Why I as a conservative I am voting for Joe Biden
I am a conservative. However, I have cast my vote for Joe Biden and want the Republican party to lose control of Congress and to do so in a very clear manner. I would like to tell you why, and invite you to join me as you exercise your vote.
I suppose I should first of all explore what it means to be a conservative and to establish my own conservative credentials, hoping that my observations may resonate a little. My daughter Emily defined conservatism well: “From a historical perspective, the modern political form of conservatism has its roots in Edmund Burke’s intellectual rejection of the French Revolution. Conservatism is a rejection of ideologues. Rather than being driven by ideology, they are driven by what is evidence driven, what has been proven to work. Conservatives favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and reject sudden sweeping changes. They prioritize continuity and stability.”
Exactly. I believe that society matters. I believe that the western liberal democracies are the most effective societies in history, though they are significantly flawed. Despite that I believe in preserving that which is good in society rather than trying to improve it by burning it down and starting again. I do not believe that any of us is wise enough to make such changes without risking catastrophic results. I believe that our western democracies have made great progress over the past century or two because we have somehow, miraculously, created open and plural societies in which in principle each of us has a voice, is allowed to contribute to the debate, and has individual rights and responsibilities. Thus we stumble imperfectly towards justice, openness and compassion as we wrestle with the complexities of society together.
I believe that neither the market nor government has a monopoly on resolutions to the challenges we face. The market is not particularly interested in the good of society — it sees us as consumers rather than citizens. And government cannot create a rich society either. While it can and must establish and protect the ground-rules, and provide the framework to protect the helpless and the downtrodden, society needs civil citizens and civil institutions: families, societies, religions and all the rest. Civil society requires you and me to be civil, aware, respectful and be willing to look beyond our own self-interest. We are to take responsibility for ourselves and not assume others will do that for us. But we are not islands, as John Donne said, or else there is no society:
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.”
I believe in democracy, with all its flaws. This means that I accept that not everyone thinks like me, and that even those whose judgement I might otherwise think limited is entitled to express their view. Freedom of speech and of the press is therefore essential. I accept that most people have valid reasons for what they think, even if I cannot understand those reasons. This is the very definition of a plural society, and it is our best protection against totalitarianism.
I believe that democracy is best protected within nation-states, and then by the liberal democratic nations working together. Further, I believe that national identity matters, not as a root of nationalism and hatred for “the other”, but as a bond that ties us together, with shared values and traditions. I believe, however, that nationhood must be inclusive and embracing to all within it, of whatever background, who want to work to build on where we are and who we are. We are simply stronger together.
I do NOT believe that conservatives always have to protect the status quo. There will be parts of our society and national narrative that we want to conserve, but as conservatives we are to be open to seeing that our core principles may point us to seek change. My dear friend Steve, a life-long Republican, joined a protest in our town recently to speak up on behalf of Black people in our society. I loved that he held up a sign that said: “Old fat white guys for social justice”. If I had known I would have stood side by side with him. “Lanky old beanpole for equality”?
Now, I recognise that there may be Republicans who agree with much of this but point out that I have left much unsaid about contentious current debates. They may wonder why I have said nothing of abortion, religious freedom, the importance of the police, health insurance, economic policy, controlling immigration or strengthening the military. I want to suggest that these issues are important matters of debate, but that they are not fundamental to the definition of conservatism. They are policy matters, not principles. We are to start with the principles and use them to shape our policy positions, and it is entirely reasonable to come to different policy conclusions even when starting from the same principles.
So with that rather lengthy preamble, what of the current election? Well, simply put, I am not giving my vote based on this or that policy decision. Instead I am voting against Donald Trump because I simply do not believe that his core principles are conservative, and that the potential consequences for the nation and the world are the destruction of the very fabric of our free and open society. His behaviour, pronouncements and decisions over the past four years demonstrate unambiguously that whatever his principles are, they are not rooted in conservatism. His policies sometimes coincide with conservative principles; often they do not. But I see no evidence whatsoever that he is striving to strengthen a plural and open society, to encourage us to be good citizens listening to our better angels, or that he even believes in democracy and the brotherhood of nations. To me he is neither conservative nor progressive: he is by instinct authoritarian, which is entirely inimical to the preservation of a plural society.
