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
For years the Republicans have told us that things would happen if they were in charge of the all three branches. Well, they are in charge and all we have is a lot of dysfunction. We can’t vote them out because the party makes it almost impossible for dissenting opinions in the primaries and when election time comes we have the same two “lesser of two evils” choices. Maybe it is time for a third party. (BTW, from what I’ve seen of the Libertarians they are almost as dysfuntional as the GOP.)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
1. The center here seems to be a particular set of ingredients that comprise a (the only?) set of criteria for a valid notion of political conservatisim. Thus a presidential candidate cannot possibly be morally correct on issues if he is only “right wing.” A valid distinction between conservative and right wing conclusions may possibly be constructed, but I fail to see how this and other tedium would be workable in the current body politic—hence the extended debate here and elsewhere can hardly yield an acceptable candidate much less a winner. And to keep the controversy going well beyond the election doesn’t make much sense.
2. There will always be innumerable criteria for any candidate to be judged, but now we are talking about an elected, sitting president. This person was campaigned against exhaustively and, it appears, still must be examined and judged minutely for perceived shortcomings from pre-election standards. As such, he will “never” be acceptable to those holding the pre-set list of qualifications. It’s “the whole loaf or ….” And it simply doesn’t add up.
3. My point is that Donald Trump is our God-ordained president according to our republican form of government, with its (by now) centuries old controlling legal instrument—the Constitution. What “might/could have been,” or “might/ should/could be,” according to each person’s ideological calculus are impossible criteria at this point. I have lived under our presidents since General Eisenhower. Some were good, some bad, and some utterly detestable. But a citizen must do his best to fulfill all righteousness or as much as is feasible for him, according to his conscience, even if his conclusions/dictates happen to be wrong (Rom 14:23b).
4. President Trump’s alleged “inability to get anything done” needs a few carloads of cum grano salis. Q’s arise: Where did that little factoid originate? On what bases? Why lay the blame on the president? Are there no mitigating factors such as obstinate lawmakers, implacable enemies, irrational opponents, lying reports, et al.? Is there no room for God’s “common grace” in the worst of cultures, to say nothing of “redemptive grace” for those deemed to be have been unforgivably vile, contemptible, etc., etc., in previous years? Again, why is it “all or nothing at all” which comes through some blogs and political schemes all too clearly?
5. I cannot seem to figure out what specifically is so agregious about President Trump that merits such antipathy. “Out there” it is mental illness, general incompetence, racism, not sympathetic enough, too straight forward, and other rather inane complaints. Here on SI it is not clear to me what the actual grievences are, except the president not being a certain kind of an acceptable conservative. With all the inquiries, investigations and putative charges in the last seven months, there have been no credible illegalities brought forth. High crimes and misdemeanors seem light years away from discovery at this rate.
It is also not clear what remedial actions are contemplated or recommended. Is it impeachment ? On what grounds? Surely a revolutionary war or an asassination are out of the question. Martial law? Where is the proposed plan of attack against all that is wrong with President Trump and his administration? Everything seems to be present or past tense. Where would/should we be taken next week, month, year?
6. So I would agree with the relatively few who opt for Christian living (and voting) that must address the present sinful age. No human being will ever fulfill anyone’s political ideology 100% in the present world order. The ideal world will only come with the reign of the Messianic King who will be an Absolute Dictator with an iron-rod rule of enforced righteousness. Other than a God-imposed theocracy, the best that can be achieved, IMO, is an advice and consent republican form of government. To me, this gives the most individual freedom—political, religious, economic— than any other experiment in self- governance devised by mankind. Jim’s comment is about as good as it gets in most cases: “I survived Obama & I will survive Trump.” I personally have practiced that note since 1952, and survived as well.
7. Words seem inadequate for me to comment on the sovereignty of God response.
Rolland D. McCune
Rolland McCune
Dr. McCune, I do appreciate your thoughts on this, but I’m not clear on the gist. Should everything a president does, once elected, be regarded as automatically the right thing, even the best thing? If not, by what criteria should his policy decisions (and at times, the character evident behind them… not to mention the character evident when not doing policy at all) be evaluated?
Is a president’s public response to openly racist demonstrations a trivial detail? (And this is just the most recent example.)
