What’s this “we?” No one has said any of these things. Fact is, I don’t know any Christian who has said the stuff you’ve come up with. Love,
2 Likes
Trump has been a masterful troll and not covetous of respect by the Establishment, but beyond those traits, as important as they are, I don’t see much advantage over more conventional politicians.
Ted Cruz didn’t start hitting any of the buttons of the neglected coalition until it was too late. Here are the key views advocated by Trump that carried him to the White House.
-
Interventionist wars around the world, and Iraq in particular, have been disastrous. And why should the U.S. defend so many countries for free? I think this more than anything earned Trump the implacable enmity of the deep state.
-
“Free” trade has been a bad deal for many Americans, who shouldn’t have to compete in a race to the bottom regarding labor and environmental laws.
-
The high rate of legal and illegal Immigration has undermined wages for many American workers and brought rapid disruption to many communities around the country.
-
Social security and other broad-based programs that benefit the common man should be kept.
-
Traditional American culture is good and worth celebrating.
Establishment Republicans and Democrats are united in opposition to views 1-3, and establishment Republicans are generally against view 4 and establishment Democrats are generally against view 5.
2 Likes
Agreed. Yet look what he’s accomplished.
Because he doesn’t exist. Our political parties shut down such men before they get state, let alone federal, office. Most people coalesced around Donald Trump because they like Donald Trump. Check out the Guardian link I put up last election. It told the story very well. Donald Trump motivates the very men everyone else in our nation despise, and this not in small part because of his bluster and swagger and blowhardishness. Which is much more honest than any career politician other than Mike Pence, usually. Love,
1 Like
Especially when the environmental laws are quite high here compared to other countries.
And he just made changes to the H-1B visa program that could make a big difference in this area.
My wording was over strong and I’m sorry for that.
James Dobson has said President Trump is “born again”. A number of evangelical leaders have made comments about “not being able to see inside hearts”. You have stated that he is growing in his fear of God.
And meanwhile I have had people argue that he didn’t say things he clearly said, in public. So yes, I think a blog post that states he “has worked to restore truth to the Presidential office”, while touching on unpopular, nonPC, but obviously true things he has said, and ignoring ridiculously false things he has said, results in an imbalanced post that is ironically not a faithful representation of truth.
The there are parts of the argument that I can agree with. If I were to put in a formulation I can accept it would be that politicians and the media have debased truth so thoroughly that even a reprobate like our President can sometimes show them up by being more honest than they, the bar is so low. But even that has to come with caveat after caveat.
And to say that we cannot call a profoundly deceptive man who is our President “a liar”, since it would be disrespectful?? I do not want to be guilty of “reviling authority”. I do not want to be guilty of disrespect. But to not call a man with the kind of track record of untruths that our President has what scripture would call him, that is, a liar, because that would be “disrespectful”? The irony becomes especially thick here, since the post opens with an anecdote about President Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, that he has said something unpopular and also true. Of course never mind that publicly attacking our allies in that way, instead of through private negotiations is arguably undermining something important to US interests. But let’s chose one or the other. Either we need to be truth tellers, or we can be mealy mouthed to keep from offending folks sensibilities regarding some understanding of “respect” that frankly doesn’t seem biblical to me.
Was Elijah being disrespectful to Ahab in their confrontation? Or Nathan with David?
Let’s by all means be grateful as we watch a coarse man topple the idols of our age. I applaud that. But don’t let’s join in the same postmodern nihilism that sees our President as restoring honesty and truth and respect to an office he has degraded both by his immorality, his disregard for truth, and his unwillingness to show respect to anyone, even his closest allies, if they dare to cross him in any way. If we are to be people of truth and respect, we must call out the President’s insults and name calling, and also call out those that hurl the same language back at him. If we do this, we won’t get along with partisans too much on either side, but we can look at ourselves in the mirror and know we are willing to speak the truth.
1 Like
Joel,
I think this analysis is right, with a healthy dose of enjoyment of President Trump’s pugnaciousness and crassness. Some of the most common comments I hear is “finally someone who fights,” “at least he fights,” and “he makes all of the right people mad.” In my deeply red part of the world the most popular signs (including on large flags flying in several of my neighbors’ front yards) read “Trump 2020 No More Bullsh*t.” This is a big part of the appeal.
There has been a political rearranging with the old fusionist Republican coalition breaking up. This old comment from SSC gets the categories mostly right, I think (except that 3 is more Chicago school economics and not Austrian):
"1. The Labour/Economic Left. Intellectual roots in classical Marx. Social roots in the working class union movement. Powered the New Deal, a huge force in the 1950s, but since 1980, crushed by Reagan/Thatcher economic policies and steadily on the decline.
-
The Identity/Deconstruction Left. Intellectual roots in poststructuralism / postmodernism / critical theory. Social roots in elite academia (but strictly on the humanities side, not STEM) and the 1960s youth movement and popular culture. Nonexistent before WW2, took over from the Labour Left in the 1960s, on the ascendant since the 1980s and now the dominant cultural narrative.
-
The Neoliberal/Business Right. Intellectual roots in Austrian School neoliberal economics. Social roots: in all big business, but especially finance; in elite academia, in economics departments and MBA programs. In retreat from 1929 to the 1970s, but ascendant since the 1980s, now the dominant economic narrative.
