A Final Plea to My Friends Who May Vote for Trump on Tuesday

I know our country is more divided that it has ever been before. Many people feel unable to see the other side. I am lucky enough to have friends who span the entire political spectrum so when news pundits sit there and wonder “How could this be,” I know why it’s happened… This letter is for those friends (and family members) who are still thinking of voting for Trump.  It’s an honest and sincere plea.

Dear Friends and Family considering voting for Donald Trump for President,

Let’s talk about this as two people who both respect one another and who care about our country, and let me tell you what I see going on.

I understand, sincerely, why you are attracted to Trump. He says a lot that resonates with you.  You know the political elites don’t vote for the interests of the majority, but rather for the concerns of the minority, mostly the wealthy.  You know that our industries have been shipped off to China and Mexico and that our gas and oil prices remain too connected to Saudi Arabia’s daily will. You want someone to stand up for you, to fight for your interests.  Trump seems tough.  He’s not “used to” losing (though he has a lot in his business life).  He’s wealthy, but seems to have the same anger about the political class as you do.  He says things – things about how politically correct we’ve gotten – that you agree with.  You used to have the power to say anything and others would have to live with it.  Now, you worry that what you say will be used to portray you in a bad light and have financial costs.  You know you’re a good person, and you just wish the system didn’t always make you feel like you’re fighting an uphill battle.

I get that.

But, if what you want is someone to “make American great again,” Donald Trump is not that man. 

First, he’s a salesman, right?  That’s how he got rich.  He sold and marketed real estate – he didn’t “build” it; he’s not an architect or an engineer. He’s a real estate developer, meaning he comes up with ideas, gets other people to invest in those ideas, gets someone else to do the hard work of designing and building it, and then he markets the project.

It’s fine work, but it rests on his being a master manipulator. Good salesmen know how to figure out what you need, what you want (which may be different from what you need), and then how to encourage you to do things that aren’t actually in your best interest.  You want a nice, family-sized second car? Well, I understand that, but let me first walk you three times by this beautiful, fast, two-person sports car and point out how a lot of families enjoy it as their second car because it gives them options. Of course it’s a little more expensive, but sometimes the best things in life require us to splurge a little.  It’s obviously not something beyond your means, and it’s a nice way for you and the wife to spend the few date nights you can away from the kids.

You don’t need the sports car.  You don’t want the sports car.  But now you’re considering spending more than your budget on a car that will make it impossible for you to actually afford date nights.

That’s Trump’s job.  When it wasn’t real estate, it was steaks or a University or some other business venture that mostly relies on branding his name, and that means on … selling you something. Many of those efforts failed to provide any real value or benefit to the client who bought in. This election, that client is the American people.

Most of what he does is sell you himself.  We don’t know how much he’s actually worth because he won’t publicly disclose anything that would verify his claims. Think about that for a moment: he’s selling you on himself, but can’t or won’t provide you with anything to verify his claims. If he were applying for any job other that President, would you accept that? 

To the extent he talks about his wealth, he claims he’s worth about $10 billion, but of that he’s told reporters his ‘brand’ – his own image – is worth $3-6 billion dollars (for the record, Forbes estimates his entire net worth at $4.5 billion).

That kind of net worth – the branding – is not the result of any thing he’s built or done. It does not supply a job to anyone other than himself. It’s significant money, and his brand worth should factor into his personal net worth, but it’s not the kind of transferrable business sense we need to rebuild the economy.

It also tells you what Trump cares about the most: his own image.

This personal worship that he employs is where he poses a real threat.  Because he’s not telling you what he really believes (or maybe he is, but he changes positions so many times it’s impossible to know what he really believes).  He’s selling you an image of himself, and he’ll keep changing to get you to do whatever he wants.

And of course most politicians are selling you images of themselves.  But at least you can generally discern some guiding principles and values in what they do.  Trump’s guiding principle appears to be increasing his power and increasing his brand’s worth.

That’s a scary reality. 

It becomes scarier when you put it in the context of history and other countries.

When I look at Trump’s rhetoric – when I watch videos like this one from Rachel Maddow, when it gets to the compilation of Trump clips – I see the same thing I have watched happen to my friends in Egypt under Sisi, Thailand under Prayut Chan-o-cha, and Turkey under Erdogan.  I see the rise of authoritarianism.

I know that’s a loaded statement, but it’s also one I firmly believe to be true.  The rise of authoritarianism follows a pattern. 

There's first the call for nationalism – not patriotism but nationalism. Patriotism is about service and protection of the state; nationalism is about the dominance over others. The two are not the same, and the call for nationalism is one that often immediately precedes the division of those within a society.  So, you start with the discussion of how America needs to be great, and you demonize the Mexican and Chinese governments. This is already a dangerous trend as the President is our Commander in Chief, our chief Ambassador and our principle negotiator. If he is publicly demonizing other countries and their leader, they are going to be less inclined to negotiate with us in good faith. Sure, the US can often bully the likes of Bahamas, the Philippines, and Cuba; but it is going to have a much harder time bullying stable economies that are large or growing, like China and Mexico and Russia. So, his rhetoric is already making the world slightly more hostile to the US.

Once you’ve gotten people angry at outsiders, then you get them angry at your dissenters on the inside. You demonize the citizens who criticize you.

That’s the next step, and Trump is already there: you demonize those who criticize you.  That clip from Rachel Maddow shows Trump doing this.

Do you really think it’s acceptable to punch me because I have a different opinion than you?  You know me.  We’ve had a lot of differing opinions over time.  I’ve never punched you over them, and you’ve never punched me.  Why?  Because that’s not how you handle legitimate disagreements as an adult.  But, Trump is encouraging you to think you can and should use physical violence against me because I don’t follow along with his political vision.