No, the republic is, by its very nature, a system in which officials are elected rather than appointed for the express reason that they will be sensitive to the judgments of the electorate throughout their tenure. They need that accountability. We are obligated as citizens to provide it.
As for my counter to the sovereignty argument, I’d be interested in knowing where it’s flawed.
- King David - God’s ordained ruler
- King Ahab - God’s ordained ruler
- How does being ordained by God make one of them beyond criticism and not the other? Or, to turn it around, how does it make one open to criticism and not the other?
My post is not about elections, it’s about how closely Christians and conservatives (and especially Christian conservatives) ought to publicly or privately identify with (as in communicate that he is like us) President Trump. During Obama’s years, nobody was suggesting that we ought to claim him as a good representative of what Christians and conservatives believe to be best for the nation. We refrained from making that claim because we evaluated him, both before and after the election(s), by some set of standards. Are we now to set aside those standards in reference to the current president? Why?
(By the way, as a response to those who want to dismiss me on the grounds that I’m a “nevertrumper” who cannot see anything good about the president: First, see genetic fallacy. Second, I can say two good things about Trump: One: Gorusch. Two: 1033 program (see DOJ website today or google “police” and “military equipment”… Not good for the cops to use military looking stuff more than absolutely necessary, but it’s very good for these decisions to be made locally rather than banning them in Washington. I could list a few things Obama got right as well, by the way,…. just for context.)
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.
[Aaron Blumer]Is a president’s public response to openly racist demonstrations a trivial detail? (And this is just the most recent example.)
Yes. Out of all the things you can decry about Trump’s behavior, this one is just crazy. There’s nothing he could have said other than “the pro-statue demonstrators (all of them, even the non-supremacists) were the only ones in the wrong” that would have appeased the press (and probably they would have found much to criticize about that as well). To even point out that in many cases the opposition demonstrators were the ones that acted violently first (which is quite necessary for truth and correct context) is simply unacceptable to the left, who excuse mob violence in the name of “fighting hate.” He should have avoided stating that there were good people on both sides (though even that was true, since there were those present who had nothing to do with white supremacy who only wanted to argue that the statues should stay), or been more exact in his statements. But it’s still true that much of the violence came from the supposed “anti-hate” side. The one NY Times reporter that had the audacity to report that hate was also coming from the “anti-hate” side was later forced to change her statement to say she “meant” violence instead of hate.
What this really demonstrates to me is why our “Twitter” culture, with it’s idea that nothing important to say requires more than 140 characters, is completely stupid. A good summary on these events requires careful thought, and should have been laid out in an official statement that would have covered these actions. It would not have been all that hard (though it would have taken more than a tweet), to mention that white supremacy is wrong, and that we should consider it an unacceptable way to think, but to then also say that mob violence from anyone is wrong, even in response to a hate group, and will be punished, and that free speech still exists, and must be defended even when the speech is detestable. Even the ACLU took heat for defending that principle, and for maybe the first time in my life, I stand with them (but just on that point).
I voted for Trump in the general election (not in the primary) out of expediency, to defeat Clinton, and I’m willing to own it. He’s not my ideal candidate, and I knew that going into the election. And he has certainly demonstrated he’s no Reagan (the first president I could vote for). But his statements on the Charlottesville issue, while clumsy, and not well thought out, are hardly the biggest thing I’d worry about with him as president.
Dave Barnhart
Is a president’s public response to openly racist demonstrations a trivial detail?
I actually think it matters a lot, as the President wields a tremendous amount of power to control, dampen, or enflame national issues and controversies by the nature of their office. We saw President Obama do this with Louis Gates and the famous ‘beer summit’ at the White House, as one example. President H.W. Bush also rightly got involved in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict and subsequent rioting in LA. To be honest, if a President - any President - didn’t say anything, they would be pilloried by everyone.
If Trump had come out and said ‘This behavior is not acceptable. Period. End of story.’, it might have calmed a lot of tempers and strife. The issue, however, is that there are multiple factions, all of whom want to spin that story up for whatever purpose (clicks, donations, etc).
