This past Wednesday, the University’s College Republicans voted 67-63 to endorse Donald Trump, the highly controversial Republican nominee, for the presidential election. As I mentioned in a previous article, Trump and his opponent Hillary Clinton are among the most unlikeable presidential contenders is American history. While 70 percent of the entire American electorate views Trump unfavorably, a whopping 81 percent of millennials, who are aged 18-30, view Trump unfavorably. The highest favorability Trump has received from his own party thus far was 66 percent in May, yet that number is dwarfed by approximately 80 percent favorability past Republican contenders Mitt Romney and John McCain enjoyed in 2012 and 2008, respectively. All things considered, it might seem surprising and disappointing that the College Republicans chose to endorse Trump; yet, I hope to shed a more optimistic light on this controversial decision.
There were signs from the meeting that members of College Republicans understood the enormous implications of this endorsement — a sign of intellectual maturity and strength. The Cavalier Daily interviewed two students, John Garza and Cameron Springer, following the decision. Garza, a first-year College student, said he worried about the College Republicans becoming the “laughingstock of U.Va.” which would consequently call into question the organization’s credibility come 2020 and beyond. Likewise, Springer, a third-year Engineering student, understood the intense disdain millennials feel toward Trump, saying the decision “could chase away new members and people who may otherwise agree with [the organization’s] ideology,” adding that it was unwise for the organization to support “a candidate almost unanimously hated by a generation.”
Although Garza and Springer’s sentiments ultimately did not resonate with the majority of their peers, it is commendable that they and the other 61 individuals who refused to endorse Trump exhibited such individuality and righteousness. Several of Trump’s national-level supporters include individuals Trump himself has publicly defamed, such as Sens. John McCain and Marco Rubio. Trump called the heroism of the former into question even though McCain spent five years in a prison camp during the Vietnam War, and Trump repeatedly slandered Rubio with the name “little Marco” throughout the Republican primary. Still, the two men have forfeited their pride and righteousness by endorsing Trump in hope of retaining party unity and winning contested re-elections in their home states, something these students are unwilling to do.
The anti-Trumpers in the organization also show they understand that sheer disdain for Clinton is not a good reason to support Trump. Second-year College student Adam Kimelman explained to The Cavalier Daily that the organization might as well “endorse the entire Democratic Party” with that logic and that it “should hold itself to a higher standard than that.” Thus Kimelman, Garza and Springer have demonstrated a degree of maturity and individuality that many seasoned politicians still fail to exhibit, and although their organization might find itself on the wrong side of history, at least these students will have the satisfaction of knowing they did not sell out their morals or independence.
The very fact that the endorsement passed by a mere four-vote margin shows a substantial number of College Republicans have thought deeply about this decision and understand various consequences. While I have mentioned their concern about the effects of supporting Trump, there was also a major consequence for not endorsing him. Per the College Republicans’ national bylaws, individual chapters are prohibited from endorsing non-Republican candidates, the penalty being disassociation from the national organization. When the Cornell chapter of College Republicans endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson over Trump, Cornell’s chapter was immediately revoked. Students who voted against endorsing Trump did so all the while understanding their decision could terminate their group’s status within a national organization. Yet nearly a majority of the University’s members did so anyway, and given the severe consequence that could have ensued, they ought to be commended.
While College Republicans might have upset many people with their decision to endorse Trump, it is crucial to look at this decision through a wider lens. We have learned that one of the University’s most conservative organizations has members who are willing to distinguish their own beliefs from their party’s, even at the risk of losing national recognition, which is something even the most vocal critics of Trump have refused do.
Jesse Berman is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.berman@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 14 hours agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
