Christians in the Age of Trump

I appreciate the effort at balance here. In reference to Trump, that seems pretty rare these days. I’m posting a somewhat different perspective on the topic tomorrow, but it has mainly a theological and political-philosophical focus.

On the details, I agree that some of Trump’s policies have been good. But on the whole, they’ve been a pretty mixed bag. Foreign policy seems to be a muddled mess, and tariffs are not really a “free market capitalism” idea. If he manages to win the trade war w/China, it will be harder to criticize the policy, but historically, tariffs just make life harder for everyone domestically and don’t result in success.

… and I still consistently get the impression that though he has put considerable energy into pro-life policy, Trump is lip-syncing. There isn’t much belief driving him; rather, it’s his contrarian nature, and he has chosen a side in the conflict and is fighting in order to defeat Them wherever he can. This is useful in some ways, but it’s all pretty arbitrary. It’s all about the fight and “winning,” and the actual ideological sides in the conflict are not understood or of interest to him.

Aaron,

I look forward to your article. My take on Trump is that he has undergone a philosophical transformation over the last ten years. He certainly is not a Christian. I never thought he was. Yet, he chose a strong Christian to be his VP. If the Dems and the Media succeed in Impeaching Trump, we would get Pence. The media would hate Pence even more than Trump, if that is possible. It is hard to judge motives. I think Trump is sincere in his prolife positions and defense of religious liberty, though I agree with you that he does not understand all the theological reasons for that position. Trump is very much pro Israel. Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem was a bold move. He understands the threat of Islamic Terrorism at home and abroad. He is a pro-law-enforcement guy, pro-national defense, pro-military, pro-free market. He is the first president to confront China in a long time. His tariffs worked on getting Mexico to be cooperative with us on illegal immigration, and he is still negotiating with China which has been a notorious cheat for decades. I agree with most of the criticisms listed by brother Barkman.

The irrational hero worship is what bugs me. I get the idea of holding your nose and supporting policies, but the over the top rhetoric along the lines of “the greatest president ever” is exceedingly unseemly.

he’s done some good things, I agree, but he is truly clueless on trade policies as Aaron mentions above. I’ll look forward to Aaron’s piece tomorrow

[G. N. Barkman]

Thanks, Aaron for posting this article. I knew you were unlikely to agree, but I find some of your objections puzzling. You seem to base your concerns about Trump’s pro-life position entirely on subjective feelings. The evidence indicates he ‘puts his money where his mouth is” and is doing more to advance the pro-life position than any president I can recall. Likewise with his support of capitalism. In spite of his unfortunate foreign policies and economic leveraging, the US economy continues to boom and is putting more Americans to work than at any time in history. I hope you’re not letting your personal dislike of Trump blind you to the unusual number of actual accomplishments in the span of two years, and in spite of the heaviest barrage of opposition and criticism that I’ve ever witnessed for any previous president.

I will never have a problem with those that think along the lines of this article—are honest about the dismal person that is Donald Trump but hold their nose because of his policies. The Christians that annoy me are those that defend Trump in every way including his moral failings: Falwell, Graham, and that ilk as well as dishonest Christians like Sarah Sanders, Sekulow and such that not only defend him but do so as an occupation.

Truthfully though, I am unclear on what Trump has accomplished.

* The economy has been in a sharp growth period for 10 years. Trump has not gotten in the way but he is not responsible for much of that. The good news is that in spite of Trump’s tariffs and such, the economy is bigger than him at least until this point.

* While he has probably done a lot of executive actions, they can be erased in a second down the road and will be. Where it matters (actually changing the law), he has managed to do very little and there is not much chance that will change based on the hate in DC that he is largely (not completely) responsible for.

* Probably has gotten a lot of judges in place so he gets credit for that.

* I don’t share the general theological thoughts here about Israel, so I am not going to give him credit for the embassy. In general, I see that as meaningless and just likely to make things worse in the long run.