What this really demonstrates to me is why our “Twitter” culture, with it’s idea that nothing important to say requires more than 140 characters, is completely stupid. A good summary on these events requires careful thought, and should have been laid out in an official statement that would have covered these actions. It would not have been all that hard (though it would have taken more than a tweet), to mention that white supremacy is wrong, and that we should consider it an unacceptable way to think, but to then also say that mob violence from anyone is wrong, even in response to a hate group, and will be punished, and that free speech still exists, and must be defended even when the speech is detestable. Even the ACLU took heat for defending that principle, and for maybe the first time in my life, I stand with them (but just on that point).
This is very well said, Dave. Thanks for putting it out there.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]If Trump had come out and said ‘This behavior is not acceptable. Period. End of story.’, it might have calmed a lot of tempers and strife. The issue, however, is that there are multiple factions, all of whom want to spin that story up for whatever purpose (clicks, donations, etc).
Just remember, we are talking about Donald Trump, the man the electorate put into office to buck the system - the non-politically correct outsider, the one who would not just be another politician. If there is one thing we can say about his performance thus far is that he continues to be Donald Trump, he continues to be like and act like he did on the campaign trail. He is giving those who voted for him - at least, those who truly wanted to vote for him and supported him, what they loved during the campaign.
[Jay]The issue, however, is that there are multiple factions, all of whom want to spin that story up for whatever purpose (clicks, donations, etc).
And this is exactly the problem. Some of the factions are just regular Americans, but the ones that are the most impactful are the mass media/famous/super-rich/Washington Left. They largely despise him, and Who Donald Trump Is helps them in their efforts to put him down. In short, he is his own worst enemy. But, if he changed his behavior to be “more presidential” he would begin to look like Just Another Politician and thus risk losing his base (despite what we hear about the polls, his base still loves him just fine). That would likely be catastrophic for him for a second term. So I don’t think we are going to see much change from him, he’ll still be Donald Trump and put his foot in his mouth nearly every day. But I believe he’ll still be our President until the next election, because his opponents continue to come up short on finding anything worthy of impeachment proceedings. I honestly cannot believe how long the media beat the Russia drum…sorry, folks, there’s nothing there that will take Trump down. I felt like I was watching The Brady Bunch….Russia Russia Russia…..
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)
[Jay]We saw President Obama do this with Louis Gates and the famous ‘beer summit’ at the White House, as one example.
Obviously, since Obama was still at the “honeymoon” point in his presidency when the beer summit happened, not to mention that the press was on his side more often than not, he didn’t take much flak for his statements, even before the beer summit took place. But of course, it would be quite impossible for Trump to sit down with both some people who support leaving the statues up (and to clarify, I don’t mean any of the Nazi or white supremacist types) and some representatives from the left who want to remove the statues and have anything like a beer summit. The press would pillory anyone from the left who actually sits down for an actual conversation with Trump or those who don’t completely support Antifa’s agenda.
If Trump had come out and said ‘This behavior is not acceptable. Period. End of story.’, it might have calmed a lot of tempers and strife.
That’s my point, though. Whose behavior? The supremacists? How much more does he need to say to disavow what they stand for? And who in the mainstream press would even listen without trying to spin it in some way that makes Trump look bad? And why is it wrong to point out mob violence as a separate (i.e. non-equivalent) issue to supremacism, but still wrong? Given the events in Charlottesville, it’s completely reasonable to deal with *everything* that happened that day. That’s why I mentioned that a statement needs to be longer than what you just wrote. Something only that long can be spun in any number of ways. It’s more than reasonable to point out that supremacism is wrong, but mob violence is also wrong, and trying to shut down free speech also against our constitution. The fact is, you don’t have to support what Nazis stand for to also be opposed to Antifa. Of course, that fact is completely lost in all the craziness today.
Trump probably could calm things down by just a simple principle of “think before you tweet.” That’s definitely an issue for him.
Dave Barnhart
…is that the media, today as in the Carter administration and as in the Roosevelt administration and before, has not clued into the horrors that accompanied and accompany the hammer and sickle—most likely in excess of 100 million people killed by their own governments, really, an order of magnitude more more or less enslaved. Trump was right to blame both sides, though a bit clumsy in his wording.
