There’s a common human tendency to make decisions simpler by downplaying the risks of one of the options. Those who believe that the United States ought to take in Syrian refugees pretend there is no risk to security in doing so; those who think that America ought to end sanctions on Iran imagine to themselves that Iran is a nation seeking peace. Those who believe that Republicans ought to vote for Donald Trump to stop Hillary Clinton minimize the risks that Trump will be an ad hoc authoritarian without conservative principle, and that Trump will gut the conservative movement like a fish.
The same holds true on the other side.
For those Republicans who oppose Donald Trump, the easy tendency is to minimize how terrible Hillary Clinton would be as president, to dismiss her as a Bill Clinton lookalike. She isn’t. She’s incremental Bernie Sanders. She will be the second-worst president in history after Barack Obama. She will cripple our military, appoint wild leftist judges, pursue massive economic restrictions. She will attempt to dictate from the White House.
Other considerations make voting for Trump an issue. But it’s not because Hillary will be less than terrible.
But not according to New York Times faux-conservative David Brooks. The same man who said that Barack Obama would be a tremendous president because of how he creased his pants now says that Hillary is a woman who has “dedicated herself to public service. From advocate for children to senator, she has pursued her vocation tirelessly.” Forget that she laughed over working to exonerate a child rapist, or her endless corruption, or her ceaseless ambition. She’s wonderful, says Brooks!
So why don’t people like her? Because we don’t know what Hillary Clinton “does for fun.” But in reality, she’s “warm and caring”!
It’s folks like Brooks who give opposition to Trump a bad name. Brooks is the same fellow who wrote a column titled “I Miss Barack Obama” in which he characterized the Obama administration as “remarkably scandal free,” who ripped Senator Ted Cruz’s “pagan brutalism.” If he seems eager to back Hillary, that’s because he is. And when fellow conservatives characterize Brooks as a conservative, all they do is lend credence to the pro-Trump argument that anti-Trump opposition is driven not by principle but by closeted leftism.
Brooks doesn’t represent any significant segment of conservatives. His take on Hillary is execrable. Which, of course, is precisely why he’s the in-house “conservative” at The New York Times.