‘Any Real True Believer’ Will Support Trump in November, John MacArthur Says

JD:

I agree that Grudem made about as good a case as can be made for that perspective. I’m not saying I agree with it, but he made a good argument for that position!

[JD Miller]

I appreciated what Wayne Grudem wrote to a friend of his a while back on why he plans to vote for Trump. It is worth a read so that we can at least understand why a large number of evangelical conservatives are making the choice they are making. Here is the link: https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2020/08/08/letter-to-an-antitrump-christian-friend-n2573909?fbclid=IwAR0R-ocyrpDnLaFVDilJx0BIghK47hTEQfNCLIHNzenuqsAnicaCc0QCPTc

JD, that was an excellent letter and well worth the time it took to read. It expresses what a lot of us are thinking. I realize that this philosophy on elections puts me at odds with others here who believe Trump’s character flaws completely disqualify him from being president. They have to make the choice of whom to vote for just as I do, and for me, when voting for governmental leaders instead of pastor, policy overrides many character flaws, especially when the opposition has its own flaws. I especially loved Grudem’s answer to “What would Trump have to do for you to not support him?,” and his list was all about bad policies. Those are exactly what it would take for me in this election to support someone else.

It is not just about abortion. It is also about social justice for minorities. To listen to the the media you would think that Trump has been out attack minorities. When you look at the policies he has implemented it is just the opposite. He is helping the downtrodden. As a Christian, I like that.

JD, I’d like to push back on this somewhat. It is true that much of the rhetoric that media talking heads and those on the left have insinuated that Trump is intentionally trying to hurt minorities. I don’t think that’s been what Trump is intentionally trying to do. And the one shining accomplishment that Trump did, which positively affected minorities was the First Step Act. He strong-armed the law-and-order conservatives that were afraid of losing the prison lobby (yes there is such a thing) and the powerful police unions as their supporters to pass this needed legislation. Both these groups were fiercely opposed to the First Step Act. It is legislation that Obama could only partially pass back in 2010. The First Step Act was a major step forward in criminal justice reform, which took objective steps to correct alot of the unjust sentencing that took place due to the failed War on Drugs among Federal Prisoners.

But if you would come to my urban neighborhood, which is in the process of being gentrified by real estate speculators to reshape the neighborhood for college students and white secular hipsters, you will realize that the primary social issue (along with further criminal justice reform measures) that impoverished and working-class minorities face is lack of affordable housing. Investors (from Chicago, NY, Dallas) have bought up older and start-up houses for cheap and renovated them and flipped them or keep them and charge 3x what they used to rent for. Most cities like GR are landlocked and crippled by zoning laws. Many families that were connected to our ministry now reside in working-class suburbs where there is some affordable low-income housing for them. And their kids are now taking advantage of better school districts, which contributes to breaking generational poverty. And they are closer to living-wage employment, which is much more abundant in the suburbs than cities. At the same time, I currently have several families in my neighborhood whose teens attend our programs where they are bunked up with 10-20 people living in a 4 bedroom house or apartments (a modern form of homelessness) because of the lack of affordable housing in Grand Rapids. When people live in such cramped quarters, studies have shown that there is more domestic abuse, physical abuse, and even sexual abuse that takes place.

What’s the macro answer to the housing dilemma? I am in agreement with Dr. Thomas Sowell that getting rid of zoning laws would help cities and suburbs immensely with its affordable housing problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnj2WRIG11U&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3k3o4KAvZ5dYmwMvCOQ13Z46vo64KSnARRgfZSgy2smDFqtnepKhLOL7w Sowell points to the city of Houston where they’ve dismantled the majority of zoning laws and regulations, especially with land use. They do not nearly have the housing shortage that all other cities in America have and their housing is more affordable, nor is Houston’s housing experiencing a sluggish market. However, most cities have a history of creating strict exclusionary zoning laws (many of which were originally created to keep black people out) that create a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) mentality. It is this same NIMBY mentality that Trump has stoked when he tweeted, “I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood,” “Your housing prices will go up based on the market, and crime will go down. I have rescinded the Obama-Biden AFFH Rule. Enjoy!”