Yes, Trump has undoubtedly gotten more opposition from the press than any other president. There is a reason for that: he acts like a 4th grader instead of a President. Those that complain about this always seem to acknowledge that when you act like a fool, you give the press plenty to mock and talk about.

I agree with the criticisms of moral issues, hero worship, etc. put forth by the others on this thread. Those criticisms cannot be stated too strongly, and I do really wonder about Christians who completely ignore all of that and make absurd declarations about Trump being a Christian or as Don also decried, “the best president ever.”

I disagree somewhat with the views expressed of Trump’s position on the world economy, and tariffs in particular. While I would agree that tariffs are never a good long-term solution and can result in a lot of short-term pain, and they are a blunt tool at their very best, tariffs and sanctions (with teeth) seem to be the things that actually are making other nations sit up and take notice. Trump (probably due to his own views on the subject) understands what really motivates other nations to make the decisions they do. Principle? Hardly. Their actions have demonstrated that it’s mammon, pure and simple, something Trump clearly also understands.

If there are deals with Iran and North Korea, they will mostly likely be because of sanctions. If there is a deal with China, it will be because their pain resulting from tariffs will be greater than ours. They’ve never had to deal before, because nothing we’ve offered or threatened has bothered them in the slightest. South Korea came to a better agreement with the U.S. due to just the threat of tariffs. Even Merkel in Europe offered to reduce their tariffs on American automobiles to be in line with our rates on theirs when threatened with equivalent tariffs. Nations complain long and loud about the US, but they can’t even be motivated to stick to their own agreements (cf. NATO) until their pocketbooks are threatened. Trump understands this well, and while it makes the U.S. foreign policy look a little like Chicago mobs of the 20’s, so far it’s shown much more promise than the recent past’s “kinder, gentler” alternatives. Show me a “nicer,” more statesman-like, more palatable alternative that works, and I’ll back that. In the absence of such, it’s better that the U.S. is not taken advantage of in a way that destroys our economy and makes things hard on U.S. workers.

There are big negatives to using that kind of force, and the U.S. may reap what it has sown if that force is overused, and there is no carrot offered with the stick. In my view, it still beats where we’ve been headed by letting everyone take advantage of us forever. The Marshall plan and things that have followed have been necessary for rebuilding and stabilization, but they were never intended as a long-term national strategy.

[dcbii]

I disagree somewhat with the views of Trumps position on the world economy, and tariffs in particular. While I would agree that tariffs are never a good long-term solution and can result in a lot of short-term pain, and they are a blunt tool at their very best, tariffs and sanctions seem to be the things that actually are making other nations sit up and take notice. Trump (probably due to his own views on the subject) understands what really motivates other nations to make the decisions they do. Principle? Hardly. Their actions have demonstrated that it’s mammon, pure and simple, something Trump clearly also understands.

If there are deals with Iran and North Korea, they will mostly likely be because of sanctions. If there is a deal with China, it will be because their pain resulting from tariffs will be greater than ours. They’ve never had to deal before, because nothing we’ve offered or threatened has bothered them in the slightest. South Korea came to a better agreement with the U.S. due to just the threat of tariffs. Even Merkel in Europe offered to reduce their tariffs on American automobiles to be in line with our rates on theirs when threatened with equivalent tariffs. Nations complain long and loud about the US, but they can’t even be motivated to stick to their own agreements (cf, NATO) until their pocketbooks are threatened. Trump understands this well, and while it makes the U.S. foreign policy look a little like Chicago mobs of the 20’s, so far it’s shown much more promise than the recent past’s “kinder, gentler” alternatives. Show me a “nicer,” more statesman-like, more palatable alternative that works, and I’ll back that. In the absence of such, it’s better that the U.S. is not taken advantage of in a way that destroys our economy and makes things hard on U.S. workers.

There are big negatives to using that kind of force, and the U.S. may reap what they’ve sown if that force is overused, and there is no carrot offered with the stick. In my view, it still beats where we’ve been headed by letting everyone take advantage of us forever. The Marshall plan and things that have followed have been necessary for rebuilding and stabilization, but they were never intended as a long-term national strategy.

