Rand Paul and other Trump defenders are lying to you about the sixth amendment
“The scope and reach of the Sixth Amendment has been extensively litigated, and it most assuredly does not apply to the House’s impeachment inquiry.” - David French
- 3 views
I did some digging a while back on whether all human actions have moral significance. It seemed obvious as the nose on my face (not quite Jimmy Durante, but still pretty obvious!) that they are. How could beings made in God’s image, who exist for the purpose of demonstrating His glory, do anything that doesn’t matter?
But when I got a few leagues into Aristotle and Aquinas (not what I’d call a “deep dive” at this point), they suggested when a person does something completely thoughtless, like blink or scratch their nose, it’s probably not moral.
They seemed to think just about everything else would be though.
In any case, I can’t believe that something as important as participating in the process of putting a ruler in power can be dismissed as not moral (no, “moral” and “political” are not mutually exclusive categories!). Maybe we’re not using the same definition of “moral.”
In any case, I wanted to say a bit more on the dilemma I introduced earlier… which is being, as usual when I press for thoughtful analysis of the ethics of voting, interestingly ignored. :-)
My thinking on this is getting lengthy, though, and I should probably put together something systematic for the main article section.
Here’s what hit me this morning:
- It’s probably not possible to properly weigh the ethics of an action in the context of its alternatives unless you have first weighed the ethics of that action without considering its alternatives.
Here’s why: in the case of the dilemma I posted, we intuitively understand that the option of killing the woman in order to save the crowd requires justification. But we only understand this because killing the woman would normally be wrong if we considered it apart from alternatives and indirect consequences. Looking at the act for its own sake is what tells us it needs justification. We can do it automatically/intuitively, but we still have to do it.
We all agree that killing people is, by default, wrong. It can be justified, but it’s only right if it is justified.
I submit that the ethics of voting is less intuitive for many (obviously!). But the fact that we don’t intuitively consider the act of voting for Person A on its own merits just means we need to do it consciously as an ethical discipline. If you look at a grown up child who rants and raves near lunacy daily in public, publicly humiliates subordinates who have been loyal to him (and mysteriously remain loyal!), executes highly questionable foreign policy deals by personal lawyer and unsecured cell phone, tolerates racists in his administration and courts them for votes, lauds evil dictators, brags about womanizing, etc. , etc. …. If we look at this on its own apart from the alternatives, we can see that voting for such a man is an act that requires justification.
With that as a starting point, it’s at lest potentially possible to evaluate whether such a vote can be justified, and, if so, what would justify it.
But many haven’t even gotten to square one and recognized that it requires justification—because they never stop looking at the alternatives… even for a moment! To which I say, hey, give it a try. What have you got to lose by considering the whole thing in a different light for a bit?
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,
I’d agree that voting for Trump is action that needs to be justified. As many of us have discussed, since at least 2016, he was nowhere near the top for the vast majority of evangelicals. However, I can’t really consider that action in a vacuum. God instituted government, and we know it’s better than anarchy, probably even under Nero. So if the choice is Trump vs. anarchy, that’s an easy one. If the choice is Trump vs. someone else, I have to evaluate both of them.
Unless I somehow get into a situation where not electing Trump means that God will just lead us himself, perfectly, with no human agent, I have to consider Trump in comparison with the alternatives. Taking a life vs not doing so is something that you can much more easily evaluate on its own, but voting, kind of by definition, means there is a choice between some number of alternatives. I have seen races on my ballots where someone is running unopposed, but out of principle, I never cast a vote for those, because I have no choice, and my “vote” is meaningless.
Dave Barnhart
It doesn’t really matter if its a Trump or a Reagan (though I suspect it is easier to justify Reagan).
Even then, one votes with incomplete information, based on a wide range of considerations, and votes the way one thinks will be best for the country going forward. You aren’t voting for sainthood. You are voting for someone to be the national administrator (in the case of a president).
You may not like any of the choices offered for any number of reasons. In such a case, you have to decide, first of all, whether you will vote at all. (I’ve always maintained there is NO moral obligation to vote. Not voting can be a kind of vote by itself, it is “none of the above,” and is the only way you can express that choice.)
If you decide to vote, based on whatever information you’re able to gather, you vote and see what happens. I don’t see how you can be held morally responsible if the guy you voted for wins and turns out to be a louse, or more of a louse than anyone else who might have been elected. You make a decision based on all the information you can get.
As it stands, if I had a vote in 2016, I would have voted for someone other than Trump. This time around, I think I would vote for him, given the information we currently have. He’s not my favorite as a person, but I think he would do the best job of those currently running. I don’t like the fawning adulation that many Christians give to him. That’s kind of disgusting. But of the choices available, he is doing and will probably continue to do a better job.