Listen to Jonathan Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi in Britain, writing in his new book, “Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times”. In writing generally about the dangers to the delicate fabric of a free and plural society he writes the following. He does not mention names, but the phrase springs to mind — “if the cap fits, wear it”.
“Populism has been born out of real grievances, genuine distress and a widespread sense of injustice and humiliation. The suffering is real. … But populism is unlikely to deliver redemption.
Populist politics involves magical thinking. The belief that a strong leader, with contempt for the democratic process, divisive rhetoric, relaxed about the truth or otherwise of his or her utterances, ignoring the conventions or normal politics, appealing directly to the people, blaming the state of the nation on some subgroup of the nation, or perhaps on neighbouring nations and peoples, and speaking not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst, can restore a nation’s former greatness — that is magical thinking.
Populist politics often does deliver genuine gains, in the short term. But as the realisation begins to dawn that the problems are deeper and more intractable than people thought, populist leaders have to produce scapegoats to blame for their failure — elites, the media, immigrants, Muslims, Jews — and then the vortex of authoritarianism begins, sweeping aside rights, justice, and liberty itself.”
In my observations this is a painful description of the reality that has been unfolding for the past four years. The greatest fear I have for the next four years is not this policy or that, it is the collapse of society into tribes, with scapegoats, and it is the sweeping aside of liberty as we know it. For this reason I am willing to take a chance on Joe Biden and the Democrats. I know they will let me down on many fronts — they seem to believe that government can provide the resolution to more problems than is realistic. It cannot of itself create good citizens or remove prejudice from hardened hearts, for instance. But in my judgement the risk of them damaging our fundamental fabric is less than leaving things as they are. I believe they will work within the accepted boundaries of politics.
And what of my statement about wanting the Democrats to take full control of Congress as well? Well, I believe in the principle of checks and balances between the branches of government. I also believe that we need effective parties and voices on the left and right in order to find optimal solutions. An effective legislature would have acted as check-and-balance to the Executive. They would have exercised their responsibility to protect the constitution, to be a balancing power — even if necessary to censure the president. But the craven capitulation of the Republican Party to the whims of the President means they are not worthy to govern. They must be swept aside so that the Republican Party can re-evaluate what it actually stands for and regain its core values. To my mind in its current form it has utterly lost them.
You might reasonably ask what evidence I have for this strong statement. These are a few examples:
- The president has reduced trust in our public institutions. He has encouraged us to believe that all these institutions are corrupt and not to be trusted — the military, the courts, the political process, the press, even the voting system.
- He has cast aspersions on his political opponents, encouraging us to stop seeing our political leaders as having legitimate perspectives with which we might disagree but instead as being “monsters”, corrupt and anti-American. He uses ugly nicknames and mocks and bullies. He leads the calls to “lock her up”. In doing so he diminishes the whole political process.
- He has demanded personal loyalty and fealty from all around him. The steady stream of people fired from the administration for speaking of their concerns, and the vilification of people like Mitt Romney has left him surrounded by sycophants. He had made demands of the Justice Department to act for him rather than in protecting the law. For instance, he recently demanded that William Barr as the Attorney General should arrest Joe Biden, declaring that if he did Barr would go down in history as one of the great AGs, but if not then there could be difficulties, which sounds like a veiled threat. What of cleaning the swamp?
- The Republicans have not published a party platform or manifesto about what they are proposing to do over the next four years. Instead they are asking us to simply trust and follow the President. That looks suspiciously like the approach that a personality cult would take.
- He seems to lack either respect or understanding for the Constitution: the separation of power, the constitutional checks and balance, the fact that the legislature is supposed to make the laws and the president is supposed to execute them. He has shown staggering nepotism and the blurring of political and business interests.
