Opinions

Sen. Sullivan lowers himself by accepting Trump's invitation to speak

After two years, Alaskans don't know much about our junior U.S. senator, Dan Sullivan, except that he is ambitious. On that account, we learned more when he accepted Donald Trump's invitation to speak at this week's Republican National Convention.

First- and second-string Republican politicians and celebrities turned down appearing on Trump's stage. Many Republican leaders are supporting Trump from the greatest possible distance, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who charges Trump with racism while saying he is better than a Democrat.

This moment in our history is a test of honor and patriotism. As conservative columnist David Brooks wrote in The New York Times, Republicans who coalesce around Trump "are selling their integrity." Conservative writer George Will called such people "quislings," or traitors.

Will quit the Republican Party after seeing Ryan's dance. All of the party's still-living presidential nominees will shun the convention except Bob Dole. Neither Sen. Lisa Murkowski nor Rep. Don Young will attend.

The reason Sullivan got the call — as senator No. 100 in seniority and without national political accomplishments to his name — is presumably because organizers had to go way down the list to find someone who would say yes.

[The continuing political decline of Hillary Clinton]

I am citing the views of Republican leaders and commentators here because I am not one of them. I probably wouldn't have supported any of the Republicans running in the primary.

ADVERTISEMENT

But I have a right to an opinion about my U.S. senator and my president. Supporting a degenerate to be commander in chief betrays our country and those many who defend it.

Trump has mocked veterans. He said John McCain was no hero for enduring years of torture in a Vietnamese prison camp because a real hero wouldn't have gotten caught. A hero like Trump, presumably, who never served.

In fact, Trump serves only himself. Reporters have been unable to find evidence of significant gifts to charity. He had to be shamed by the media into releasing the money he collected in a telethon for veterans during the primary campaign, handing it over only five months late and far short of the original amount, because he had lied about how much he raised.

The "better than Hillary" argument doesn't answer these facts. I also dislike and distrust Hillary Clinton. She has behaved like a typically sleazy politician, and not a very good one. She loves power too much and is too willing to use it in the form of military force.

(How did we get to the point that we have two candidates for president who both are disliked by a majority of the voters?)

[Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan scores slot on Republican National Convention stage]

But despite Clinton's flaws, she is qualified to be president. She has been caught lying, but mostly in the routine way that is, unfortunately, default behavior in Washington.

Trump is not qualified. He's much worse than unqualified. And for him, lying is central to his character.

Trump is a con man, as Mitt Romney called him. It wasn't an exaggeration. Trump made his money by cheating.

Well documented are his frauds, not only for bank loans he didn't repay — the banks can take care of themselves — but for contractors and vendors he stiffed just because he could, and, worst of all, his bogus Trump University and Trump Institute, which stole money from those who could least afford it.

Trump is also a fool. He doesn't understand the basics of the job he is applying for. And he won't learn, because his narcissism doesn't allow him to listen to anyone. He spews lies and preposterous proposals because he is constantly improvising and, with his con man's heart, will say anything to stay in the game at that particular moment.

Trump is a child. His bragging tells you who he really is — from the exaggerations of his wealth to his reference to the size of his genitals during a televised presidential debate.

Academics studying the primaries say voters chose Trump (although Alaska voters did not) because of his positions to ban Muslims from coming to the United States, to build a 2,000-mile-long, 55-foot-high wall on the border with Mexico, and to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Majorities of Republican primary voters liked those unworkable ideas, and Trump was the only candidate low enough to pander to them.

But why are Alaska Republicans of seemingly good sense joining the Trump campaign? Not because they think he would be a good president, I'm betting. They expect him to lose. But taking positions on a presidential committee gets you in the game, the kind of networking that helps you snag plum jobs and other opportunities.

Like the opportunity to address a national audience at the convention. That's the kind of opportunity that has opened the door to national political careers for some (Barack Obama's being the best recent example).

Sullivan has shown no skill for oratory that could allow him to make that kind of impression, but his talent for making good career moves is already evident.

I've known Mark Begich since we were kids and supported him to keep his Senate seat against Sullivan, but in 2014 Begich couldn't have beaten a blank line on the ballot with an R next to it. Sullivan was a recent arrival in Alaska and made various gaffes showing his lack of knowledge about the state but he was smart enough to get on that ballot line against Begich.

ADVERTISEMENT

[Trump's impulse control could prove catastrophic in a presidency]

Moving to Alaska to be a big fish in our small political pond has worked for others. Sens. Ernest Gruening, Ted Stevens and Mike Gravel, all Ivy Leaguers like Sullivan, preceded him on that path and had profound impacts on Alaska (although Gravel far less than the other two giants).

But what is Sullivan about, other than climbing the ladder? And is supporting Donald Trump really worth it?

Until we demand moral action in our politics, we cannot expect our system to improve. Sullivan should have turned down the invitation to speak.

And voters should not cast their ballots for a candidate who is morally unqualified to be president, even if that means leaving the ballot blank.

The views expressed here are the writer's and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.

Charles Wohlforth

Charles Wohlforth was an Anchorage Daily News reporter from 1988 to 1992 and wrote a regular opinion column from 2015 until 2019. He served two terms on the Anchorage Assembly. He is the author of a dozen books about Alaska, science, history and the environment. More at wohlforth.com.

ADVERTISEMENT