Evan McMullin reminds us why conservatism is the answer to what divides us

The post-Trump GOP — which looks increasingly likely to begin Nov. 9 — will face the biggest crisis of identity in the party’s century and a half of existence. An “autopsy” was ordered after the loss four years ago; this time, someone may need to check the dental records to make sure it’s still the party of Lincoln and Reagan.

Even in the event Donald Trump manages to upset Hillary Clinton, a possibility currently rated between 1 in 8 and 1 in 6 by the prognosticators at FiveThirtyEight.com, something will have to change among Republicans. That’s because, whoever wins the election, this country looks set to remain more divided than it’s been in decades, if not longer.

The most common refrain is the GOP will have to become less conservative in one way or another if it’s to have a chance of being a unifying force again. The opposite may be true, to hear the only conservative in the race tell it.

Evan McMullin in Atlanta, Oct. 17. (AJC Photo / Curtis Compton)

Evan McMullin in Atlanta, Oct. 17. (AJC Photo / Curtis Compton)

That of course isn’t Trump. It’s Evan McMullin, who aims to be the most consequential write-in candidate in U.S. presidential history.

McMullin is the former CIA operative and House GOP policy chief who’s running as a #NeverTrump conservative. Recent opinion polls give him an outside chance of winning in Utah. But his influence this year probably won’t come from pushing the election to Congress (in part because Trump looks incapable of doing his part by winning enough states to keep Clinton under 270 electoral votes).

No, if McMullin has an impact, it may come from reminding us why a conservatism focused on limiting and decentralizing power is ultimately our best hope of solving our differences. First, McMullin argues for transferring some power back to Congress from the executive branch. But he doesn’t stop there.

“There is too much power in Washington,” McMullin said in an interview before his campaign event Monday night in Atlanta. “It leaves too much opportunity for corruption. It makes government unaccountable to the American people and less efficient.”

So far, so familiar. Republicans have been pretty consistent about extolling the virtues of limiting centralized power — Trump’s “I alone can fix it” claims notwithstanding.

Then McMullin added this: “And it divides us.”

“One of the main reason this country is so divided,” he continued, “is so much power is in Washington. We have 330 million people fighting over decisions in one place that result in top-down solutions for the whole country. If Vermont wants to have a single-payer health-care system, and Utah wants to have more of a market-based system, so be it! Let them do that and govern themselves.

“And I think that can be the key to our unity as Americans, is if we respect each other’s ability to self-govern, and I just don’t see that right now.”

I doubt anyone else sees it, either. The mistaken belief on both the right and the left that each is just about to deliver the philosophical, or at least electoral, knock-out punch is part of the reason we’re forever hearing “this is the most important election of our lifetimes.” If power must be concentrated in D.C., with the most important decisions made there and applied to all, then those cries might prove true.

But if we need only agree on one crucial thing — that we need not agree on everything, because we can make 50 decisions on some of the most important issues instead of one — then we have a chance.

Reader Comments 0

149 comments
SGTGrit
SGTGrit

Trump, did well and unlike the previous two debates he rattled Hillary. Wallace, was far better as the debate monitor but gave Hillary more slack  than he wanted to allow Trump, however, Trump made his own anyway. I know Fox News was all ga ga over Chris Wallace being selected as the final debate moderator and that's okay but I view him as a closet lib and who probably favors Clinton. Did the needle move any, I don't know, we will find out in the next few days.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Her life's work has produced nothing. Nothing.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Really, she has the same idiot smile that rubio did.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Who else besides me wishes Hillary would just shut up? How many lies can she tell in a row?

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

All these hurt feelings democrats Hillary can rattle off at the snap of a finger.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

8 years they have had chance to make these wonderful economic ideas produce and all we have to show for it is squat. Same old, same old.

WWYT?
WWYT?

Sir, the last four years the GOPers had control of the house and senate nothing was achieved by them. NOTHING. Only obstructionism.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Maybe if Hillary had a secured government server instead of one in her basement, Russia would have never got those emails.

LilBarryBailout
LilBarryBailout

"But if we need only agree on one crucial thing — that we need not agree on everything..."

------

Leftists don't agree on that one thing because it makes it so much harder to force their beliefs on all 330 million of us.

Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Hedley this is probably over your head, but gives you some perspective on "college educated voters" and how people decide to be Dems or Reps.  Education level is not essential to how people vote.  People who tend to be Democrats/Proggies are more inclined to be more educated.  It is not like they learn some "college secret" that makes them Democrats.  This is a very interesting prospective.


https://www.quora.com/Does-the-level-of-education-correlate-with-political-affiliation-How-does-each-party-account-for-any-difference


As for advanced degrees, I think that those who want to or need to go out and make some money to support their family skew toward voting Republican. Those who want to stay in school longer and learn how they can change the world tend to vote Democratic. Again, getting a masters' degree didn't make them Democrats. Being Democrats made them stay in school. Advanced studies are quite often a luxury available to those with wealth and family income. Those people voted for Obama over Bush, and affected whatever data has been studied. Going to college didn't make them rich. But there's a correlation.

We need to filter out gender, too. Women vote Democratic more often than men, and they go to college more often than men. Many of you realize that women are a lot smarter than men, but that was true before they went to college. Anyway, this pair of statistics will result quite inevitably in showing that more college graduates vote Democratic. Going to college did not make them Democrats, any more than it made them women.




MarkVV
MarkVV

@RafeHollister All that does not change the fact, that people who are better informed and better trained to differentiate between facts and fiction, truth and lies, are more likely to vote for Democrats.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@RafeHollister 

And then there is the low information voter who needs to be bribed or otherwise dragged kicking and screaming to the voting polls or sometimes not even breathing to vote. On which party does their vote depend on?