It won’t get better when he’s in office.  Instead, my dissent will become criminal. 

Now, I know you’re thinking, “That can’t happen in the US. We have a separation of powers. He’ll have to govern with Congress, and then he’s subjected to judicial oversight. Someone will protect you.”

Look at the Weimer Republic, the German system that existed before Hitler came to power. It was a semi-presidential representative democracy.  Essentially, it was the same form of government we have but instead of only a President they had a President and a Prime Minister who were supposed to share leadership, meaning there was a less centralized leadership structure than what we use.

Before Hitler, Germany had a legislative branch that was a check on the Executive; it had a functioning judiciary that was a check on the Executive. 

Through Hitler’s regime, those checks went away.  First, they were demonized into silence, then they were replaced in favor of Hitler supporters, and finally, they were eliminated and subjected only to his rule.

Trump has already shown this tendency. Before Justice Scalia’s death, when asked who he would nominate for the Supreme Court, Trump said his sister. His sister.  Yes, she’s a Court of Appeals judge, and is probably perfectly capable, but his first inclination is to promote those he’s closest to without thinking of who is actually best qualified to be in that post.

He now says he was kidding about that, but what are his qualifications?  He hasn’t said. But it’s clear where he leans first in making those kinds of decisions.

Our system of government is vulnerable if we aren’t careful in who we elect to lead it.

But, you’ll say, we have a strong and independent military!

That’s true, but it doesn’t offer as much comfort as you think it does when you consider how Trump has responded already to the military. Trump proposed not being bound by the Geneva Conventions that spell out the laws of war, and proposes targeting families of suspected terrorists. He has suggested he would be fine ordering war crimes, and would expect the military to follow through on them.

Ordering war crimes is illegal, and members of our military have an obligation – set out in the US Uniform Code of Military Conduct – to refuse to comply with such orders. Even if the US changed this law, a war crime can be prosecuted in every country in the world, so our military could be subject to criminal trials overseas. His plans put our troops in danger – both at home and abroad.

When several former military leaders have indicated that the military would likely refuse to comply with Trump’s policies on war crimes, Trump said, “They won’t refuse me. Believe me. … I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

You might think this is blustering. But this suggests Trump would be willing to replace military leaders who refuse him with individuals who won’t. He can do that. As Commander in Chief, Trump would be able to choose who leads the various branches of the military. So he’d choose people who aren’t going to oppose him. He’d replace them with his supporters – just like authoritarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin to Kim Jung Un have done.

But, we have the Second Amendment! The people will rise up to fight against authoritarianism! 

First, you’re talking about the counter to a Trump presidency being a civil war. Do you really want to stake the presidency on the need for a civil war?  Do you really want to risk that level of bloodshed? Look at Syria: is that what you want for the US?  Because if you’re simply relying on the Second Amendment to protect you – rather than voting for someone who won’t take you down that path to begin with – then you’re risking a civil war on a guy whose policies you actually can’t predict.

But, also, let’s talk about the Second Amendment. The story in the US is that Hitler took peoples’ guns first.  That’s not quite accurate.  He took the guns of Jewish people first.  He took the guns from targeted people (skip the introduction of this law review article and start at p. 659 if you want more historical info on this).  Do you think Americans are going to rally when Trump first proposes taking guns from Muslims and Middle Easterners?  Because that is who he will target first, we know that. And let’s be honest, at least some of you think that it’s probably a good idea to ban Muslims from owning guns in the US.

After the Muslims, it will become “black thugs” and convicted criminals. He will use the same lines you’ve seen him use about protesters: “I love the old days. You know what we used to do with thugs like that in the good old days? They’d get carried out on a stretcher from the jail. He wouldn’t get to leave and then purchase a gun.”

Then it’s the black people who don’t have access to guns.  And here’s the thing about authoritarian regimes: when your group has been targeted by an authoritarian regime, you cannot rely on your own personal history to show you’ve been a good, loyal, brave, or trust-worthy member of society.  Your status as a member of the group becomes your overwhelming identity.

It’s why a Christian pastor in Germany, Martin Niemöller, ended up writing the poem at the end of this post – because identity became the overwhelming factor in determining who was a threat, not their individual actions.

So those that oppose Trump will eventually have their guns confiscated, and the Second Amendment will be understood to apply only to “civilized members” of society.  And maybe that’s a standard you think should happen already – criminals shouldn’t have access to AK-47s.  But to have that standard in place, you need to have someone in leadership who doesn’t abuse that standard for his own benefit. You need someone who tolerates dissent. You need someone who doesn’t arrest people just for protesting.

Donald Trump isn’t that person, so the Second Amendment in his hands will become a tool of oppression, not freedom.

I know you care about this country. So be brave.  Be this guy in the middle of a crowd swept into nationalism: 

Be the one who stands firm against the rising tide of authoritarianism that is Trump’s campaign.

If you’re voting in Ohio, vote for John Kasich. I don’t like him, but if you’re a Republican who cares about this country, who doesn’t want us to fall into a fascist state, that’s who you should be voting for on Tuesday. It is critical that Donald Trump does not receive enough delegates for the nomination before the Republican Convention. Kasich is the most likely candidate to win in Ohio, which is a winner take all state for delegates. Voting for other qualified candidates is unlikely to help stop Trump but voting for Kasich could.  If you truly cannot vote for Kasich, please consider any other candidate.  Don’t abstain from voting. If you abstain, you are simply empowering the minority of voters wrapped up in the myth of Trump. 

First they Came for the Socialist

Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.