And I’m quite happy to continue to disagree with Aristotle, Aquinas and any other alledged thinker you can trot out!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Some things I agree with…
- Aristotle and Aquinas could be wrong.
- Information about candidates is always somewhat uncertain.
- We do have to look at election choices in the context of who else is on the ballot.
On item 1: However, it really takes some work to explain how the act of helping put a ruler in power could be morally neutral. It would be hard work to explain how any motivated action could be morally neutral. If you think about it and do it for reasons, then the act of thinking, tying in your values, using your judgment… I can’t see how these could be performed in a morally neutral way. I’m trying to be open on this, but how would it be possible? It’s not like Aristotle and Aquinas were slouches who didn’t put any thought into their ideas about ethics.
On item 2: I can’t see how that changes anything. We make decisions and act on them daily in reference to things where the outcomes are less than entirely certain. They’re still right or wrong things to do… or can be decided in right or wrong ways. I don’t know if borrowing money to fix some safety features on my car is going to turn out to have been smart or not. Still, my decision is right or it’s wrong. But in the case of Trump, it was never what we didn’t know that was important. It was what we did know, and know with even more certainty now. There can be little doubt what sort of man he is.
On item 3: It’s both-and. So we need to look at candidates both in the context of the alternatives and also on their own merits. If we do both, the second evaluation (which really ought to be first) raises important questions: What are the duties of American citizens? What obligations does the design of our system place on voters? What sort of people are supposed to be rejected as candidates? What are the long term consequences of backing a candidate who remakes an entire party in his own image—and that image is contrary to the core of what that party used to be about?
I could go on.
If it can be wrong to back a candidate because he lacks the basic qualities necessary in any just ruler, then we have to consider whether a particular candidate fails that test. If Trump doesn’t fail that test, who would? How damaging and dangerous would he have to be? I know for many the answer is “only less damaging than the other guy,” but that angle ignores the case I’ve been making (most of the pieces of which have been acknowledged in one way or another) that it’s possible for a person to be so ill suited for leadership that there is no opponent bad enough to make voting for him justified.
The Bible is pretty clear that bad rulers do damage and people are hurt. So this is not a trivial or hypothetical question.
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.
Because I believe acts can be wrong in an of themselves, no matter how much worse the alternative(s) may be or seem to be, evaluating whom to vote for has a different starting point. I do not begin with “What will happen if I don’t?” I begin with “Is it wrong in itself?”
But that assumes that the vote is wrong in itself, which seems to be a fundamental misapplication of the Bible to civics. I think this is where you go off track. I can agree that we have individual consciences about voting and we must live by them, but we also must recognize that consciences can be poorly trained so that one sees something as sinful that isn’t sinful at all.
Once you admit that the all votes are for “the lesser of two evils,” you have lost the core issue of the argument. Then the question becomes very simple. Any vote you cast is sinful (given your paradigm). You are electing a person deficient in character to office. You are willing to tolerate a certain amount of deficiency of character.
So, if there are two and only two outcomes—More evil and less evil—and both of them involve someone of significant lack of moral character, which one is sinful? Isn’t is clearly sinful to vote in a way that increases evil rather than to vote in a way that decreases evil or limits evil? In other words, you could vote in way that limits evil or vote in a way that increases evil. Which is the more righteous vote?
Let’s try this: There are two people running for government in Germany in the 1930s. Both are equally bad in terms of economics. Both are equally bad in terms of social issues. Both have horrible character. Both are adulterous leaches. One of them wants to imprison and kill Jews and one of them wants to protect Jews and allow them to function fully in society.
Which vote is more righteous than the other?
I appeal to Nazi Germany for a reason. It is easy. Every single person here intuitively knows that the one who will protect Jews is a more righteous vote than the other, even if everything else is wrong.
Now, if you exchange “Jews” for “unborn babies,” you can see how much easier this discussion becomes. While people sit around and diddle with their consciences about how morally corrupt someone has to be to preclude voting for them, others voted in a way that increased protections for the unborn and made such protections more likely, though not guaranteed. There was no “third” option that was going to do that.
Because I believe acts can be wrong in an of themselves, no matter how much worse the alternative(s) may be or seem to be, evaluating whom to vote for has a different starting point. I do not begin with “What will happen if I don’t?” I begin with “Is it wrong in itself?”
But that assumes that the vote is wrong in itself,
How does asking assume something? It’s the opposite of assuming. Assuming is what happens when we look at a situation and decide we must do A or B without considering whether there are alternatives and without considering A and B individually for whether (1) they require justificaiton and (2) can in fact be justified.
