David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
Should conservatives vote for Donald Trump?
That is the topic of a debate I am having with Tim Montgomerie, founder of this website, tonight (available to watch online or attend in person if you happen to be in London).
My position is no.
Presumably someone will post a comment below to the effect that I am not qualified to speak as a conservative but, at least on this issue, my views are aligned with a majority of Conservative voters. According to YouGov, 55% of Conservative voters want Kamala Harris to win, 27% want a Trump victory. Incidentally, on this test – as with attitudes to the anti-immigration riots of the summer – Conservative voters are closer in attitude to Labour and Liberal Democrats than they are to Reform voters. To put it another way, Reform voters have a set of views that are very different from those of the vast majority of the British public, including the majority of Tories.
That is perhaps a column for another day.
As Tim has already set out his case elsewhere, it is only fair that I surrender any element of surprise in my arguments. Of course, at this evening’s debate these points will be accompanied by many brilliant rhetorical flourishes, so do not let this article put you off from attending.
There are three broad objections to Trump.
First, let us take policy.
From a UK perspective, Trump has two policies that are consequential and both are objectionable. He favours tariffs, not just on imports from China (where he proposes a 60 per cent tariff) but on everyone (with a 10 per cent tariff) including the UK. This is a truly stupid policy from a US perspective but runs the risk of provoking a trade war that could have a devastating impact on the world economy. It has been reported that British officials believe that the negative impact greater than Brexit (perhaps a point I should refrain from making to this particular audience).
Trump also wants to end support to Ukraine. He says he will end the war immediately but the only lever he has to do that is to withdraw support for Ukraine and hope this forces them to make concessions. Either Ukraine’s other allies, such as the UK, will have to fill the breach (costly and we can imagine how Trump would react to that) or acquiesce in the surrender of Ukrainian sovereign territory to Putin.
There is a strand of conservatism that is protectionist and isolationist but for any admirer of Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher to go along with these policies is extraordinary. Trump represents a repudiation of their values on free trade and internationalism.
Remarkably, the risk of Trump to our geopolitical and economic security is only the third strongest argument against him.
Next we come to character.
Politicians are human beings and will have their flaws but has there ever been a contender for high office whose personality flaws are so extensive and obvious? Trump is dishonest, divisive, coarse, self-pitying, ignorant, inconsistent, and intemperate. A court concluded that he had committed rape; he has boasted about “grabbing pussies”. He is a grifter, using his political fame to promote his own tacky merchandise. Not only does he lack any ethos of public service but he disrespects those that do, labelling POWs as “suckers”. Age has not mellowed him, merely made him even more unpredictable and incoherent.
What would it say about a society that elected him as it leader? And what example would it set to younger people if the embodiment of power and success was a figure such as Trump?
Then we come to the third and, in my view, most overwhelming argument against Trump – his behaviour following the 2020 Presidential election, including on 6 January 2021.
It is unfortunate that he has not yet been brought to trial but the story is a familiar.
Following his defeat, he refused to accept the election result, attempting to force officials in Georgia to change the result and bringing a series of legal claims all of which were dismissed.
On 6 January, on the date that Congress was due to certify the election result, he called on his Vice President, Mike Pence, to refuse to certify the result. Trump gathered his supporters at a rally, and urged them to converge on the Capitol building. He concluded his speech at 13:10 hours by saying: “We fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
Thirty five minutes later, his supporters overwhelmed the police and forced their way into the Capitol building. Within minutes, Senators, members of Congress and the Vice-President were forced to hide, fearful for their lives. With violent protesters in the building, Trump tweeted further criticism of Pence.
It is not until 15:13 hours that Trump tweeted again to call for people to “remain peaceful” and not until 16:17 that he called for the protesters to go home. Despite many appeals to call off the mob, Trump had refused to lift a finger for 88 minutes after the violent storming of the Capitol building.
He has shown no remorse for the events of 6 January.
On the evening itself, he called the protesters “great patriots”. If elected, he has committed to pardoning those who were convicted of criminal offences. Just last week, he defended his position by saying “the others had guns… but we didn’t have guns”. Let us be clear here as to his meaning. When he refers to “the others” he means the Capitol police. When he says “we”, he means an insurrectionist mob.
He sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power by inciting a riot.
Surely this behaviour, beyond any other consideration, disqualifies him from support. For Conservatives, in particular, who are supposed to believe in respecting institutions, in the rule of law, of the maintenance of order, Trump’s behaviour on that day should put him beyond the pale.
Kamala Harris may not be the most impressive Presidential candidate of modern times (and I confess to not being particularly impressed myself) but she has a greater respect for the US constitution than Trump could ever have. There is much about her economic policy which anyone of a free market disposition finds troubling, but she will not condemn the world to a devastating trade war. She will be a much better ally to Ukraine – and the West as a whole – than Trump.
She clearly has her personal weaknesses, but she seems devoid of the malevolence of her opponent. There is nothing about her personality or agenda that justifies a vote for this Republican candidate.
The GOP has been transformed by Trump. It is not the party of Reagan, the Bushes, John McCain and Mitt Romney. It may never be again. But for the better forms of conservatism to succeed, the worst form of conservatism (if indeed, Trumpism constitutes any kind of conservatism) must be defeated.
Conservatives should not support him.