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@MarkVV @RafeHollister That didn't appear in that article and in fact the article gives evidence that there is no proof of that.  Take this example:


"We need to filter out gender, too. Women vote Democratic more often than men, and they go to college more often than men. Many of you realize that women are a lot smarter than men, but that was true before they went to college. Anyway, this pair of statistics will result quite inevitably in showing that more college graduates vote Democratic. Going to college did not make them Democrats, any more than it made them women."


BTW:  College graduates have voted for the GOP in every Presidential election for about the last 50 years.  Yes, post graduates degree people almost always vote Democrat.  The article reports that these people are Democratic because of their beliefs, e.g. believing they can benefit society by getting more education rather than enter the workforce.  Their education did not influence their choice to choose Democrat,  they were born that way, evidenced by their desire for more and more education.


Or, you could decide that their desire to go to school as long as possible was because they were lazy and unmotivated, which would also make them Democrats.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@RafeHollister @MarkVV That last paragraph of yours is just another stupidity I have learned to expect from you.

It is an obvious fact that some people cannot, for financial reasons, go to college, and there are lots of other conditions that make people go to college or prevent them from doing that. Nothing in that changes the fact that I already mentioned above : Once they get the higher education, they ARE BETTER EDUCATED. And their preference for the Democrats is the result of that. There may be fools be tween them, and very wise people among the "less educated." That does not change the fact that overall, people who statistically are better informed, more able to recognize the truth, statistically tend to prefer Democrats. 

LilBarryBailout
LilBarryBailout

People who work for a living are more likely to vote Republican.

The needy and greedy vote Democrat.

Re Al A T
Re Al A T

The party is flat out over for these free loading non working so called politicians. The people want substantial change and neither of these fools are going to deliver it. Look out democrats your turn is coming sooner than later. The republicans became too pompous to govern and have tried for years to centralize government. That is not what the people want. Give us back our free will and the right to govern ourselves without the constant meddling and bickering from the political parties.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Not to mention that we will have our first fair debate tonight, with out moderators screaming down the Trumpster. Plus, Wikileaks will no longer be censored from the eyes of the American people.


Will you cover your eyes and plug your ears like cnn wants  when they talk about the FBI, Kyle?



AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Along with collusion and traitor, I would also like to add the word "treachery."


The post-Trump GOP — which looks increasingly likely to begin Nov. 9 — will face the biggest crisis of identity in the party’s century and a half of existence. 



Trying to depress the outcome of an election, knowing full well that there are 3 weeks remaining?


Just too much evidence.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@IReportYouWhine Yes


This is powerful stuff


Kyle did you know you were a traitor and part of the conspiracy to get Hillary elected ?

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

In a recent Washington Post/ABC survey, 62% of white voters without a college education support Trump compared with 39% among white college graduates, a 23-point margin. 


Its pretty obvious no ?


Trump wins with one group and one group only.


Uneducated white males.


Good luck with that on election day.




JamVet
JamVet

For his next trick, the esteemed geopolitical expert, Whiner McPhido will elucidate on the historical and current differences between Sunni and Shia Islam, Replete with where each sect is strongest and the implications therein...

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@RafeHollister @McGarnagle @IReportYouWhine LOL


The polls are rigged !!!!!


In the most recent presidential election, Gallup’s final estimate of likely voters, issued on the eve of Election Day in 2012, projected Mitt Romney as the winner.  A day later, Obama was the winner by nearly 4 percentage points.


Soon after this debacle the Gallup Organization, the inventor of scientific polling in the 1930’s, fell on its sword and quit the election horse-race business altogether. Rasmussen got it wrong in 2012 as well, but they opted to stay in the business.  


What do they cite in the piece. Polls that overestimated GOP support.


Classic !!!!

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

I posted this earlier at Bookmans


But for all the talk of being a winner. Do you know what Donald Trump really is. A LOSER


Only a loser talks about the game being " rigged". Its like a little kid who flips over the game board when he is hopelessly behind. Straight up loser talk.


He cant even lose gracefully.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

The leader of "isis" fought under the banner of al qaeda in Iraq. I can't blame them for making a name change after the way they got wiped by the US Armed Forces in Iraq (notice how I place the credit with whom it belongs to instead of some do nothing politician?)


Anyway, if you think there is a whit of difference between the two, you must have went to college.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@IReportYouWhine There is a difference between the two. I did go to college.


There are NOT a threat to our way of life no matter how badly Donald Trump tries to scare you.

AndyManUSA#45
AndyManUSA#45

Wait a minute, my bad, al qaeda cut your head off from the left side while isis cuts it off from the right.


Never mind.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

@IReportYouWhine @Hedley_Lammar Because they are a problem


Mainly a Muslim one. You do know most of thier victims are Muslim right ? So they should be leading the charge


Which is exactly what they are doing now.

JamVet
JamVet

@Hedley_Lammar @IReportYouWhine

Drumpf is a bigger threat to our national security than ISIS.

Just ask those former CIA directors with an R after their names.

And the dozens of other elected repubs and career military officers who have repudiated the pig king's dangerous willful stupidity. (Where's that pesky Ukraine located again? Somewhere near Uz-beki-beki-beki-stan?)...

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

@Hedley_Lammar @SGTGrit 

Sure Headley, and there's a pot of gold along with a unicorn just waiting for you at the end of a rainbow. Trump, does lead among independents by 7pts. Are independents mostly non-college grads?