Once you admit that the all votes are for “the lesser of two evils,” you have lost the core issue of the argument.
There is some unfortunate lumping together here. The phrase “lesser of two evils” needs clarifying. Consider the difference between these two phrases:
- Lesser of two imperfect options
- Lesser of two sins
In the case of the first phrase, there is nothing whatsoever that precludes the possibility that one of the imperfect options is right—by the same token, there is nothing that precludes the possibility that one of them is wrong. There is also nothing that precludes the possibility that, when examined, they may both be wrong and some third alternative necessary.
In the case of the second… it’s unbiblical to say we sometimes have to choose a smaller sin over a larger one. We’re supposed to figure out, as best we can, what’s not sin—what’s right—and do that.
In any situation where there is time to reflect, this requires considering all the possibilities and evaluating each for the possibility that one or more options requires justification or should be taken off the table because it’s wrong in itself. (“In itself” here meaning “regardless of what the alternatives are or seem to be.”)
So, if there are two and only two outcomes—More evil and less evil
This goes back to the assumption that the choices must be evaluated only in terms of outcomes and alternatives. None of us lives this way, normally. We just, oddly, lock into it when elections roll around.
Which vote is more righteous than the other?
Assumes one must support one or the other. This has not been established.
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.
[Larry]Since you brought up Nazi Germany, it’s interesting to note that the Nazis increased restrictions on grounds for legal abortions and imposed the death penalty for the illegal termination of unwanted pregnancies. If both candidates were anti-Semitic, would the Nazis be the more righteous vote since they increased protection for the unborn?Let’s try this: There are two people running for government in Germany in the 1930s. Both are equally bad in terms of economics. Both are equally bad in terms of social issues. Both have horrible character. Both are adulterous leaches. One of them wants to imprison and kill Jews and one of them wants to protect Jews and allow them to function fully in society.
Which vote is more righteous than the other?
I appeal to Nazi Germany for a reason. It is easy. Every single person here intuitively knows that the one who will protect Jews is a more righteous vote than the other, even if everything else is wrong.
If both candidates were anti-Semitic, would the Nazis be the more righteous vote since they increased protection for the unborn?
It would seem to be obviously so, wouldn’t it? Would anyone really question that? Again, the bar has been set pretty low so “more righteous” isn’t all that great.
But should you refuse to save any because you cannot save all? It would seem to be basic morality.
[Aaron Blumer]If it can be wrong to back a candidate because he lacks the basic qualities necessary in any just ruler, then we have to consider whether a particular candidate fails that test. If Trump doesn’t fail that test, who would? How damaging and dangerous would he have to be?
This is where we disagree Aaron. It has not been established that Trump is that bad. He tweets a lot. Some see it as rude. Ok. How is that bad or evil? He uses crude language. How is that evil? I don’t follow your logic. His policy proposals are usually rock solid in my view. Israelite kings were evil because they worshipped foreign gods and killed people. Trump? Not so much. Roman emperors were dictators who held life and death in their hand on a whim. Trump? Not so much. Napolean invaded Europe…twice. Trump? Nope. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, PolPot…do I really need to write it? So I don’t see the evil. Even the consensus evil president Nixon merely ordered a break-in and obstructed justice. Relatively light on the scale of “evil.”
[Aaron Blumer]I know for many the answer is “only less damaging than the other guy,” but that angle ignores the case I’ve been making (most of the pieces of which have been acknowledged in one way or another) that it’s possible for a person to be so ill suited for leadership that there is no opponent bad enough to make voting for him justified.
The Bible is pretty clear that bad rulers do damage and people are hurt. So this is not a trivial or hypothetical question.
Once again. Perhaps you see Trump as annoying. How is that compared to Warrens $52 trillion dollar tax plan for health care? The implications of Buttigieg if he won? Bernie and his overt socialism. Once again, I fail to see that Trump’s personality faults are anywhere near as bad as the society wide implications of any Democrat.
I really don’t get it Aaron.
[Mark_Smith]How is that compared to Warrens $52 trillion dollar tax plan for health care? The implications of Buttigieg if he won? Bernie and his overt socialism. Once again, I fail to see that Trump’s personality faults are anywhere near as bad as the society wide implications of any Democrat.
The last part of this, I’m fully in agreement with you. As to Trump’s language, I think it’s pretty clear that “corrupt communication” is not to be excused, and could be classified as evil, even if not to the degree of things like promotion of abortion. There’s certainly something to be said for not using such language in public, and maintaining decorum, even though that’s no excuse for those who still use it privately. Probably most of our recent leaders have used that type of language in private or when they thought they were not being overheard. Now, is Trump worse than his opponents in this regard? Hardly. Just read all the comments in the press from the opposition candidates. So again, while I wouldn’t be voting for Trump for sainthood or membership in my church, those are not the choices before me next November.
