Steve Sailer writes: My policy is: I don’t endorse political candidates. If I were to try to set up a 501 c 3 educational charity, the nice people at the SPLC have made clear to me in the past that they would call the IRS’s attention to the slightest slip up on my part. Endorsing candidates is one of the things that technically you can’t do, although it appears to be violated constantly by charities (but seldom ones that are targeted for destruction by the massively rich SPLC).
Anyway, why would you need me to endorse candidates? You are all grown ups and can make up your own minds. My jobs is to tell you things that are true, interesting, new, and funny (in roughly that order of priority). There’s no shortage of pundits telling you whom to vote for, but there is a shortage of pundits delivering on T, I, N, and F.
* From a few comments dropped here and there, I think Steve is concerned that Trump is really not up to the job, not willing to do the homework and get up to speed. That the level of policy detail we hear in Trump’s speeches–meager at best–is about as far as he intends to delve into things.
At the same time, many of Trump’s positions are closer to those of Steve than are those of any other candidate.
I have the same sense of foreboding about Trump.
* Officially, Steve hasn’t endorsed any candidate. In one sense, that can be taken to mean that he can’t really bring himself to support Trump. It’s commendable and to his credit, that he isn’t disrespecting those who do support Trump’s candidacy, many of whom would tend to support some things that he has supported over the years (concept for citizenism, etc).
But unlike Jared Taylor, who has indeed made a calculated risk by publicly supporting Trump and thus playing into the hands of SJWs a la ‘Aha! So only the rayyycists support Trump.’, I would have to pose this question to those HBDers and supporters of various concepts written about here from time to time (such as citizenism etc):
If a candidate can only give you uh, about 10% of what you seek thru the political process, as opposed to nothing, isn’t that 10% far better than receiving nothing at all? Because IF you have to wait for the perfect candidate to show up before you can support them, well, just like Godot or the absentee landlord of old, you’re gonna be a’waitin’ for a mighty long time.
Unlike Trump, Cruz has made a nasty habit of pretending to be something that he is not; namely, a populist, man of the people, etc. Trump, to his credit, hasn’t been blatantly inconsistent nor has he been running as something of which he isn’t. Perfect? Of course not. But people tend to forgive the sinner when he makes a mistake, so to speak, before they forgive the hypocrite who continues to lie, obfuscate etc along the way without ever attempting to change.
At your larger point, what tends to be confusing here, is that many of Steve’s working associates in the Alt.-Right have decided for the most part to support Trump. VDARE which has praised Senator Jeff Sessions for many years for his heroic stands on the immigration issue has been backing Trump for nearly two months now. What we tend to forget is that some may not want to get dragged into the fray until they feel they have to. I can respect Steve’s decision not to publicly support a candidate. I would just hope that if Trump should win the nomination that he can support his candidacy come November.
Again, there’s no such thing as the perfect candidate and getting 10% of what the Alt. Right seeks on issues such as immigration, is better than nothing. Trump and Trump alone brought the issue of immigration into the forefront. No other candidate can make that claim. For that, its understandable why some leading figures in the Alt. Conservative sphere have decided to publicly support him.
