The four kinds of people in the #NeverTrump movement

If you're like me, you've been following this year's primary season with a mixture of amusement and consternation. While most of the choices this year were unpalatable (so what's new?), the really troublesome aspect came from the amount of sheer acrimony that seems to have permeated the race this time around. Some of it has to do with the large number of Republicans running – we started with 17 before slowly whittling them away – which contributed to a seemingly necessary amount of fragmented loyalties among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

However, much of this acrimony arose due to the rise and sustained lead held by Donald Trump, who represents a rather different brand of Republican from both the "movement conservative" and the "Rockefeller establishment" types who usually compete for dominance in the GOP primaries. As an unabashed populist and nationalist, Trump represents a divergence from the GOP norm, though one that is likely to become more, rather than less, commonplace in the near future as the major realignment in American politics that we are beginning to see works itself out in coming years. Both of the "old guard" factions within the Republican Party are troubled by this realignment, and by its standard-bearer Trump, and have been pulling out all the stops to try to hold off the challenge to their domination of the Republican Party.

One way in which this acrimony and anger has manifested itself is through the ridiculously childish "Never Trump" movement – a loose aggregation of Republicans and "conservative" elements within the media and political establishment who have loudly and proudly declared that they will never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for Donald Trump, even should he be the GOP nominee, even should he be the last line of defense against a Hillary Clinton presidency. Indeed, some of these folks have declared their intention to vote for her should it be a race between her and Trump. If you listen to them, many of them will assert the ludicrous belief that "Trump's just the same as Hillary," or even that "Hillary is better than Trump." For normal, intelligent people using common sense, these assertions are absolutely stunning in their idiocy. While Trump is certainly no rose, there are clear and obvious differences between him and Hillary, and he is clearly superior to her in terms of his political positions and his willingness to lead the nation against her enemies. Sure, Trump isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. However, reasonable people understand that sometimes you need to dance with the one what brung you. Yes, we could all wish for a more "perfect" candidate, but we know the old saying, "If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steaks."

So what kind of folks would do this sort of thing? Who would make up a movement, composed of ostensible "conservatives," that actively seeks to put Hillary Clinton into the office of the presidency instead of a flawed-but-still-preferable Republican? I believe we can outline four general sorts of people who make up this #NeverTrump movement.

The genuinely naïve, who could perhaps also be called the "True Believers," are the folks who really, truly, absolutely believe that Ted Cruz is the ONLY hope for America and that he – and only he – can bring America back from the brink and restore her to her primal goodness and prosperity. Any other, but especially Donald Trump, will be the downfall of America, destroying her for all time. For these folks, if you don't vote for Ted Cruz, then you hate Jesus and America. They're the ones constantly reminding folks that "real" Christians will vote for Ted Cruz, and the failure to do so indicates that a person isn't "really" a Christian. They even applaud a non-Christian cult member like Glenn Beck when he rolls out this line of attack at the rallies. The fact that Ted Cruz is questionably eligible to even hold the office of the presidency, that he has been "anointed" by an unbiblical cult group known as "seven mountain dominionism," that he is a globalist, supported TPP, supported the Corker bill, supported doubling the number of Muslim immigrants America would take in, and all the rest is ignored by these folks. Mentioning them makes you a "not a real conservative."

The True Believers are so set on a Ted Cruz presidency that anyone else winning it is almost inconceivable to them. Hence, their tendency to go all abusive, obsessive boyfriend on the rest of us – if Ted Cruz can't have the presidency, then nobody can!

When you start out with 17 candidates, it's obvious that 16 of them are eventually going to end up losers in the primary contest. Some folks can handle this...and some folks can't. The ones that can't have been joining the never Trump movement. These folks gave out their loyalty too soon, and the candidate of their affections eventually ran out of money and votes and dropped out of the race. Rather than adjusting to the new reality of the electoral landscape, these folks instead develop an irrational hatred for the one they see as having "cheated" their candidate of his or her victory.

Because Donald Trump has been consistently leading the race since last autumn, their ire falls upon him. "Trump cheated, Trump lied about my candidate, Trump is a mean, nasty person!" (Well, okay, maybe they have a point on that last one). But to make a long story short, they'd rather endure another four or eight years of everything they say they oppose rather than see the win go to the guy they have come to personally, viscerally hate to the very core of their being. They have no qualms at all about harming the rest of the country just to vent their personal pique as part of their irrational emotional response to Trump.