- His rhetoric and unseemly tweets have further divided us into tribes, of us and them. He has identified scapegoats and criticised minorities and immigrants. He has called on politicians from minority groups to “go home”. In doing so he is damaging the social fabric. If we cannot trust one another we have no society.
- In 2016, prior to the election, I wrote a piece expressing my concerns about Donald Trump. I recently re-read that essay and came across this rather startling line: “I hasten to add that I do not think Mr Trump is a Hitler. I do not think for a second that he would use paramilitary groups and a secret police to intimidate citizens”. Then I watched the images of the riots and protests in Portland, and arrival of uniformed federal military without identifying badges bundling people into unmarked vans. I also saw the clearing of peaceful protestors in Lafayette Square with tear gas for a Trump photo opportunity. Whatever the solution to our bruising times, such events should be shocking to us all.
The results of all this have been clear to see. In my Facebook messages people that I know and care about have described Trump as a “saviour” and the Democrats as “Satanic”. We have armed groups around polling booths. We see vigilante groups escalating protests and who are encouraged by the president. The polarising of the nation has continued at pace.
The contrast between Donald Trump and previous Republican leaders is striking. Think of Ronald Reagan, with his optimism and his always using “we” — we can do this, “we the people in working together…” Or when a woman declared in a John McCain townhall meeting that she thought Barack Obama was an Arab and that she could not trust him. He declared: “No ma’am, he’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about.”
In contrast we have President Trump. No “morning in America” but the descriptions of the darkest of times that only he personally can rescue us from. “Only I can fix it”. “Me”. “I”. “I will make things great again”. This is no inspirational and uniting leader, healing the wounds and bringing us together. This is an authoritarian painting the darkest of pictures and then telling us that only he can save us.
No wonder hundreds of prominent Republicans have spoken out against President Trump, including many who have worked directly with him. These include Colin Powell, Mitt Romney, Peggy Noonan, George Will, John Bolton, Anthony Scaramucci, Jeff Flake, Mark Sanford, Michael Steele, Steve Schmidt, Sully Sullenberger, a swathe of military generals. The hundreds of leaders on this list are witness to the danger that President Trump poses to the Republic as we know it.
I suggest, fellow conservatives, that in our heart of hearts we know that they are right. We might justify supporting Trump by approving of some of his policies or by thinking that he has rough edges but is fundamentally sound. But we also know that the preservation of freedom and a plural society depends on the protection of the delicate fabric that ties us together. I suggest to you that Donald Trump has demonstrated that he is not the man to offer that protection.
Lee Sheppard
P.S. One final thought. A number of friends have expressed their concern to me that the Democrats are anti-American and will simply take us down the path to socialism, poverty and to an amoral society. There are indeed extreme left-wing members of the Democratic Party. There are also the equivalent in the Republican Party, such as those who sympathise with Qanon. However the Democrats did not actually choose this path in this election. They chose a moderate, traditional Democrat. Most Americans on all sides truly love America and believe in it. The debate is how to move it forward. Democrats have not brought us to socialism in the past, and I don’t see anything particularly that would lead us to that conclusion this time round if we look at their actual announced policies. They believe in capitalism too, but just have a different take on how to care for the poor among us. It is common for Republicans to believe that the countries of Western Europe are socialist. They really aren’t — and I say this as one who has lived in or visited most of them as well as a number of the old Eastern countries before and after the fall of Communism. These truly were socialist, and the difference is obvious to see. Every country in the west has a capitalist system. It is just a question about how different nations (and we as a nation) try to address the complicated problems in society.
One other thought for those who are concerned about the economy: surprisingly Democrats have actually reduced the national debt and provided more economic stability than the Republicans in the past 30 years. Look at the debt under Bill Clinton, and look at the recovery and rise in employment under Obama. Trump has increased the national debt far more than Obama did. That is worth checking out and giving some thought to.