That is why Obama’s AFFH had to come into play. A law had to be enacted to regulate bad laws. It made sure that the zoning laws were being fair and not excluding the poor and people of color. Of course, It makes much more sense to get rid of most of the zoning laws where the AFFH wouldn’t even have been needed, but most Americans want the zoning restrictions to have more sense of control and safety. Trump isn’t lifting the main bad zoning laws that are in place. Only the regulation of the bad zoning laws. This makes the affordable housing problem even more worse for impoverished and working-class minorities. When Trump tweeted this, my heart sank and I cried. This will inevitably make my job even more difficult, with the urban fatherless youth and adults that we disciple. Like I mentioned before, we have actual homeless families and they are on waiting lists for housing. UTM has made business as mission and entrepreneurship as a main priority to help those within our ministry become self-sufficient to provide for their families. Yet how does this happen when Trump’s executive order just made it more difficult to build low-income housing and mixed-use housing in the suburbs where there is actual land to build? How are they to pull themselves out of poverty if they are spending 50-65% of their income on rent? How can they compete to buy a starter house against investors from other parts of the country that are paying cash for these houses in GR? While I don’t think Trump is intentionally trying to hurt minorities, this policy will. And how he phrased it, was a perfect example of fear-based identity politics at its worst. And because the AFFH was intended to make sure that local communities could not use zoning to discriminate against housing for minorities and low-income folks, I think I can be just as confident in saying that this policy will have a negative, far-reaching devastating effect on the working class and poor black folks in our country (among others).

I agree that Grudem made about as good a case as can be made for that perspective. I’m not saying I agree with it, but he made a good argument for that position!

Grudem’s case for Trump is better than other folks such as MacArthur. However, his social solutions are overly simplistic or he doesn’t even acknowledge them. He, being a teacher of Christian ethics (including social ethics) has a better understanding of Theology, History, and Philosophy, but he is sorely lacking in the area of the social sciences, which leads to some overly simplistic social solutions to social problems. For example, he cites Trump’s agenda of providing school choice to address racial inequalities and quality education or tax breaks to help create more good-paying jobs. These are good options, however, they won’t help much if your housing policy is making it more difficult for the working class and poor minorities. If you’re using 50-65% of your income to pay for housing, you don’t have much income to provide for your family.

Paul, great comments on the housing issue. We even have some of those same issues in the Sioux Falls area but to a lesser extent. Since the economy is doing so well, housing prices have shot up. It is kind of a catch 22. Housing is cheap where jobs are scarce and housing is high where jobs are plentiful. These discussions are worth having, but when I look at the alternative party I see policies that will make jobs scarce everywhere. That is a tough trade off to get lower income housing. As far as the suburban zoning, that is something worth lobbying Trump and your elected officials about and making your case. That is why we need elected officials from different regions with different perspectives.

Joel, I appreciate your comments on housing, though I’m not sure I would entirely agree. I just went and watched that Sowell video, and did some more research on the zoning laws in Houston.

Speaking as someone who lives in a subdivision that is within city limits but outside the high-density section of the city, and in a place that would be considered upper-middle income, we have lots of black people and other minorities that live here, and we get along well. What I think most of the people who live in my development wouldn’t want to see is something like this that took place in Houston:

It sounds like you’re saying we’d have to allow things like this to address the housing shortage and disparity problem. Also, I can’t see how putting such housing in the middle of single-family housing would solve the crime issues. When people of similar incomes, housing desires, and life goals live next to one another, there’s much less of a feeling of “they have what I should have” (I’m not saying it’s non-existent, as everyone fights with covetousness), which could lead to theft as “reparations” as at least one of the BLM activists has put it. Human nature doesn’t magically get better just because the surrounding environment has improved.

Further, having had to look for housing in areas where there are a lot of tech jobs (my field), I agree with JD. If housing is in areas where jobs are plentiful, it goes up in price even when it’s not great. I can’t see how building “low-income” housing in the suburbs will make much sense without massive subsidies or laws requiring it.

Most of us on SI don’t have to face the issues you are seeing among your people. I’m not sure what the best way to solve it is. By all means, we could try opening up the laws to let high density housing be built out where there is land. I still can’t see that if it’s quality housing with a good quality of life that it will be affordable for most low-income people. For the prices to come down enough to matter, the supply would have to outstrip the demand by quite a lot, and I think when that situation occurs, there would be other social issues that would arise in that area as well.

Suppose there is such a thing as a candidate too uninformed, immature, divisive, impulsive, dishonest, etc. to be a U.S. President. Suppose a political party, the one you’ve supported all your adult life, nominated and then wholeheartedly backed such ‘leader.’

How should you protest? How could the party be taught a lesson? How could it be encouraged to find and nominate better human beings in the future? How could it be encouraged to look for leaders who can be persuasive of important principles to those who disagree or are undecided?

Suppose also that this party’s ability to offer better solutions and better ideas than the other one over multiple decades is desperately needed for the country to thrive long term… because the other party has so many really, really bad ideas. Does that make any difference?