Virtue signalers are an interesting breed. Though we tend to associate political correctness with those on the far Left, there are plenty on the "mushy Right" who also engage in it. Virtue signaling is a neologism that is defined by the Urban Dictionary as,

"To take a conspicuous but essentially useless action ostensibly to support a good cause but actually to show off how much more moral you are than everybody else."

A virtue signaler is a person who wants everybody to know that they're Not Like Those Other People and that They Are The Right Kind Of Person. Through their words, they want everybody to be aware of how much better, nobler, and more moral they are than all those Other People who don't hold to politically correct beliefs. Let's face it – the "soft Right" is inhabited by politically correct "social justice warriors" (SJWs) just as much as the Left is, and these folks want us all to know that they're not like those "populists" and "patriotic types" who believe in politically incorrect, racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs like "opposing illegal immigration" or "blaming Islam for Muslim terrorism."

It's par for the course for a left-wing fruitcake like Hillary Clinton to argue that "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." The supposedly "conservative" virtue signalers are right there with her, however, since that's the dominant belief held by the urban and collegiate types who make up their circle of acquaintances, with whom they wish to ingratiate themselves. Hence, they "signal their virtue" by loudly proclaiming at every opportunity how they don't like Trump because he's the Wrong Kind Of Person who has said The Wrong Kind Of Things and thus they would be embarrassed to be associated with Bad Thinkers Like Him.

And like their SJW brethren on the "other" side of the aisle, the virtue signalers have taken to "showing" how virtuous they are by declaring their intention to "blacklist" anyone on the Right who supports, or is even simply not hostile to, Donald Trump.

This last group is one that we're all familiar with. The party hacks are the folks who make up the group that we usually have in mind when we talk about "the establishment." These folks are the incestuous nest of career politicians, lobbyists, influence-mongers, Party hirelings, and mid-level hacks who have a vested interest in the status quo. They don't want anybody rocking the boat and interrupting the flow of kickbacks, influence peddling, and the distribution of political spoils.

These folks don't like Donald Trump because he represents a threat to their gravy train. If he does even half the things he says he will, the party hacks stand to lose a lot in terms of position within the hierarchy, influence, and potential future advancement upward through the ranks. This type really does genuinely prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House because she won't interfere with the Republicrat spoils-sharing that has been going on since George Bush Sr. was in office.

I would almost go so far as to guarantee you that anyone that you know who is a "Never Trumper" falls into one or more of these four categories. Regardless of whether they're deluded, irrationally angry, shoring up their social credentials, or simply looking out for number one, these folks are bound and determined to hand the White House to Hillary if they can't find a way to rip off Trump at the GOP convention. It's an infantile and irresponsible game they play, and hopefully one that will be rejected by the vast majority of thinking people. It's time for folks to do the right thing and rally around the nominee, whoever that ends up being.

[Art.] Virtue signalers are an interesting breed.

They seem to be the same as Neocons and conservative "intellectuals" like Brooksie, Jennifer Rubin, George Will, and others who've been overly friendly to the First Black, despite his openly Marxist-Leninist, jihadi-hugging, Anglo-American-hating, neo-MauMau agenda.

Someone measured Jen Rubin's positions and found she is rock-solidly conservative ..... 53% of the time, and never on social issues; she is also a charter Palin-hater almost as bad as Katie Couric and Maureen Dowd. (Don't have a Rules photo, sorry.)

[dschapin] I genuinely believe Trump to be a dangerous demagogue with a narcissistic personality disorder and I am scared to death of what he would do as President.

There is an outside chance some of that would happen with President Trump. There is an absolute certainty just about all of that will happen, and more, with a President Hillary.

Sitting on a fork between Beastwoman and Trump, sure, go for Trump.

But if you are sincerely concerned about Trump's personality and fitness for office, you still have somewhere to go, which is Ted Cruz, as a reasonable alternative to succumbing to the Trump/Beastwoman fork.

The major risk with Cruz is that a) he might lose to Hillary (even with Trump according to polls, on that score), and b) even if he gets elected, there is so much GOP-E resentment toward him in DC that he wouldn't be able to charm birds to poop on him, much less get the GOP cauci to cooperate with him. (Again, conceivably equally true of insurgent Trump.)

You're not stuck with a Trump/Beastie dichotomy. If anyone other than Trump can win the nomination, it would be Cruz. And Cruz has so far outpolled or polled even with Trump in a head-up election opposite Hillary.

