Republicans of conscience: Michael Medved

In a final burst of bombastic bluster in the third televised debate, Donald Trump came across as more insecure, unprepared and angrily unhinged than ever before. In the days remaining before November 8th, his true-believers will turn with deepening desperation to the search for scapegoats for their flailing, failing campaign.

In addition to general denunciations of a “rigged system,” they’ve found a favorite target with NeverTrumpers — disillusioned conservatives who allegedly place self-interest and self-image ahead of the nation’s survival. According to this argument, Republicans who express their fastidious objections to the nominee’s loutish behavior seek to appease “respectable” opinion while destroying the last, best hope to rescue the Republic from demonic Democratic domination.

This argument rests entirely on dubious assumptions.

First, it’s hardly easy or advantageous for GOP officials or conservative opinion leaders to decline to board the Trump Train. The path of least resistance would be to ignore Trump’s flaws and hype the horrors of Hillary Clinton, or to give the nominee at least nominal endorsement (like House Speaker Paul Ryan, or respected radio host Mark Levin) while still lamenting the ways his candidacy falls short.

As one of the lonely few broadcasters in national radio syndication to maintain implacable opposition to the Trump candidacy, I can attest that my position has generated primarily anger from our syndicator, many of our 300 local affiliates, and thousands of indignant listeners who feel no hesitation in expressing their rage in emails and phone calls.

The reason to endure such heartfelt denunciation involves far more than distaste for Trump’s loathsome boasts about assaulting women. Even if the nominee led a personal life as spotless and dignified as Mitt Romney’s, his candidacy would be impossible to support for many thoughtful conservatives. His three distinctive policy priorities — opposing free trade, immigration and American leadership on the world stage — characterize him as a big government populist and reflexive isolationist, not a conservative.

This Election Day, let's send both parties packing: Column

An influential plea on Trump’s behalf (“The Flight 93 Election”) in the prestigious Claremont Review identified him as an ideal candidate who combined the themes of Ron Paul on foreign policy, Tom Tancredo on immigration and Dick Gephardt on trade. Never mind that each of these cranks represented fringe figures who wandered into third-party dead ends.

On these core issues, Trump also split dramatically from the leader who defined modern conservatism. Ronald Reagan championed muscular American leadership, robust free trade, and immigration — including “amnesty” for the undocumented. And on each of these crucial questions, Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, comes closer to mainstream Reaganite positions than does the imperious “I Alone Can Fix It” Bonapartist poseur, Donald Trump.

In response, Trumpian loyalists cite the poisonous progressive priorities that Clinton promises to impose. But the most obnoxious elements of her program — raising taxes, expanding entitlements, appointing wild-eyed liberals to the Supreme Court — require congressional approval. That increases the stakes for defending Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. By contrast, Trump’s most menacing proposals — blowing up alliances, deporting millions, starting trade wars by erasing accords — could be implemented by a president acting on his own, if he’s irresponsible enough to do so.

Moreover, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggests that even if Clinton managed to enact all her budgetary and tax proposals, she might add $20 billion dollars a year to the national debt over the next ten years. Trump, by contrast, would swell that debt by $500 billion annually if he pushed through his announced agenda, inflicting incalculable damage on the economy.

Trump could learn from King Midas: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

The assertion that Clinton threatens prosperity and security more dangerously than Trump rests on an obvious contradiction in his candidacy. Since beginning his campaign, The Donald has equated Hillary with “more of the same” while promising his presidency would radically restructure the political order. Now, with President Obama’s popularity near its second-term high and no seething majority demanding a clean break, Trumpers equate Clinton with apocalypse, not status quo. The prospect of more of the same in Washington might remain distinctly unappetizing, but it hardly threatens cataclysm.

The perils of a Trump presidency remain far more menacing — especially with the man’s demonstrable lack of impulse control and propensity for picking pointless fights. In opposing the election of the most dubious candidate ever nominated by a major party, Republicans of conscience aren’t suddenly switching sides. We’re not on the Democrats’ side, or Hillary’s side. We’re on America’s side, protecting the land we love from a uniquely dangerous demagogue.

Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated talk radio show and is a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors. His new book The American Miraclewill be released in November. Follow him on Twitter @MedvedSHOW.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines .