How to Think Straight About Trump
Image
Quite a few conservative-ish Christians are not thinking straight about President Trump. The work of pollsters continues to reveal this. Conversations with believers, both online and in person, bear it out as well. My purpose here isn’t to pile up evidence critical of Trump’s character, political philosophy, and management style.
The weightier problem is the thought process many are using to evaluate the president. We’re not going to see what we need to see unless we put the whole matter in the right light first.
So here’s an effort at improving the light a bit—in six steps.
1. Understand that “the media” are irrelevant.
As soon as each new controversy regarding Trump’s conduct in office hits the news, supporters begin to point fingers at “the media.” They’re referring, of course, to the major television, web, and print outlets that are, in varying degrees, dominated by the left-leaning political perspective.
So-called conservative talk radio and TV are among the most consistent to use this sort of argument in Trump’s defense.
But they might as well complain about the traffic in California, the weather in Ireland, and how badly Nabisco has ruined the “Original” Wheat Thin. As true and unfortunate as these complaints are (especially the Wheat Thin!), they’re exactly as useful as the views of the liberal media for making a conservative evaluation of the actions of the president—any president.
What should matter to conservatives is how leaders measure up to conservative principles. Ranting about how unfair liberals are is worse than worthless—it’s a distraction from painful realities conservatives need to face about where they now stand in the Trump era, and what sort of future they should be aiming for in the post-Trump era.
2. Understand that Hillary is irrelevant.
More than nine months after the election, variations of “Well, at least we didn’t get Hillary,” or “Hillary would have been worse” or “I suppose you wanted Hillary to win!” are still commonplace. Conservatives are often characterized as being stuck in the past, and it’s interesting how stuck many of them are on that particular past.
Let’s stipulate that a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been an unmitigated disaster. That observation is of no use at all for measuring the effectiveness of the president we have now. For one thing, it changes nothing. I could mock the Three Stooges all day, and it wouldn’t raise my I.Q. a single point. I could decry the evil of Kermit Gosnell whenever someone criticizes my character—it wouldn’t make me a better human being. In both cases, I might manage to create the illusion that I’m smarter or more righteous than I really am, but the effort itself would be stupid and wrong, for one simple reason: these people are not standards for evaluating wisdom and virtue.
Hillary is a distraction. When it comes to making conservative judgments about what’s happening in the Oval Office, what standard should conservatives use? —not the opinions of liberal media leaders, and certainly not the expected conduct of presidents who never were.
3. Understand that past liberal Presidents are irrelevant.
Along with “but the media” and “but Hillary,” many on the right are quick to turn to “but Obama” and “but Clinton.” But these are all clutter and distraction. Just as the opinions of liberal media and the qualities of liberal presidents-who-never-were don’t change anything and aren’t a conservative standard, so also past actual presidents from the left are of no use.
As Trump-defenses go, the Obama or Clinton reference tends to go beyond irrelevant and cross over into just weird. Here’s a common sequence:
- Critic: President Trump should not have done A. It’s wrong, foolish, and not conservative.
- Defender: Yeah, well Obama did A all the time, and Clinton, too!
- Critic: (Scratches head, shrugs, walks away. How do you answer a counterargument that just made your own point for you?)
4. Understand resemblance to Reagan and Bush.
A bit of reasoning on the right—usually dressed up a lot to make it sound smarter—amounts to this:
“They” said Reagan was an idiot. “They” also said Bush was an idiot. Now, “they” say Trump is an idiot. Therefore, Trump is brilliant, like Reagan!
Well, that settles it—unless you already understand that it’s never been weighty to conservatives what “they” say about presidents (see item 1, above). And unless you understand that I’m not a brilliant scientist.
- People said Galileo was wrong.
- People said Einstein was wrong.
- People say I’m wrong.
- Therefore I’m a brilliant scientist like Galileo and Einstein!
(So how about that large research grant? I’ll just wait here by the phone.)
5. Understand what conservatism is.
Conservatism is not glandular. It’s not impulsive. It’s not even reactionary.
While it’s true that there is no single agreed-upon definition, there is considerable overlap in understandings of conservatism over the decades (and, by other names, over the centuries). Conservatism is a set of convictions and a way of thinking about human nature, the nature of society, and the role of government.
It’s a political philosophy, not a set of positions on current issues—much less a set of slogans and clichés.
A politician can favor a variety of the same policy preferences as conservatives, and utter lots of conservative-seeming soundbites, and not have a conservative way of thinking at all. And without a conservative way of thinking, none of his positions even begin to be truly conservative.