And really, exactly the right thing to do, because if you castigate one side and let the other, murderous side slide (antifa/occupy have been picking fights with riot police for over a decade, really), you’re simply doing the error of the Weimar Republic in reverse. Rejecting the Red Guards doesn’t mean you endorse the Brown Shirts, and vice versa.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Aaron: Thanks for the reply.
you wrote:
Should everything a president does, once elected, be regarded as automatically the right thing, even the best thing? If not, by what criteria should his policy decisions (and at times, the character evident behind them… not to mention the character evident when not doing policy at all) be evaluated?
No, not in the least. No one, including me, would even hint that. As to the criteria, those are what I was referring to. It seems your set of standards formulate a very narrow practical ideology for a sitting president. On paper, fine. But my point is that no one can keep all of those commandments and not offend in one (or a hundred) points in the nasty world of flesh and blood politics. There must be space for God’s common grace to operate in the worst scenarios, as well as a certain amount of “expediency.” As to President Trump’s character during or not during his policy decisions, again this is very nebulous unless I know what those criteria are. I can assure you he is “not perfect,” but how many flaws can you allow before he violates the code on this point? Can he say “damn” and “hell” (to which I object) and still qualify as our president? This appears to get very tedious.
As for my counter to the sovereignty argument, I’d be interested in knowing where it’s flawed.
You are correct to note that God ordains good and bad rulers, as Nebuchadnezzar finally admitted (Dan 4:34-35). But the point isn’t His foreordination and subsequent fulfillment; it is the reaction by humans. This does not preclude fair and just criticism. But there are divinely-prescribed methods whereby a president is to be evaluated and treated, as you originally posted. Since Donald Trump is in fact our duly elected and God-ordained president, i.e., mine, yours and every American’s), there is a slippery slope to be feared in heaping scorn, calumny, malice and disdain on such an one, in practicality if not much more—sedition. There is plenty of that “out there” among the hoi poloi.
those who want to dismiss me on the grounds that I’m a “nevertrumper” who cannot see anything good about the president:
No one that I know or have seen here has pinned that on you. There may be some quibble on SI if you are in fact a NTer. I do not know or care much about the attributes thereof. You have given examples of seeing good, and that is sufficient.
I guess the gist of my post was the identity-markers with which you judge a sitting president, and how much, if any, wiggle room you could tolerate President Trump to have in your brand of conservative ideology. I gather that the limits are pretty tight.
Rolland McCune
I appreciate the clarification.
As for the markers being tight… they sure don’t seem tight to me. I was willing enough to support both Bushes and McCain as well as Romney. Character counts and Mr. Trump has made no secret of the nature of his character. We don’t need to heep scorn on him to set him at a level considerably lower than any GOP standard-bearer since Nixon. We need only point out his own history. (i.e. his own public statements)
To Dave regarding this…
To even point out that in many cases the opposition demonstrators were the ones that acted violently first (which is quite necessary for truth and correct context) is simply unacceptable to the left, who excuse mob violence in the name of “fighting hate.” He should have avoided stating that there were good people on both sides (though even that was true, since there were those present who had nothing to do with white supremacy who only wanted to argue that the statues should stay), or been more exact in his statements.
I appreciate the point because I think this is where there is a lot of confusion in regards to Charlottesville. When presidents are issuing public statements in response to events, it’s well known that every nuance counts and that there is a core idea you need to communicate unequivocally. In a response to an evil that is (a) especially damaging to the nation at the present time and (b) one the president has as well-deserved association with (due to alt-right support of his candidacy and his decision not to truly distance himself from that group during the campaign.)… What must be unequivocal is the rejection of white supremacy and anyone and everyone willing to march with them.
… so you don’t use the language of moral equivalence in that situation. True as it might be that the other side threw the first stone, it’s not relevant to what a president needs to communicate in the situation. There’s not really any excuse for his not being aware of that given how long everyone was aware that this rally was going to happen. He should have been out denouncing it days ahead of time. Not slowly and, apparently, reluctantly after it got violent… and with lots of qualifiers.
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.
(b) one the president has as well-deserved association with (due to alt-right support of his candidacy and his decision not to truly distance himself from that group during the campaign.)
This appears to be the crux of much of the anti-Trump sentiments, and I’m puzzled by it and would like more information. Trump repeatedly disavowed David Duke, the KKK, the alt-right, and others during his campaign (see clips below). Are you referring to Bannon and his ties to Breitbart? Is it because some of these folks voted for him in spite of his condemnation of their views? (How can you control who votes for you?)