I get what you are saying. I just think being a bully (especially with allies) may likely have short term benefits but generate long term problems. I suspect that the allies (which do tend to freeload) are just telling him what he wants to hear and waiting it out until he leaves.

I think Trump has accomplished some things with his tariffs, like getting Mexico to clamp down (at least to some extent) on the free flow of migrants north. He is also right to call out other nations for their failure to meet NATO requirements, something my country consistently fails to do. His methods are crude, but they get attention. Other nations have ignored these issues in the past because previous presidents have done nothing to bring any pressure on them.

So I’m not one to dismiss him as a complete buffoon, he is effective in some ways. Time will tell how lasting his efforts are, though, and I don’t think his behaviour wins many to his point of view.

The Dems don’t have much to offer as an alternative, that’s why they have so many clamoring for the nomination. What a circus!

[Don Johnson] The Dems don’t have much to offer as an alternative, that’s why they have so many clamoring for the nomination. What a circus!

President Trump’s judicial nominees making a huge difference for the better:

In past years, it was common for potential judges to receive approval from both of their home state’s senators before their nomination moved forward. That changed during Trump’s presidency. In 2018, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stopped requiring senators’ approval, allowing Trump to get judges on the court who did not have the approval of their senators.

The Ninth Circuit, for instance, was known largely as a liberal jurisdiction until President Trump started placing conservative judges on the bench. Now, the number of conservatives is catching up to the number of liberals on the court, with Trump poised to take advantage of even more recent openings on the bench. The Ninth Circuit includes California, whose senators include Harris…

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2020-dems-reverse-course-to-oppose-vir…

David R. Brumbelow

Is it more significant that Trump has a horrendous sexual history, or that his opponent ran interference for her husband’s equally horrendous (probably worse if you ask Juanita Broadrick) sexual history? Don’t forget for a minute who did a LOT on Bill’s “bimbo eruptions” team.

I’ve got my reservations with Trump in many ways, starting with three wives (plus numerous girlfriends), multiple bankruptcies, two political parties, and having been friends with the recently arrested Jeffrey Epstein. It continues with his trade policies and failure (like his predecessor) to work with Congress. That said, he’s selected a lot of good judges that never would have been considered by Mrs. Clinton, and he understands that you come to the negotiating table with both a carrot and a stick. Too many of his predecessors have basically given away the farm in these negotiations.

@Bert One can always find someone worse to compare someone to. It’s not anything like a useful standard.

[Greg] Thanks, Aaron for posting this article. I knew you were unlikely to agree, but I find some of your objections puzzling. You seem to base your concerns about Trump’s pro-life position entirely on subjective feelings. The evidence indicates he ‘puts his money where his mouth is” and is doing more to advance the pro-life position than any president I can recall. Likewise with his support of capitalism. In spite of his unfortunate foreign policies and economic leveraging, the US economy continues to boom and is putting more Americans to work than at any time in history. I hope you’re not letting your personal dislike of Trump blind you to the unusual number of actual accomplishments in the span of two years, and in spite of the heaviest barrage of opposition and criticism that I’ve ever witnessed for any previous president.

My read of Trump’s pro-life convictions is an extrapolation from how he behaves generally. I just don’t believe he really believes in much of anything other than “winning.” Actual opponents are a matter of convenience.

As for my not liking him, true enough that I don’t… but how did that happen? He proved himself to be a particular sort of man. And has mostly kept on proving it every day.

Also true that I don’t see a particularly special number of accomplishments… especially if stacked against the failures. But I don’t deny he’s gotten some things done. Tactical wins aren’t my primary issue with him.

My concern with Trump is that the moral concerns Christians have (e.g. abortion, human sexuality, etc.) will become associated with Donald Trump in a way that when he leaves office, people will reject them out of hand because of their association with Trump.

So, while we may see some short-term gains, Christian morality / righteousness will be tainted with Trump.

We’ll see…