NEVERNEVERTRUMP

Now that Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee, Republicans should unite behind him, say, among others, (Republican National Chairman) Reince Priebus and (over the hill blowhard) Newt Gingrich.

Fat chance of that.  I wonder who (besides themselves) they think they’re kidding?

A conservative columnist I admire, former Army colonel Kurt Schlichter, despises Trump almost as much as I do, but plans to vote for him, because he thinks Hillary would be worse.  Hillary is a fascist, Kurt says.  Trump is more of a clown.

Rick Wilson, one of the few GOP consultants I think is worth a hoot, said he may vote for Hillary because he thinks Trump would be worse.

I don’t see how a principled conservative could vote for either.  To choose between Trump and Hillary is like taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war.  America wins only if both lose.

Novelist Brad Thor doesn’t speculate about whether Hillary would be worse for America than Trump, or vice versa. But he cites the “Hamilton rule” to say a Trump presidency would be worse for conservatives.

In 1800, when Aaron Burr tried to steal the presidency from Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton sided with his bitter political foe.

“If we must have an enemy at the head of government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible,” Hamilton said.

There’s another reason why it might be better for conservatives if Hillary wins.

“What can’t go on forever won’t,” said economist Herb Stein.  There’s a reckoning coming for our massive public and private debt, the implosion of Obamacare, a pusillanimous foreign policy that’s emboldened our enemies and alienated our allies.

Victor Davis Hanson thinks that reckoning will come within the next four years, and when it does, millions of Americans will hate the president and his or her party.

We’re not likely ever to know how bad a president Trump would be, because Hillary would crush him in a two way race.

Col. Schlichter is in a distinct minority among conservative pundits.  Nearly all the rest of us remain firmly, proudly #NeverTrump.

It’s more complicated for Republican officeholders.  Any who actively support Trump are dead to me.  I’ll give a pass to those who grit their teeth, say they’ll support the party’s nominee, then sit on their hands.  But they aren’t profiles in courage.  And their caution could backfire.

Donald Trump has endorsed the views of birthers, truthers, anti-vaccine loons.  He accused Ted Cruz’ father of participation in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Often this summer and fall, expect reporters to ask GOP candidates:“Donald Trump said (insert latest batpoop crazy pronouncement here).  Do you agree?”

Among my #NeverTrump colleagues, I’m most grateful for Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, who’s been seeking an independent alternative to Bad and Worse.  I was disappointed when James “Mad Dog” Mattis, who I think is the greatest Marine general ever, gently rejected his overtures.

Keep trying, Bill.  Let me know what I can do to help.  It may be a blessing in disguise that our nightmare climaxed in early May, rather than after the California primary or the convention, because we have more time to find a suitable candidate.

I think we both know who that candidate ought to be.  Unlike his more cautious (or gutless) colleagues, on the night of the Indiana primary, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb, boldly affirmed he is, and will remain, #NeverTrump.

Sasse, 44, is a stud. A college president, he was elected to the Senate by a landslide in 2014, carrying every county in the state.  Handsome, as firm a constitutionalist as Ronald Reagan, he’s as fine an orator as Marco Rubio.  (Here’s his maiden speech in the Senate, and two glowing reviews of it.)  He’s already my favorite conservative politician.

It’s unlikely Sasse could win.  But he could garner more votes than any independent candidate since 1912, and his presence on the ballot could save the seats of a few Republicans by attracting to the polls #NeverTrumpers otherwise inclined to sit this election out.

And because Hillary and Trump are both wildly unpopular – and likely to become more so – victory isn’t out of the question.  Sasse could finish third in the popular and electoral votes and still be elected president.

If no candidate receives a majority of the electoral vote, the president will be chosen by the House of Representatives.  Each state delegation will have one vote. Wyoming and New York will be equal.  Given a choice among Hillary, Trump and Sasse, for whom do you think the current Republican majority in the House would vote?

If Sasse runs, Trump will blame him for his defeat.  Like most things Trumpkins say, this will be untrue.  Few conservatives who vote for Sasse would have voted for Trump if Sasse hadn’t run.  And Ben could diminish Hillary’s margin by attracting the votes of disgruntled Democrats and independents who’d rather vote for him than cast a grudging ballot for her.

Most likely, Hillary will win an electoral college landslide with an unimpressive plurality of the popular vote. But a Sasse candidacy would not have been in vain.

“All that’s necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” said Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservative thought (though not quite so succinctly).

We must fight evil even when we have little hope of success.  “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little,” Burke said.

Fortune favors the bold. If Sasse were to run as an independent this year, he’d be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2020 (if the GOP is still around) or to be the first presidential candidate of the Freedom Party.

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret, and was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force during the Reagan Administration.  He is the national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.