I’m puzzled by this conclusion that he didn’t distance himself enough (see clips). This appears to be a narrative propagated by the liberals, so it’s surprising to see it here. But could I be lacking important information? If I’m incorrect in my understanding, I’d like to know. Thanks.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlOH_iKxPus
Adam makes a great point; I just read a Glenn Kessler/Washington Post “fact check” on Trump, and the first thing Kessler does is point out, when evaluating Trump’s claim that economic growth was around 2% for the past ten years, to point to quarterly economic growth, note that a lot of quarters were higher than 2%, and declares Trump’s claim effectively false.
Here’s the data by year. Average it out, and you get about 2.15% or so. Trump was right, and it’s the Post getting four Pinocchios. I didn’t bother with the rest of Kessler’s work for obvious reasons; if Kessler wants to do math that I’ll look at, he’d better darned well learn his arithmetic.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Aaron Blumer]II appreciate the point because I think this is where there is a lot of confusion in regards to Charlottesville. When presidents are issuing public statements in response to events, it’s well known that every nuance counts and that there is a core idea you need to communicate unequivocally. In a response to an evil that is (a) especially damaging to the nation at the present time and (b) one the president has as well-deserved association with (due to alt-right support of his candidacy and his decision not to truly distance himself from that group during the campaign.)… What must be unequivocal is the rejection of white supremacy and anyone and everyone willing to march with them.
… so you don’t use the language of moral equivalence in that situation. True as it might be that the other side threw the first stone, it’s not relevant to what a president needs to communicate in the situation. There’s not really any excuse for his not being aware of that given how long everyone was aware that this rally was going to happen. He should have been out denouncing it days ahead of time. Not slowly and, apparently, reluctantly after it got violent… and with lots of qualifiers.
Well, first I agree with Adam that Trump could say practically anything to disavow white supremacy, and it will be discounted. Not only has he already done so in words, he has backed it up with actions, as his cabinet and other administration contain both Jewish and non-white members, some of whom appear to have quite some influence, and are far from tokens. Haley, in particular, as much as is possible in an organization like the U.N., is kicking butt and taking names, and I have yet to hear Trump disparage her in any way.
Further, I disagree that white supremacism is more dangerous than other things facing our nation at the moment. Our nation has firmly defeated such ideology — we have gone from there being millions in the 1920’s, to a few thousand losers who parade around every now and then, and are firmly disavowed from both the right and left of our political spectrum. In recent years, until Charlottesville, these have been largely ignored as backward and unimportant, for good reason. They are never going to completely disappear for the same reasons that there will always be those who think it’s OK to loot when people are occupied with something else, or people who think that murder or theft are acceptable, but they have no real influence.
The greater dangers as I see them, are 1. Movement toward restriction of free speech, based on whatever the majority finds either acceptable or unacceptable, and 2. The idea that mob-violence in service to a supposedly “correct” cause is completely acceptable, and that even some government organizations are backing away from policing such violence, since they would supposedly cause even more.
I completely believe that Trump was absolutely right to point out ALL the things that were wrong in Charlottesville. I only think he should have taken the time to do it right, with a well-thought-out presidential statement, and to make it clear that all wrong actions, even if not equivalent, are still wrong.
And since we are on a thread on “How to think straight about Trump,” lest you think I’m someone who blindly supports the president, I’ll give you one example (to be brief) of where I think he can be firmly condemned — going after Sessions for (correctly) recusing himself on the Russia investigation. While I think that whole investigation is likely going to be all sound and fury, signifying nothing, I think Sessions was only being the principled man he is when he realized that he would just be a distraction from investigating properly.
We most certainly should try to think biblically about Trump, just as about Obama, Bush, Clinton, or the others. He is certainly NOT the 2nd coming for evangelical America. However, the narrative of him being blatantly racist and in favor of white supremacy is monumentally false.
Dave Barnhart
Aaron:
Thanks again for the reply.
I promise to suspend (after this post) my quest for the Holy Grail of your standards for judging President Trump. But I do think I’m getting a little “warmer” (i.e., closer).