-
The Traditional/Cultural Right. Intellectual roots in the 2000 year history of the Church. Social roots (in America) in Evangelical churches. On race issues, it was divided; the South and the North had very different views; the push to end slavery, the Civil Rights movement, and the pushback against both all came from (different) Christian communities. On gender issues, however, it was the mainstream consensus in America up until the 1960s counterculture. In apparent constant decline at a federal level since then, despite brief political resurgence in the Republican states."
From the Reagan revolution through 2016 the parties were mostly stable as coalition of groups 1 and 2 (Democrats) and groups 3 and 4 (Republicans). But now groups 1 and 3 are in play and policies 2, 3, and 4 on your list are “labour” type policies.
I haven’t “stated” it. One states a fact. I’ve wondered it and said if it’s so, I would guess it’s due to the Pences’ influence.
Concerning Jim Dobson calling the President “born again,” haven’t heard it but it’s still a far cry from declaring the President’s sins okay.
I ignored nothing. What I said was the President is answering fools according to their folly.
Which is to say I’m lying. Got it. Love,
No, no, no. Someone can obfuscate “you’re a liar” by saying “you are not giving a faithful presentation of the truth”, but that was not my intention. I think you are presenting things as you see them. I think, for various reasons, that you are mistaken. I also think you glossed over things and framed things in a way that minimizes the President’s dishonesty. I tried to give examples. I am sorry that I was unclear, and I certainly don’t believe you liar. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Clearly the common man’s reason for supporting the President. Which observation leads me to ask whether we think deceit is moral in warfare? Spying? Feints? How about football? Which then leads me to wonder what truth Christians owe the party of Molech? I’m not asking these questions specifically in defense of the President although this stuff is related to what I see as his strategies in foreign trade dealings, for instance. Love,
I apologize for misconstruing your intent, dear brother. Love,
1 Like
Not a problem.
To give an illustration of the kind of framing I’m referring to, I could discuss all the accusations against someone like Weinstein, then bring up him catcalling a waitress or some such incident, as if that is what he is accused of and facing prison for. Such framing serves to insinuate that all his sexual escapades are of this type.
Most of the folk I’m willing to spend my time reading on politics don’t find his NATO comments big lies. Perhaps strategically unwise, perhaps not, maybe mistaken, maybe correct, but certainly not rising to the level of some devious lie.
I’ve wondered about this myself. I’m sure it could be made into an interesting post.
One detail I’ve considered is that in war, the common soldiers are often misled about purposes, strength of the enemy, prospects of victory, and so on. Whether this is a moral problem or not needs more thought in a Biblical framework. It might be a grey area depending on situation.
And obviously the enemy is often deceived, and most war wouldn’t be very successful without it.
But the grace danger is if the generals begin to believe their own lies. To do so is devastating. And politics is a prime place where we can become victims of our own propaganda.
[edit: I think often lies lead to the need for more lies. And when facing a deceitful foe, sometimes the truth is more powerful and confounding than any lie, and the enemy becomes tangled in their own deception. Think of the Lord of the Rings, and the foolhardy journey of the ring into Morder. And a final thought, I am fairly certain that Conservativism isn’t failing through an over abundance of honesty.;)]
Blessings,
1 Like
Yes, that explains what happened before Trump, but what about now? The past four years have shown that electorally speaking there appear to be piles of hundred dollar bills lying on the sidewalk, so why are no Republican politicians of statewide or national stature picking them up? If a liberal NY real estate developer and celebrity can transform himself into the warrior hero President Trump, why can’t a conventional politician, like Mike Pence, do that by espousing what seem to be widely popular views on foreign policy, trade, and immigration? Unless it all comes down to personality.
Because to do so requires utter and complete shamelessness, an unwillingness to give even an inch, and a persona that cannot be snared by any scandal. President Trump, thanks to his lifestyle, money, and temperament, has those requirements. He cannot be shamed from public life by scandal. He cannot be bought, since the currency he cares most about is attention, and the more shocking his antics the more of that he accrues.
There is an great piece of modern fiction, The Great Divide, that follows a lawyer “who has nothing to lose”. And as he is broken by life, he becomes victorious. Now I think President Trump’s trajectory differs in all important ways, but there is a sense where he has nothing to lose. He has always been despised by much of the ruling class. His crassness and ostentatiousness have been looked down on. He is playing the heel, and he loves it. He was “born and raised in the briar patch”.
Maybe the President has put some of VP Pence’s long-ago-and-forgotten starch back in him, but the RFRA debacle six years ago demonstrated to us here in IN that the man is great and white, but no hope. I almost think it takes some sort of national notoriety to begin to approach the presidency today. And sadly, we know who gets notoriety (and for what) today. Love,
4 Likes
Because of the character flaws that are in such men…men like Pence (remember Indianapolis?). What passes for humility can easily be manipulated. The same intractability that made Luther an absolute bear and downright unreasonable with Zwingli is also part and parcel with his ability to say, ‘Here I stand.’
Not that President Trump is Luther. But we hang our heads and wonder why a better men can’t be found. It’s because better men weren’t willing do the dirty job in the first place.
2 Likes
Dead on. This is absolutely right. And in all my combativeness, I’m trying to wrestle with that.
I should shut up and let Tim do the talking!
I hope you won’t.
IIRC you’re my age, but we better be practicing for when we’re older and wiser.
2 Likes