I wonder if those who plan to vote for Biden, and those who will vote for a third candidate, have been watching the two conventions. I can’t imagine a more clear contrast between the two, nor how a Christian can fail to try to keep one party away from the levers of government, and help the other prevail.

It’s not about a man. It’s about a whole range of important and potentially nation changing issues.

I wonder if those who plan to vote for Biden, and those who will vote for a third candidate, have been watching the two conventions. I can’t imagine a more clear contrast between the two, nor how a Christian can fail to try to keep one party away from the levers of government, and help the other prevail.

It’s not about a man. It’s about a whole range of important and potentially nation changing issues.

We live in very conservative SD where there is a lot of Trump support. Still as I talk to Trump supporters they say things like I plan to vote for him, “but.” In other words they do not just blindly follow him like so many have been accused of.

I am not real familiar with cities larger than 200K people so I have to ask about food deserts and transportation in the suburbs. The inner cities seem to have a lot more public transportation options that would allow low income workers to get to jobs and groceries. What would happen if they got stuck out in a suburb without transportation?

I like what the current administration is doing with opportunity zones that give the potential to revive the existing communities. I also like the deregulation that allows small business owners to compete with the big businesses. The D party wants more regulation that mainly benefits the huge businesses and keeps the mom and pop from competing with them. That hurts poor communities big time.

[Aaron Blumer]

Suppose there is such a thing as a candidate too uninformed, immature, divisive, impulsive, dishonest, etc. to be a U.S. President. Suppose a political party, the one you’ve supported all your adult life, nominated and then wholeheartedly backed such ‘leader.’

How should you protest? How could the party be taught a lesson? How could it be encouraged to find and nominate better human beings in the future? How could it be encouraged to look for leaders who can be persuasive of important principles to those who disagree or are undecided?

Suppose also that this party’s ability to offer better solutions and better ideas than the other one over multiple decades is desperately needed for the country to thrive long term… because the other party has so many really, really bad ideas. Does that make any difference?

Aaron, of those that I know who are Republicans who are voting for Biden, your thoughts reflect their view. They feel that Trump as an individual has stained the Republican Party. It needs to be corrected. It isn’t that these individuals agree with the Democratic worldview, it is that they feel that Biden is not nearly as dangerous as Trump is in the short term, and that in that short term the Republican Party needs to self correct itself. They don’t like abortion, but also feel that no president, including Biden will have an impact to that practice in the next 4 years. They feel that if the party does not self-correct itself that the Republican party will be doomed. They do not believe that the Republican party is dangerous for the country or that the values are wrong, they believe that Trump as an individual is dangerous for this country and for the party, and that while he touts certain wording, he has no values and insteads shifts his stance on wording that resonates with his rabid base that ultimately feeds his highly visible narcistic nature.

I would like to see a list of specific policies that Trump/Republicans have put in place or even proposed that would be dangerous. Joel shared his concerns about housing and Dave shared his reasons why he is not so concerned. I see those sort of discussions as much more profitable than “we don’t think our nation can survive that man” type arguments.

If I lived in a place with housing I could not afford, do you know what I’d do? Move.

Yep. Move.

This housing affordability is why I do not live in Boston, NYC, Houston, NE Virginia, or southern California. Its too expensive, so I don’t live there.

So, rather than living in a shelter, or cramped in too small of quarters, why not move.

Also, there are plenty of “great” jobs I could have if I was willing to live in a car, commuting an hour plus each day. But I am not, so I live in fly-over country.

I wonder what you think happened in 2016. There were tons of candidates all vying for the presidential nomination. There were some big guns: Cruz, Bush 3, Rubio and plenty of others.

Why did they all lose and Trump win? What do you think happened?

Most evangelicals and conservatives did not back Trump until they had no choice. Many didn’t even when he had the nomination wrapped up.

So why did Trump win when there were other “rational” and “moral” men on the ticket?

To answer your question it seems to me we need to know that.

I can give you my answer, but I’d like to hear yours.

More or less, what the Obama housing regulations do is to nationalize housing policy—more or less forcing cities like Dubuque to produce housing for poor people from Chicago. But what if poor Chicagoans don’t want to leave?

Let’s draw a picture here; this is an image of a neighborhood on the South Side of Chicago. The green gaps between homes are where homes used to stand. Here is a similar shot from Gary, one from Detroit (Hamtramck is where the gaps stop), and if you know where the “bad” areas of many cities are, you can find a lot more of them.

Now where am I going here? Simple. There are plenty of places in most cities for affordable housing, if only the basics for building—public safety, basic rules of society, jobs—are in place. I do think Trump’s doing far more to ensure these than Obama did.