ADN Op-Ed Claims Opposing Trump Is Enough for Conservatives

An opinion column published by the Anchorage Daily News argues that Republicans and conservative-leaning independents do not need to agree on tax policy, immigration enforcement or judicial philosophy to work together. They only need to agree they will not support President Donald Trump. The column's own headline supplies the thesis:

"Do you share my conservative principles? Then 'not Trump' is enough."

That is a specific, testable claim, and it deserves to be read on its own terms rather than filed away as one more entry in a crowded genre of anti-Trump conservative commentary.

What Does the Column Actually Claim?

The headline states the thesis plainly: shared conservative principles are the baseline, and opposition to Trump specifically is offered as the connective tissue that turns scattered principle-holders into a working coalition. As titled, the piece treats "not Trump" not as a policy position but as a threshold — a minimum bar that substitutes for agreement on the details of governance.

Is Shared Opposition the Same as Shared Principles?

Principles and positions are not interchangeable, and the distinction matters here. A voter can hold genuinely conservative principles — limited government, federalism, fiscal restraint — and still disagree sharply with another self-described conservative about how those principles apply to a given administration, nominee, or vote. Building a coalition around "not Trump" alone risks papering over disagreements rather than resolving them, because opposing one man is not the same as agreeing on what should replace him or how a shared principle should be applied in practice.

Why Does This Argument Keep Resurfacing on the Right?

Versions of this argument have circulated among conservative writers since 2016, and they resurface whenever intraparty debates about the party's direction intensify. What makes this instance notable is the framing choice: rather than arguing Trump violates a specific conservative principle, the column asserts opposition itself functions as a principle, or at least a sufficient stand-in for one.

What Happens to a Coalition Built Only on Opposition?

Coalitions built around opposing a single figure tend to fracture once that figure leaves the stage, because members were never required to reconcile underlying disagreements. Readers who share the column's conclusion should ask what happens to the coalition afterward — whether it holds together on the principles it claims to share, or whether "not Trump" was doing all the work the entire time. HTT's federalism explainer is a useful companion for sorting which disagreements among conservatives are principled and which are merely tactical.

What to Watch

• Whether other conservative commentators adopt the "not Trump is enough" framing explicitly, rather than arguing from specific policy objections.
• Whether coalitions built on this basis produce actual legislative or electoral cooperation, or remain confined to opinion pages.
• Whether the column's argument is tested against what the coalition does once opposing Trump is no longer the organizing question.