As to considering actions in the absolute sense rather than tying them to outcomes, sometimes that’s just not possible. If I’m working on my roof and carelessly throw down something heavy, it may be foolish, but it’s not going to be evil in the same sense as it would be if I knew people were walking down there and did it anyway. And what about if I hit someone and injure or kill them? The outcome (and even possible outcome) most certainly matters, and with some actions, must, I believe, be considered with the action itself when trying to determine the morality of that action.
Dave Barnhart
[dcbii]The last part of this, I’m fully in agreement with you. As to Trump’s language, I think it’s pretty clear that “corrupt communication” is not to be excused, and could be classified as evil, even if not to the degree of things like promotion of abortion. There’s certainly something to be said for not using such language in public, and maintaining decorum, even though that’s no excuse for those who still use it privately. Probably most of our recent leaders have used that type of language in private or when they thought they were not being overheard. Now, is Trump worse than his opponents in this regard? Hardly. Just read all the comments in the press from the opposition candidates. So again, while I wouldn’t be voting for Trump for sainthood or membership in my church, those are not the choices before me next November.
I agree that Trump’s language is “evil” in the biblical sense of corrupt communication, worldly, etc. I do not think it is evil in the political sense, as in Hitler. Nor is it evil in the sense of committing a crime. Plus, if you are going to judge Trump for his coarse language, at least he is open about it. I GUARANTEE YOU Obama dropped f-bombs all the time in private company. I also GUARANTEE recent presidents did the same. Is that more polite? Yes. But we are judging morality here, right?
So, language is a “minor” issue, and not something to throw out the future of our country over.
Trump has been profoundly pro-life in his presidency and administration. That’s almost a miracle when considering his past. He has appointed two conservative, pro-life Supreme Court Judges and 182 Federal Judges who are Constitutional Originalists. This is an amazing record and all in three years. He has spoken out aggressively against partial birth abortion and third trimester abortion. Comparing that to his occasional use of the King James English in out-of-context settings and meanings, I think we are talking apples and bowling balls. I wish Trump would have the charm and decorum of Ronald Reagan, but he grew up in the streets of New York City and still has a lot of baggage from his upbringing. I didn’t care for General Patton’s language either, but when it came to destroying the Nazis, he was the best. I pray for Trump’s conversion. It would make him a much better president, husband, father, and a better man. More importantly, it would make him truly love the Lord. Thankfully, Trump chose Pence to be his VP. That speaks volumes. If Trump gets impeached or murdered by his enemies, we have Pence as President until the Left and the media destroy him as well. When compared to the hard core leftists in the democratic party, I will vote for Trump. If for personal reasons someone chooses not to vote for Trump, I understand. However, voting for a presidency is voting for the Supreme Court, Federal Judges, Presidential Cabinet, and a political platform.
Pastor Mike Harding
Mike wrote:
I didn’t care for General Patton’s language either, but when it came to destroying the Nazis, he was the best
Actually, the Soviet Army was the best. They suffered more casualties and engaged in many more extended campaigns against the Germans than the Allied armies did. But, to the point, we didn’t seem to care too much about Stalin’s moral character at the time, either
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Larry]No, it doesn’t seem “obvious” to me that a vote for the Nazis would ever be a morally appropriate vote, even if the other side wasn’t wanting to put tighter restrictions on abortions. The restrictions the Nazis put on abortion only applied to German women, so yes, they were saving some, but not in any “basic morality” way.If both candidates were anti-Semitic, would the Nazis be the more righteous vote since they increased protection for the unborn?
It would seem to be obviously so, wouldn’t it? Would anyone really question that? Again, the bar has been set pretty low so “more righteous” isn’t all that great.
But should you refuse to save any because you cannot save all? It would seem to be basic morality.
No, it doesn’t seem “obvious” to me that a vote for the Nazis would ever be a morally appropriate vote,
So you think it is okay to let people be killed when you could have done something to change it? That’s the moral calculation I don’t understand. It seems to me that we ought to work for the best possible world, the best possible situation.
After WW2, in some places German citizens were made to walk through the concentration camps so they could see what went on. Can you imagine walking through there and knowing you could have done something to stop it but you didn’t because you prioritized your own sensibilities over human life and the image of God in man?
Or to put it differently, and perhaps more starkly, can you imagine saying, “I love God and worship him, but I don’t need to anything to stop the stamping out of God’s image through murder. My conscience prevents me from doing that.”
Discussion