Prominent conservative author and thinker Ben Shapiro explained why he's "much more apt" to vote for President Trump in 2020 than he was in the 2016 cycle last night on Fox News Radio's Benson and Harf.  With Trump following through on promises some Never Trumpers may be more like

David French, senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, joined Fox News Radio's Guy Benson to discuss his view on Trump 2020 and his piece about a better way to ban Alex Jones. 

On Ben Shapiro's interview on Benson and Harf last night: Ben makes good points, in particular that one of the core reasons of Never Trumpism and the concerns for folks in the election was that we didn't trust that Trump was going to follow through on his promises, regarding judges in particular, just to name one. And he did and he has and he's done in it in a really dramatic way... What you should vote for in any given election there should be two requirements. One, the candidate must have quality character, not perfect, but quality character.  And the other is that they should share your political values, again not perfect alignment. No one is perfect alignment, but there has to be that double test. There has to be a test of do they meet a standard of character and do they advance your policy interested. I think Ben articulated pretty well that Trump advanced the policy interest, but he still flunks number one. I can't see myself voting for someone who has that man's character. (00:24)

On the way Trump acts as president: The 'fight fire with fire' view often by folks often on the right or 'by any means necessary' approach to getting things done or the Trump cultish personality that has overtaken. All of these things are related to a concept that says however he accomplishes what he accomplishes what we need to only need to focus on what he accomplishes. The means he gets there, the way he gets there, the way he wins an election, the way he wins a policy battle, and the way that he dominates a news cycle all of those things are unimportant compared to the judicial nomination or the tax bill.  I firmly disagree with that because I think that the health of a nation the policy outcomes are the less important aspects. (4:07)

On his piece in New York Times about ban of Alex Jones:  My argument was really pretty simple and it's two-fold. One, if you ban somebody for hate speech you're immediately going to begin to get into this impossible quest to define what hate speech is and what it's limits are. One of the things that we've seen over the course of the last few years is that the definition of hate speech is extraordinarily valuable. (9:23)

Listen below;