I wouldn't want to be manning the Dallas Morning News phones this week.
I'm just the radio guy who's filed a column here for the last 12 years, and even I'm getting peripheral artillery fire, as if I'm on the editorial board. I'm not, as I have reminded various emailers and tweeters, explaining that those who do serve in that capacity have examined the candidates and decided they prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. That is their call to make.
As many of my political allies ask me to channel their anger at the Hillary recommendation, I remind them that I've had the complete freedom to share any thoughts I please, often in direct contrast to the editorial board and other columnists. I have no intention of scolding the newspaper for speaking its collective editorial mind. It is a continuing honor to be part of one of the most ideologically diverse op-ed pages in the country. But I'm glad to continue a legacy of weighing-in.
I acknowledge the occasionally tricky waters the Trump campaign ship must navigate. My choice was Ted Cruz, but when that did not pan out, Trump was the only option to achieve a focused conservative goal: preventing a Hillary Clinton presidency.
Trump has put some unfortunate hurdles in front of Republican voters on the path to unity, but they are meager compared to the promise of the third Obama term Clinton will bring. The Morning News editorial board's assertion that "Trump is no conservative" is partially true; it turns out GOP voters sought a candidate offering more populism than textbook conservatism.
But "not a Republican?" That is incorrect by definition. Anyone can become a Republican, and apparently anyone can garner the party's nomination. Brief conservative hesitation was understandable when Trump became the presumed nominee four months ago; today it is inexplicable when considering the alternative.
The editorial distancing from Trump indicated that the long broken string of Republican endorsements was due to an affinity for "individual liberty, free markets and a strong national defense." There is simply no measure by which Hillary Clinton is a superior choice on any of those beliefs.
So it must be something else, and it seems to be a common affliction among voters (and newspapers) disillusioned by either choice. For some reason, in some minds, Trump's negatives wholly devour his attributes, which are at least as good as some recent Republican candidates and in some ways preferable.
Trump is a lot to swallow, and some of it is not good. But his protectionism, which I do not like, is not a gateway to Obama-esque fiscal policies, which we are sure to get with Clinton.
The oft-invoked "authoritarian" streak is little more than a personal style that in no way suggests the Hitler/Chavez nightmare some have floated. And I'll take Trump's stewardship over our First and Second Amendment rights over the left's affinity for judicial tyranny and political correctness any day.
And if his foreign policy pronouncements are unrefined and even fluid, I'll take his overall compass of strong borders and defeating the Islamic State over additional failure to even recognize and identify our most pressing immigration and terror problems.
Much is made of Hillary's experience. A resume means nothing if the ideas are wrong.
Some newspapers have issued no recommendation, just as some voters have said they will stay home Nov. 8. This I understand, if one is willing to tolerate a Hillary presidency. But an actual recommendation of her, or a vote for her, can be based on only one thing: a proactive desire for her to be president.
And that is not a desire one can communicate while holding on to even the slightest claim of conservatism.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Mark Davis is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News. Readers may email him at markdavisshow@gmail.com.
