The curious exodus from Trump to Clinton

Over the last several days, we’ve witnessed an amplification of veritable civil war within the Republican Party. A conflict that seemed somewhat settled following Donald Trump’s official coronation at the Republican National Convention a mere few weeks ago.

In the wake of several more gaffes by the Republican nominee for president, be it his battle with the Gold Star Kahn family, or his refusal to endorse Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, the ranks of his supporters have continued to thin.

{mosads}Countless establishment Republicans have abstained from endorsing Trump at all. Leaders such as Senator Lindsey Graham, former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and even George Will, can be added to that list.

While the withholding of public support is telling of the well-reported and deep-rooted concern over the legitimacy or viability of Trump’s candidacy, there’s another facet of the schism within the GOP that is far more interesting, if not perplexing.

Most recently, GOP mega-donor Meg Whitman and sitting Republican Congressman Richard Hanna have publicly defected, shifting their ballot box allegiances from Trump to Clinton. These two high-profile figures add to a pool of defectors that already contains the likes of Richard Armitage, Hank Paulson, and Brent Scowcroft.

While one can easily understand many Republicans’ general reluctance to shy away from openly supporting Trump, the evolving trend of Republicans throwing their support behind Clinton is certainly more puzzling.

While many have derisively labeled Clinton as conservative, or far from progressive, the fact remains that she is indeed a liberal Democrat. As such, her political philosophy and many of her policy positions sit firmly within the liberal sphere.

She favors: an expanded federal government at the expense of states’ rights, increased government spending, increasing taxes, expanded gun control measures, increased regulation, and a progressive social policy platform.

What’s absolutely stunning is that many of the prominent and defecting establishment Republicans would seemingly vote against their political ideals. Certainly it’s well-documented that the prospects of a Trump presidency are quite frightening, with commonly transcribed remarks about his questionable temperament, lack of experience, and seemingly limited political vision.

However, if the goal is to simply prevent a Trump win in November while seeking to preserve one’s reputation as a conservative—or ensure the survival of the GOP itself, there is another, more suitable option.

To safeguard a large portion of conservative ideals, the more reasonable choice would appear to be to casting a ballot in support Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. It would undoubtedly force Republicans to compromise on social policies as well as cuts to defense spending, however, it would give conservatives much of what they have traditionally held dear.

The Libertarian ticket supports much of the core economic and domestic policy ideals of modern conservatism. Johnson supports foundational conservative concepts such as: reducing the size of the federal government, cutting government spending, protecting firearm ownership rights, cutting taxes, increasing deregulation and adherence to the principles of free trade, a return to the privatization of federalized healthcare, as well as an increased deference to states’ rights.

So, outside of seeking only to make a splash in national headlines, it’s difficult to see why esteemed Republicans would vote for Clinton, a candidate who stands in opposition to virtually every conservative ideal.

It seems more prudent for such disaffected Republicans to support the Libertarian Party in this election, as doing so not only delivers a Trump loss they’re clearly comfortable with, but allows for them to remain publicly aligned with the core tenets of conservatism.

Jesse Heitz has written and presented over a dozen research papers at both domestic and international conferences, and has written pieces on numerous topics for a variety of publications.  He obtained his BA in History from the University of St. Thomas in 2010, a MA in War in the Modern World from King’s College London in 2014, and was approved for the awarding of a MS in Building History from the University of Cambridge in 2016.

 The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.