1. Where is the president not “conservative enough” in his various policies? Where has he failed to address the mess of problems in the fiscal, trade, labor, military, industrial, environmental, health care and safety/security areas? Is there not any sense to any of his proposals? I say yes. Any room for improvement or change? Of course. Is it because he should have gone to charm school to beef up his verbal elegance instead of having gone to a military academy? But all this doesn’t seem to account for the unbendable opposition he gets on SI and elsewhere.
2. The major objection I keep seeing is that President Trump does not, cannot or will not conform to the prescribed ingredients of governance in the realm of character. I would like to see a forthright statement on this area with examples and argument. Something doesn’t add up here. There is obviously an undefined black shadow of an unforgivable something. Perhaps it is a blatant failure (moral, physical, temperamental, genetic, mental) somewhere in this whole realm. But whatever it is, it virtually bans the president from being believed and trusted, and makes him disqualified on anything associated with the presidency, at least in the eyes of many of his opponents. But what is it, or at least what are some of its attributes? I’d like to know the specifics so I can process the thinking here. It is beginning to sound as if he is the senile, nutty, drooling old uncle that must be secreted in the upstairs closet, or at least “committed” somewhere away from the only ones who are judged to be sane.
Also, I’m interested in how all this sets Mr. Trump lower than all the Republican presidential candidates since Richard Nixon. Are you also including Nixon himself in that line? In support of this assertion you stated, “We need only to point out his own history, i.e., his own public statements … . Character counts and Mr. Trump has made no secret of the nature of his character.” You cited your support for the Bushes, McCain and Romney; is this affirmation also based heavily on character? If so, how in the world did John McCain get a pass? Did Nixon get one also? Where’s the standard here? It seems like there’s an elephant in the room that won’t be seen or acknowledged.
As a personal aside, I voted for every Republican candidate since Eisenhower, including Barry Goldwater. (I wore a Goldwater-Miller button on my suit lapel while I worked in a bank. I also wore my YAF pin [Young Americans for Freedom] on the other lapel. I also subscribed to National Review, etc., etc. In those days these were pretty good conservative markers.). My voting standards pragmatically opted for conservative political proposals and did not include whether someone was Jewish, Mormon, Friends, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, or whether they liked Youth for Christ or smoked Luckies or sipped some bubbly. Some of them might have been social conservatives; all would profess to have been fiscal conservatives. All were said to be strong on the military, etc., and I bought their line. Some became a little wobbly on foreign policy. I did not appreciate fully at the time that all were globalists except Reagan. So “Make America Great Again” struck a lost chord. Donald Trump sounded the best of them all, actually. What you saw and what he said, you got. I still assert the same. I don’t pay taxes for airs or the usual sweet talk. They don’t do much for the big picture and, besides, you can get all that for nothing every day.
Rolland D. McCune
Rolland McCune
[Rolland McCune]2. The major objection I keep seeing is that President Trump does not, cannot or will not conform to the prescribed ingredients of governance in the realm of character. I would like to see a forthright statement on this area with examples and argument. Something doesn’t add up here. There is obviously an undefined black shadow of an unforgivable something. Perhaps it is a blatant failure (moral, physical, temperamental, genetic, mental) somewhere in this whole realm. But whatever it is, it virtually bans the president from being believed and trusted, and makes him disqualified on anything associated with the presidency, at least in the eyes of many of his opponents. But what is it, or at least what are some of its attributes? I’d like to know the specifics so I can process the thinking here. It is beginning to sound as if he is the senile, nutty, drooling old uncle that must be secreted in the upstairs closet, or at least “committed” somewhere away from the only ones who are judged to be sane.
Okay, I’ll bring up the circumstances that make me very hesitant to trust Trump. He has been sued multiple times for failing to pay for work he has contracted others to do. It’s pretty much a business strategy of his to NOT pay what he owes. If a contractor wants to get the full amount Trump promised, the contractor would have to go to court and pay legal fees. Trump knows that and takes advantage of it. Is such a strategy legal? Yes.Does using that strategy show character? Not at all. Here is an article about the lawsuits. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/10/dozens-lawsuits-accuse-trump…
And here is one about contract law and how Trump practices “selling out one’s goodwill.” http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/
Based on Trumps business practices, i just don’t see how the man can be trusted.
Discussion