Russel Kirk is a lot to wade through, but his Ten Conservative Principles from A Conservative Mind are a good place to start. Thomas Sowel’s Conflict of Visions especially develops the sixth of the Kirk’s ten points (human imperfectability)—in a fairly accessible way. Edmund Burke’s political thought is wide-ranging and copious, but the The Burke Society is of some help for taking in digestable portions of his work.
A little grasp of what it means to look at society conservatively, rather than just repeating allegedly conservative reactions and touting allegedly conservative slogans, goes a long way toward putting our current president in the right light.
6. Understand how the sovereignty of God relates to rulers.
I often hear the argument that God must have given us Trump for a good reason, or, in the context of rejoicing over Trump’s rise to power, I see exaltations of the sovereignty of God in raising up and taking down rulers.
But where was this rhetoric when Obama was elected?
It’s certainly true that:
- God raises up rulers and takes them down – Daniel 2:21
- God directs the hearts of rulers – Proverbs 21:1
- Rulers are God’s servants for promoting good and punishing evil – Romans 13:1-4, 1 Peter 2:14
- Rulers are to be respected – 1 Peter 2:17
Let’s be clear, though, about some other facts, and what follows and doesn’t follow from the points above. It’s also true that:
- God hardens the hearts of rulers as a form of judgment – Exodus 4:21, 7:3; Joshua 11:18-20
- God disapproves of specific actions of rulers and punishes them – 1 Kings 16:30, 17:1
- Scripture warns us against evil and foolish rulers and their oppressive ways – Proverbs 28:15-16
- God works all things according to the counsel of His will, not just the good things – Isaiah 46:10, Ephesians 1:11
The sovereignty of God does not argue for giving any particular U.S. president a pass on bad behavior in office, nor does it offer us any assurance that a particular ruler will do more good than harm for his country and citizens relative to other rulers. Furthermore, in a system where law is king, the biblical call to “honor the king” is not a command to speak only praises of the head of the executive branch.
There is less than zero reason for thinking the Bible is more friendly toward Trump than other world rulers or other U.S. presidents—“less than” zero, because this president claims (at least sometimes) to have the thriving of Christians and Christian beliefs high in his values and goals.
That sets a higher standard for evaluating him, not a lower one.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 24 views
The tragedy of the Trump fiasco is that he may very well have a long-term negative effect on conservative politics. He may well make conservative policies so odious that conservatives will have trouble getting elected for some time to come. I am glad when he actually does something conservative, but he is hardly a reliable conservative and so far has been largely unsuccessful in the legislature. It is maddening to hear unqualified support coming from people who ought to know better.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
On understand how the sovereignty of God relates to rulers, you remarked:
I often hear the argument that God must have given us Trump for a good reason, or, in the context of rejoicing over Trump’s rise to power, I see exaltations of the sovereignty of God in raising up and taking down rulers. But where was this rhetoric when Obama was elected?
I generally refrain from making public comments regarding politics, political parties, etc. But sometime last year, I posted some related thoughts here. I wrote this when President Obama was in office, and insisted on this perspective as pastor throughout his tenure. Ultimately, we should thank God for our President, whomever is elected. If government smiles upon us and grants us freedom and protection as God-fearing Christians, then I will be grateful. If it exemplifies Christian virtue and dignity, I will especially rejoice. But if not, then I must still respect my President and pray for him (or her).
Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com
Thomas, I appreciate the reminder. Any government is better than no government and so there is always some divine mercy involved and cause for thankfulness. At the same time, the political philosophy that dominates in Washington as well as at the state and local levels has an enormous impact on what sort of society we live in, minister in, and raise our children in. So I caution against too much distance from what’s going on in that arena. “Politics” is just about all tactical stuff, and tends to be focused on where the clash of agendas is happening and the maneuvering involved in getting anything done. But political philosophy is part of worldview and much of it relates directly to our theology. For unbelievers, it relates directly to whatever religion or “religion replacement” they embrace. It has to do with several of the really big questions of life.
More on the media…
An observation I accidentally left out: I really think it’s best if conservatives stop paying attention at all to what liberal media are saying about presidents. The dynamic that develops is that we find it so abhorrent to agree with anything that is coming from these outlets, we can’t resist the urge to react defensively. This is quite unhealthy when they happen to be partly right…. because we’re too busy pushing back to offer criticism where it’s due—and needed.
The radio and TV “conservative” talk seems to have nothing much more to say these days than how bad the media are. So pointless. We can’t do anything about them. We, as in conservatives, can do plenty about our own leaders.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
1- If the media is irrelevant, why has the media spent all of this ink and time talking about how bad Trump is? Why have they had a steady, constant, negative drum beat against him. They are relentless. Are you saying that has no effect on the country, the President, and the people?
