you support is Clinton’s friend and donor who praised her as
Secretary of State as recently as 2012 and who agrees with her, except when his
views are to her left or he agrees with neither her, nor conservatives, until,
of course, he changes his mind on nearly every issue. Trump is not a “lesser of two evils,” as Clinton’s unfitness for
office does not make him fit, as in some ways he would be equally as bad as her
and in some ways worse. Furthermore, Trump
is likely to lose the election to her, even if all conservative and moderate
Republicans who oppose him vote for him against our consciences. Even if it were possible that he would be
elected with our votes, it would be his fault and that of his supporters,
especially the RNC, for losing the election for being unacceptable to many
loyal Republicans. Therefore, by nominating
and supporting Trump, you would be the ones supporting the election of Clinton,
whereas those of us who vote in good conscience for a conservative Republican
as an independent candidate capable of being elected would be opposing her more
effectively, both in terms of a more contrasting political message and in terms
of a more effective campaign to defeat her with a candidate who is fit and who
can better articulate the principles of the Republican platform. At least then there would be one major
candidate representing conservative beliefs in this presidential election
campaign. Also, considering how most
Republican Party leaders support Trump, Republicans in Congress would likely be
more effective in opposing Clinton’s
liberal policies than Trump’s liberal and other non-conservative policies.
Moreover, Trump is likely to harm
the candidacies of down-ballot candidates, who are already separating
themselves from him in competitive contests, and is causing long-term damage to
the image of the Republican Party. He appears
to validate nearly every negative stereotype Republicans have long worked to
refute, such as that the Party’s beliefs are based upon the interests of greedy, fraudulent big businessmen and are sexist and
bigoted. Already, several Republicans
have resigned from party offices and many have even changed their voter
registration.
As the Republican Party has been heretofore the political home of the
conservative movement, Trump would also damage the movement by its association
with a Party whose leader were anathema to conservative ideology, absent an
independent candidacy by a conservative for President.
Moreover, contrary to those who regard the
nomination of a relative conservative for Vice President as a consolation
because Trump could be impeached and removed from office, if necessary, the
vice presidential nomination of a conservative makes it less likely that
Democrats would join any Republican-led effort to impeach and remove Trump, as
the Democrats would not want to elevate to the presidency someone who disagrees
with them more than Trump, while they would also benefit politically from the political
harm caused to the Republican Party by Trump’s continuance in office.
As with a Vice President, because Trump
is not humble, does not necessarily listen to advice and is authoritarian, his
selection of a Cabinet and other officers and advisors is of little consolation.
In his business practices, Trump claims
only to hire the best people, but blames them for every failure. Trump’s selection of rogues for campaign
advisors, including those who have worked for Russia or other dictatorships, is
a harbinger of what a Trump Administration would be like.
Similarly, some of you are
rationalizing your support of Trump by hoping he would nominate better Supreme
Court Justices than would Hillary Clinton.
Even if you believe Trump has converted to constitutional conservatism
or might chose a constitutional conservative by chance, I have noted already
his lack of regard for the independence of the judiciary and the Separation of
Powers and his authoritarian proclivities that would nevertheless render moot
any Supreme Court rulings he disfavored.
Every
Republican candidate, party leader . . . and even many Republican voters will
be questioned about their support of Trump for President and his many
statements and practices. Indeed, unless
you oppose him publicly, you will own every one of Trump’s insults, conspiracy
theories, bad business practices and immoral behaviors.
I cannot in good conscience vote
for Trump or support him in any way, directly or indirectly. I do not wish to participate in Trump’s
destruction of the Party of Lincoln and Reagan, which is why I worked to
prevent it. As a matter of honor, I do
not even want to be associated with Trump in any way. Therefore, the nomination of Trump has
compelled me to resign from the Berks County Republican Committee, effective
immediately.
