Save the Republican Party? Why?

One of the most annoying things is when seemingly intelligent people say something stupid, only to top it off with even more flawed logic behind their stupidity.

Such is the  case with former Bush administration under secretary of state James Glassman with his New York Times editorial, "Save the Republican Party: Vote for Clinton". Even on the surface, that sounds like, "Save McDonald's: Eat Burger King".

But the opening paragraph explains it all:

Every day, I run into Republican friends who can’t stomach a vote for Donald J. Trump but don’t know what to do. Vote for Hillary Clinton, who has trouble with the truth, wants to raise taxes and opposes free trade with Asia? Vote for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, an outlier who once ran a marijuana business and embraces isolationism? Or not vote at all, maintaining a certain purity but allowing others to decide the next president?

Glassman's "Republican friends" are probably not truck drivers, office workers, or average Americans in nearly any sense. He is speaking to the same elitist Republicans who populated the Bush administration, and nominated both McCain and Romney in the last two presidential elections, leading to 8 years of a failed Obama administration where the GOP could only hope to play defense because the GOP establishment was clueless on how to counter Obama, especially since he confiscated their only bad idea for healthcare reform.

What is an elitist Republican to do this election?

I faced exactly these choices myself. I have voted for every Republican nominee for president since 1980, but I will not this time. Mr. Trump’s appalling temperament renders him unfit to be president, and his grotesque policy formulations mock the principles of liberty and respect for the individual that have been the foundation of the Republican Party since Abraham Lincoln. 

Even before Mr. Trump entered the race, I saw this coming. I worked to open a pathway for an independent — a solid third candidate who would attract the votes of the roughly two-thirds of Americans in the center. A serious contender would force the two major-party candidates to compete for votes in the middle, rather than appealing to the wings. I spent a year and a half on the project, but a month ago threw in the towel. 

The deck is stacked by the parties against anyone but a Republican or Democrat. An independent has to run an expensive gantlet to gather enough signatures to get on the ballot in all the states, suffers a severe disadvantage in fund-raising, and is effectively barred from the fall presidential debates by a commission loaded with party stalwarts.

Through much trial and error, I learned that this is, whether we like it or not, an election between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, period. And that means that if you want to stop Mr. Trump, you have no choice but to vote for Mrs. Clinton. There’s no sitting this one out. 

It’s a matter of simple math. Consider a swing state like Ohio. Assume, for argument’s sake, that there are 3.1 million Trump voters, 3 million Clinton voters and 200,000 voters like me who will never vote for Mr. Trump but have reservations about Mrs. Clinton. If this last group doesn’t vote — or votes for Mr. Johnson, or another third-party candidate — then Mr. Trump wins the state. If the group votes for Mrs. Clinton, then Mr. Trump loses. A vote for Mrs. Clinton neutralizes a vote for Mr. Trump; an abstention allows that Trump vote to stand.

In summary, because the Republicans and Democrats have so painfully stacked the deck against a third party candidate, we have to vote for a Republican or Democrat.

Nowhere in there does he make the case against Libertarian Gary Johnson, who is on the ballot in all 50 states, except to dismiss him in the first paragraph as someone "who once ran a marijuana business and embraces isolationism". Actually, Trump is far more isolationist that Johnson. Johnson has stated that he is for international free trade (he has said he would support the TPP), which is decidedly NOT isolationist. Or maybe Glassman is calling Johnson an isolationist because Johnson is against wasteful American imperialism which only benefits radical Islamic recruiting? Glassman has no clue about Johnson, and dismisses him simply because Johnson is from a third party.

Glassman continues, since he still has a stupid point to make:

For this reason, I strongly disagree with my fellow Republicans — many of whom I served with in the George W. Bush administration — who say that they won’t vote for Mr. Trump because he’s a threat to the republic, but won’t vote for Mrs. Clinton either because she’ll raise taxes. Neither is appealing, but one is clearly a worse choice than the other.

If the only bad thing about Clinton was raising taxes, I think most of us would support her! The fact she is an unconvicted criminal never enters Glassman's thought process, which tells you how elitist Republicans think.

Last month, 50 former officials from G.O.P. administrations issued a scathing indictment of Mr. Trump, saying he would be the “most reckless president in American history.” Yet only a few of these Republicans have so far said they will vote for Mrs. Clinton. 

I have some sympathy with this position, but it is a cop-out. If you think Mr. Trump is so lacking in experience and judgment that he shouldn’t have his finger on the nuclear trigger, then you are saying he is not just a bad candidate; you are saying he is a threat to the nation. You have an obligation to defeat him, no matter what you think of Mrs. Clinton.

So it is ok to have someone who "has trouble with the truth" in charge of our nuclear arsenal?

But then we get to the meat of his already silly argument:

I’m voting for Mrs. Clinton because, despite her deficiencies, she will make a better president. But I have another reason. Defeating Mr. Trump soundly will help save the Republican Party. If he wins, a party built on freedom and internationalism will become entrenched as a party of authoritarianism and isolation, which means that within a few years it will atrophy and die.

Saying Clinton will be a better president than Trump is like saying Richard Nixon was a better president than Herbert Hoover. Neither is a good choice.

Then Glassman makes another classic mistake: If the Republicans become a party of "authoritarianism", that will make them the same as Democrats, whose ideologies are based in socialism, which is inherently authoritarian whenever taken to its logical extremes. We already see that happening in Europe today.

However, I would argue the GOP is already there. Every time they lose an election, they always decide to move a little more to the Left. Glassman's GOP has led to the Republican base revolting and installing Trump as the candidate. So Glassman rejects Trump, and the GOP base by extension. If Glassman gets his way, the Republican Party will die when the base leaves. Without the base, they won't be able to elect a dogcatcher.

The ugly truth, which Glassman won't admit, is the Republican Party is teetering on the edge of death anyhow. Voting for Clinton is only revealing how close the Republican elitists already are to the Democrats. The only true opposition to the Democrats is the Libertarian Party. If we must be a two party country (and I would prefer four parties), then let it be the Libertarians who survive, not the empty-suited Republicans.