As an example, how much has the main stream media covered the DNC chair’s issue with her IT person. Something weird happened there. Crickets on the coverage though. This does matter.
2- If Hillary is irrelevant, why has the media and Congress, including a bunch of Republicans, insisted that there was some kind of manipulation of the facts and even manipulation of them through “the Russians” that led to Trump being elected rather than Hillary. Yes this does matter. Have you missed the countless headless and Congressional hearings on this matter?
3-Yes, past past Presidents do matter. Truth is not in a vacuum. You cannot complain about Trump’s ethical issues while ignoring Bill Clinton’s. The media majored in that. It was patently dishonest. Does it exonerate Trump? No, but it does impact the political and cultural environment.
I don’t have time to write any more, but it is naive to act like you can analyze Trump in some ethical vacuum. The political atmosphere matters, and it is toxic against anything remotely conservative.
How many people “like” Trump do you know?
I don’t mean a billionaire (of which I know none) or even a millionaire of whom I know half a dozen.
I mean a character like Trump’s?
I had a boss who was Trump like but to a very small degree. The man creeped me out but I survived him.
I personally, like others, think he has a mental disorder.:
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reiterated his concern about President Donald Trump’s ability to effectively lead the country on Wednesday night.
“What caused concern is this … Jekyll-Hyde business where he’ll make a scripted teleprompter speech, which is good, and then turn around and negate it by sort of, unbridled, unleashed, unchaperoned Trump. And that to me — that pattern — is very disturbing,”
I don’t believe Aaron is saying that the neither the media nor Hilary are irrelevant to national dialog.
What I take Aaron’s point to be is that Trump’s performance as President has nothing to do with his antagonism to the media or the fact that Hillary would have been a worse President. Yet these are the rationales that people are using to justify Trump’s performance.
Trump has been given a great opportunity to implement health care reform, budget and tax reform, and immigration reform. He inherited Republican majorities in both house and Senate, and he has squandered it. I am not surprised, and could have predicted this last June.
His only victories are using the executive pen to roll back regulation and getting Gorsuch appointed to the Supreme Court. Both may prove to be fleeting, since executive orders can be changed by the next administration, and the jury is still out on Gorsuch as to whether he will fall more in line with the Scalia or Roberts philosophy.
He is an inspirational figure for mindless Republicanism, but not for conservatism nor Christianity. He has governed as such and will be judged as such.
John B. Lee
Some good news about President Trump:
WASHINGTON (BP) — President Trump’s proposed 2018 federal budget has drawn praise from advocates of teen sexual abstinence for asking Congress to double the percentage of sex education funds devoted to abstinence-based approaches.
Of the approximately $1 billion in federal funding for sex education annually, about 10 percent currently goes to programs that advocate delaying sexual activity. The figure will increase to 20 percent if Congress adopts Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2018, said Valerie Huber, president and CEO of Ascend (formerly the National Abstinence Education Association).
“We applaud President Trump for his immediate efforts to give more youth the skills they need to avoid sexual risk,” Huber said in a news release, adding “this is a good step in the right direction.”
David R. Brumbelow
Maybe I can clarify a bit on the relevance question.
John is correct that I’m not saying the liberal media’s impact on the country doesn’t matter. But I am saying that their impact on the country doesn’t argue one way or the other for how conservatives should evaluate Trump.
To put it another way, how bad “they” are has no impact on how good or bad Trump is. But what we tend to do is get outraged at what the left is saying, then react with disproportionate defensiveness toward Mr. Trump, often backing things that conservatives would never have backed a decade or even three years ago.
…and all of the outrage at the left also has no impact on them at all. They’re not going to start thinking, “The conservatives are mad at us; let’s be more fair.”
So all the fuss over “the media” is just a big energy drain. What conservatives really should do is put that energy (and lots of $) into conservative messaging aimed at the general population. But “the left is crazy” is not effective messaging. It’s all preaching to the already convinced. Waste of time.
Regarding the budget
Have read some good things about it. The best parts may well go the way of tax reform and Obamacare repeal.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Joeb]Hey Don from what I can tell you lean Libertarian. I hope you like my guy Rand Paul . I’m not one but I like this guy a lot.
Joe, as usual your comprehension level leaves a lot to be desired. The libertarians are godless fools, and Rand Paul is one of the biggest fools of them all. Good grief.
Trump is utterly incompetent, but those guys are the enemy of religious liberty.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don’t know much about the libertarians… other than that, in general, they seem to align socially with the left and fiscally with the right. Foreign policy seems pretty much left as well.