Cruz simply cannot win the nomination outright. There is no realistic way he gets 87 percent of the remaining delegates, which means it would be a brokered convention if Trump does not get enough delegates, and the only nominee coming out of a brokered convention would be Ryan or possibly Kasich.

I'm sorry, but Cruz staying in is the only gambit the GOPe has left, which is why they are backing him, but they will stab him in the back as soon as he walks into the arena in Cleveland.

I'm sorry, but Cruz staying in is the only gambit the GOPe has left, which is why they are backing him, but they will stab him in the back as soon as he walks into the arena in Cleveland.

They might, but why condition your choices on that premise? If the GOP-E jobs everybody but Yeb! or Rubiocito, then they job people .... If I prefer Cruz, why should I switch to another candidate because the GOP-E or Beastwoman might pull an Article II/NBC lawsuit out of their capacious butts, when they haven't done so, so far?

Do you expect Hillary, between now and October, to be able to get Cruz removed from ballots in 25-30-40 States, if he is the nominee? The GOP electors would go 1796 on her if that happened, and select another GOP candidate she can't touch -- and that could be anyone: Rand Paul, Duncan Hunter, you name 'em, it'd be absolutely wide-open at this point because it'd be the Electors, not convention delegates, who'd be selecting the President at that point. We'd get a total faceful of Originalism, and screw the GOP-E!

OK, so why frame the challenge as going to the bitter end with Trump? I don't understand why you don't think Cruz will either give you a fair job as President (as opposed to selling you out to the Great Vampire Squid), to the extent that you must abandon all hope if Cruz gets the nomination and not Trump.

Too, even if the GOP-E "appear" to be supporting Cruz at the moment, to beat Trump, why is that bad? Do you really think Cruz will owe them Luciferian fealty forever? For a few million bucks in political funny-money?

None of us can answer for what the defeated remnants of the Democratic Party of 40 years ago will do, dispossessed by the neo-Stalinist Progs of their own party. They appear to be gravitating toward Donald Trump, who is really one of them as shown by his own vita; and their help would be appreciated by all of us if we can beat Beastwoman. But do we really want to walk away from our own principles and give up our own objectives, just to house people who lost their own party? It's they who should have to "settle" -- not we.

Yes, I know you're concerned that the PRC will a) Beat Donald, b) Beat Ted, c) Impose unvetted nominee (Yeb, etc.) on party faithful, someone who will be spat out by the base and defeated by Hee-a-Ree the Beastwoman. But those people will do whatever they do, and if they do work successfully to impose their heart's desire, they will destroy "their" party and make way for another .... perhaps after a long night of dictatorial misrule by the 'Rat Party, operating as a national-level RICO, an openly and frankly corrupt machine hated by all. And we can only do what honest people know to do, which is to vote for whoever we can, to try to overcome the scheming of the "party people" of both parties. That's all we can do, in the end.

If he denies Trump the nomination, he opens the door for the GOPe to install their choice as nominee.

This scenario is obvious on its face; it’s the only possible explanation for Kasich’s remaining in the race...it appears the party’s thinking is this; regardless of nominee, FL is a get from 2012, and possibly IA or CO, maybe both with the right guy. Maybe even VA, though that is a bit of a stretch. And the big cherry on top? OH, of course, with its own governor bringing the state over from the 2012 map...all the above, excepting VA, gets the Pubs to 268 EV’s, where picking up NH could get them over the top...

Neither Trump nor Cruz is likely to garner 268 EV’s in their calculus; Kasich is. And they will move mountains to make that happen...

You aren't getting that Trump is not a Republican or a conservative, either one. He's not Nixon and he's not Gerry Ford and he's not George Bush Sr. (thank God). He's none of that, and he's certainly not Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.

Donald Trump is the Democratic candidate who was never nominated after 1972 -- he might be the guy Bill "Blue Dog [Phony]" Clinton pretended to be in 1992, to get the nomination. But he's a mainline Democrat, circa 1970.

The implication of Trump's success so far is that we're unable to nominate a conservative any longer (if you're right about Cruz, but we'll never find out if we take your advice), the GOP is unable to win any longer with their Mitts and Doles and Bushes, and the old mainline Democrats are migrating over to the GOP, but the PRC doesn't want them, they want George P. Bush, Marco Rubio, and a Latin-GOP future.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.