Perhaps 'the conservative movement' is better off with Hillary in the White House . . . but the country isn't

I've seen this argument a lot since it became clear that Donald Trump would be the Republican nominee, thus setting on fire the hair of conservative movement types who vowed to never vote for him no matter what - and now can't (or don't want to) step off that ledge. The logic goes like this: Trump would be a disaster for the conservative movement because he would trash every conservative principle in the course of governing as a Republican president, while Hillary would be boon for the conservative movement because she'd be the perfect foil as a Democrat president.

In the past few days, I've seen this argued by two writers I like, respect and enjoy. First, Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal:

The best hope for what's left of a serious conservative movement in America is the election in November of a Democratic president, held in check by a Republican Congress. Conservatives can survive liberal administrations, especially those whose predictable failures lead to healthy restorations—think Carter, then Reagan. What isn't survivable is a Republican president who is part Know Nothing, part Smoot-Hawley and part John Birch. The stain of a Trump administration would cripple the conservative cause for a generation. This is the reality that wavering Republicans need to understand before casting their lot with a presumptive nominee they abhor only slightly less than his likely opponent. If the next presidency is going to be a disaster, why should the GOP want to own it? In the 1990s, when another Clinton was president, conservatives became fond of the phrase "character counts." This was a way of scoring points against Bill Clinton for his sexual predations and rhetorical misdirections, as well as a statement that Americans expected honor and dignity in the Oval Office. I'll never forget the family friend, circa 1998, who wondered how she was supposed to explain the meaning of a euphemism for oral sex to her then 10-year-old daughter.

---

And now Jonah Goldberg of National Review, making a very similar argument:

For conservatives, party unity is another way of saying "suicide pact." I will never vote for Hillary Clinton because she believes things I can never support. I will never vote for Donald Trump because he's a bullying fool who believes in nothing but himself. The conservative movement can wait out a Clinton presidency intact.

Now, Stephens and Goldberg may very well both be right. If the goal is to lay the groundwork for a resurgent "conservative movement" - as measured by massive congressional seat pickups, soaring poll numbers and widespread disdain for a horrible, nasty president - Hillary in the White House probably does the trick. And they may also be right about Trump: If he becomes our new Republican president and governs with disdain for conservative ideas - whether all the time or part of the time - that would indeed make it more difficult for the "conservative movement" to argue that its ideas are best for the country. The left and its media servants would gleefully attack this notion by claiming Trump was a conservative president and pointing out all the misalignment between Trump's performance and what intellectual conservatives claim. But there are two gigantic problems with the conservative-movement-would-be-better-off-with-Hillary argument: 1. The conservative movement might do great, but the country would not. What good is it to pick up congressional seats, swell your mailing lists, bring in a financial windfall win all the talking-head shoutfests on cable news if the country is going to hell in a handbasket, and for all your newfound popularity, you can do nothing to stop it? This is where I think some conservatives need to really examine themselves and work out exactly where their loyalty lies. I'm in favor of conservative ideas, same as you, but I'm not willing to see unnecessary damage done to the country in order to see my point proven. We've been over this all before. The loss of the Supreme Court. The creation of new budget-busting entitlements. The stepped up harassment of businesses by the NLRB and of taxpayers by the IRS. The inevitable abuse of power and scandal. The explosion of new debt on top of what we're already trying to deal with. The continued erosion of our global leadership status. How much of this are you conservative movement types willing to accept in order to have your point proven? My answer is: None of it. And what's more, I'd suggest that if conservatives need the country collapsing around them in order to win the argument, then they either don't have as good an argument as they think, or they're the wrong people to be arguing it. My loyalty is not to the "conservative movement." It's to my country. And Hillary as president would be a disaster for my country. If that's OK with you because you think it helps your movement, then frankly, you're not the kind of guy I want fighting alongside me for what's supposedly right. 2. The "conservative movement" has no history of turning disasters under Democrat presidents into sustained conservative policy successes. Republicans have re-captured total control of Congress in dramatic fashion three times since the first Clinton election - in 1994, 2002 and 2014. What has come of it? Nothing. I'll spot you the capital gains tax cut of 1997 and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. All were solid achievements but they were the exceptions that proved the rule. Those Congresses did nothing dramatic or long-lasting to give us more conservative policies on health care, energy, spending, taxation or anything else. The nation's policies have drifted consistently to the left since the end of the Reagan Administration, and Republican control of Congress may have slowed it at times but it never reversed it. So the suggestion that a Hillary governing disaster will result in some sort of glorious conservative ascendancy that somehow restores goodness and light to the nation cuts against every recent example from history. I am not willing to see the country damaged that severely so as to provide an opportunity for a "movement" that's had plenty of opportunities in recent history and hasn't done a damn thing with any of them. This is the Detroit Lions of movements. What's good for America is that Hillary never becomes president. Nothing else matters.