As for Trump’s conservatism being irrelevant… Not in this universe. There are several reasons for this:
- He ran as a conservative candidate
- He kept a conservative candidate from being nominated by getting nominated himself
- He continually tries to identify vaguely with the right
- Conservative and “political right” overlap but are not the same thing; Trump’s presidency reinforces confusion between the two (the gist of conservative vs. “the right”—this category, in popular usage, includes both genuine conservatism and Nazi “unite the right” types, as in Charlottesville. But the two couldn’t be more different—properly understood.)
- Conservatives in large numbers are vocally and energetically identifying with Trump’s agenda daily, even defending his most egregious missteps. Right now, everything Trump does sticks to conservatism like tar. Real-deal conservatism will be trying to detach itself from that for a long, long time. (The “do anything to defeat Hillary” crowd did not think this through when they were pushing for his nomination. Many still don’t see it.)
- So, it’s mostly about perceptions. If the pres. openly rejected conservatism and claimed to be something else, it would help, but he’s not going to do that… mostly because, I’m pretty sure, he does not really know conservatism from libertarianism from populism from egalitarianism from alt-right white supremacy. He might not be racist or in favor of alt-right, but I don’t think he understands why that isn’t conservative—and, so far, is not exactly getting out in front of the problem of the confusion on that point.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As I read Aaron’s article, I find I mostly agree with it; a few things here and there that I don’t entirely agree with.
For me, the “so what” is that this article will help rightly thinking conservative Christians point out the flaws in the thinking of many of our Christian brothers who are not looking at Trump in the right way. FB post after FB post is filled with how much better Trump is than Hilary, how bad the media is, similarities to Reagan (seriously?), and God’s sovereignty. But Aaron is right: those things are not the point. We need to assess Trump as a president in an intellectually honest way. I am very frustrated with Congress, but, in one way, I am actually glad they are as inept an incapable of agreeing on anything as they currently are because I am afraid of the things Trump may accomplish that might actually be bad for our country if the Republicans in Congress actually started working together. But I digress.
Trump is not a conservative. Trump has a life-long track record of being a disrespectful, hedonistic, self-centered scoundrel. Those are simple, objective truths about the man who needs our daily prayers as much as Obama did and as much as Hilary would have.
So every time your Christian brother mightily defends President Trump by bringing up any of Aaron’s six posted points, kindly respond with whatever the relevant truth about Trump is that is outside those six points and encourage your brother to try to judge Trump for the specifics in question.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
As a libertarian allow me to dispel some ignorance. There are different kinds of libertarians (thickists and thinnists among other classifications). The basic principle that most arrange under is that no person or group has a right to commit an act of aggression against another person or group including their property. To call them anti-religious Liberty is absolutely absurd. I suggest a little more reading before branding people in ignorance. There is a lot of information out there so it shouldn’t be hard. Check out Reformed Libertarian as an example of some who are not “godless fools.”
Not to hijack the thread, but I have a question about sovereignty that came up today in conversation.
Trump is president, therefore God ordained it.
But when did God ordain it? How long ago? For all time? September of 1945 (do the math)? June of 2015? Just prior to the primary? Just prior to the general election?
The question came up because of a discussion about how Kasich played spoiler to a possible Cruz presidency. I’m curious to hear what others think about this.
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
There are a bunch of different kinds of libertarians, kinda like Baptists, really. There are the “legalize dope and hookers and don’t make me pay for anything” drunken frat boy type, and there are those whose understanding is simply what most economists believed a century ago—real money (gold), strict limits on banks, no central banking, and the like. So to paint them with a broad brush is simply to admit that one doesn’t understand the movement at all.
I’m personally in the “classical liberal” or “paleoconservative” group, and I believe it reasonably conforms to the Scriptures.
But that’s a side note. What’s important about Trump vis-a-vis the media is that, for all his very real faults, Trump has antagonized them into showing their hand—a hand that’s been so biased that when I was in college in the eighties, they were handing out “Impeach Rather” bumper stickers—most people got the joke. He’s a deeply flawed man who is showing us what’s under the hood of our politics, and I praise God for that.
And let’s be blunt; yes, Trump is a scoundrel, but it’s not clear that he belongs in jail. That’s nicer than what I can say about Clinton or Obama, really. No way all those Obama scandals worked out in his favor without his finger on the scale in a criminal way—the difficulty is proving he did it to a court.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[JNoël]FB post after FB post is filled with how much better Trump is than Hilary, how bad the media is, similarities to Reagan (seriously?), and God’s sovereignty.
This is probably a bigger indication of the friends you have on facebook than the how well Trump is viewed. I am not seeing any of those posts on my facebook pages.
Discussion