Post Election Reflections
Image
What a stem winder! Who expected the 2024 elections to turn out this way, but here we are, four weeks later, wondering what happened, why it happened and what it means for the future? Everyone has his own opinions, and mine are no better than yours, but perhaps I may be allowed to express a few thoughts on the matter. I avoided public endorsements before the election, but now that it’s over, I believe it is appropriate to express a few personal observations.
Surprise
Almost no one predicted the decisive victory for Donald Trump and the Republican majority in House and Senate. Why? Pollsters are paid good money to track voters’ intentions so they try hard to get it right. Polling is a business and pollsters need to demonstrate competence if they expect to be hired in the future. News organization and political campaigns seek to understand the mood of voters. News broadcasters don’t enjoy looking like fools the day after the election, and political organizations want to know if their strategies are succeeding so they can adjust accordingly. Pollsters are fairly accurate most of the time, but this time they were caught flat footed. Nearly everybody got it wrong, and some wildly so.
Analysis
But why? Why was this election so difficult to predict? That’s the big question. There are any number of factors, but I think one is the extreme anger directed against Trump and his supporters. When Marti and I visited Maine in 2016 and again in 2020, we saw more signs for Trump than for either Clinton or Biden. Voters proudly declared their support. This year, we saw few Trump signs, perhaps not more than one out of ten for Harris. Seeing the forest of Harris/Walz signs, I turned to Marti and said, “I don’t think Trump can win. He doesn’t have nearly as much support as before.” I was wrong, but where did all the Trump signs go? Myriads who voted for him were unwilling to publicly identify with him, probably because they were cowed by relentless hectoring. The very ones who most loudly mourned the loss of public civility, for which they blame Trump, were themselves guilty of shocking levels of verbal abuse. But when voters walked into the privacy of the voting booth, a majority voted for Trump, perhaps in part to strike a blow at those who lambasted them for eight years. They kept their opinions to themselves, even from pollsters, but they voted in huge numbers and turned what looked like a narrow defeat into a landslide victory. Those who bullied others into silence succeeded in energizing millions of voters eager to express their opinion at the polls where it counts. Bullying generally backfires eventually. Cancel culture may have elected Trump.
Furthermore, voters resented a glaring double standard in both media and government. Serious infractions by Democrats were blithely swept under the rug, but bogus infractions were manufactured against Trump. News organizations who once prided themselves for being even-handed threw pretense of neutrality to the wind as they became propaganda machines determined to defeat Trump. Even NPR, funded in part by taxpayers’ dollars, sounded more like a campaign arm of the Democratic party than a professionally factual news organization. I listen to NPR regularly because it offers quality programs, but I resent my tax dollars being used to support one party’s campaign against another. Don’t think this went unnoticed by voters. Instead of media persuading voters to ditch Trump, I think they induced millions to support him because of blatant unfairness. Voters may have been saying, “Take that, you hypocrites. We don’t like those who are supposed to be neutral taking sides. It isn’t fair, it isn’t right, and I’m voting my disapproval.” Previously unseen levels of shameless bias may have elected Trump.
Trump as a Person
Most Christians realize that Donald Trump is no Christian. His language and lifestyle reveal an unconverted man who needs the saving grace of God, for which many pray. But Christians overwhelmingly voted for Trump, but why?
Who made the rule that Christians are required to vote only for Christians? Opponents of President Trump love to scold Christians for voting for someone who is clearly not a Christian, but that’s beside the point. It’s a red herring calculated to manipulate. The simple truth is that Trump represents many positions which align with a Christian world view. He is not a Christian, but he supports Christian values more-so than his opponent. Since no third-party candidate had a chance to win, there were only two possibilities to become president. Christians, like other citizens, weighed the only realistic choices available and voted for the one they believed most aligned with their values. It’s not that complicated. Far from being mindless lemmings governed by fickle emotions, most Christians evaluated their options and made an intelligent choice. It seems to me that never-Trumpers were more likely to be blinded by emotions. They don’t like Trump, so they refuse to vote for him. Period. End of discussion. However, millions, who don’t care for Trump as a person, weighed the facts and voted based upon which party is most likely to utilize the power of government for good or ill. This is bigger picture voting rather than single issue voting.
Trump as a Politician
Despite his failings as a person, Donald Trump has proved to be a skillful politician. He won by appealing to a wide variety of Americans. Pundits are suggesting a realignment of the two major parties because so many who traditionally voted Democrat crossed over to the other side. Some no doubt voted against progressivism rather than for Donald Trump, but in spite of an inordinately high disapproval rating, Mr. Trump persuaded millions of voters to abandon their previous party and support him. Two weeks after the election, Trump’s favorability rating jumped to a new high. It would be foolish to dismiss the political skills of this man. He knows how to hold attention and communicate clearly, a rare commodity in the world of politics. Imagine how popular he might be if he combined the gentle friendliness of Ronald Reagan with popular political positions.
Trump as an Instrument of God
God is sovereign in all human affairs, and He ordained that Donald Trump would be the next president of the United States. Elections reveal what God is doing. This year, God determined to install an ungodly man who embraces a number of conservative policies. In doing so, He slowed the momentum for unrestricted abortions, in-your-face transgenderism, public flaunting of the rule of law, and a host of other ills that are destroying America. I am under no delusion that all the decisions by President Trump will be principled or wise. I am already concerned by some of his choices for cabinet. But a major shift has taken place and God is the ultimate cause. May He now be pleased to do what is more needed by bringing true revival to our nation. Until that occurs, we will see public policy swing back and forth from left to right and back again, but if revival breaks forth, the moral fabric of our nation will be changed for years to come. Policies change with shifting political winds, but each downward movement usually dips lower than before, and each upward return usually stops short of its previous level. Without spiritual renewal, the overall trend will continue downward. But if God moves in a mighty way, new standards of public righteousness will replace the current moral malaise.
Brethren, let us renew our own commitment to the Word of God, and let us pray that God will spiritually revive thousands of churches and millions of people all across America. “O God to us show mercy and bless us by your grace.”
Greg Barkman 2018 Bio
G. N. Barkman received his BA and MA from BJU and later founded Beacon Baptist Church in Burlington, NC where has pastored since 1973. In addition, Pastor Barkman airs the Beacon Broadcast on twenty radio stations. He and his wife, Marti, have been blessed with four daughters and nine grandchildren.
- 378 views
There may or may not be a ‘counterpoint’ article tomorrow. I had one drafted before I had to leave town for a week, but it seems to be missing now. The hunt is on.
Meanwhile, one point I didn’t comment on in my draft was the ‘surprise.’ The sources I was looking at, had the race really close and KH trending downward the last few weeks, so one thing I didn’t feel was surprise.
Speaking of not-surprising, nobody who reads SI is likely to be surprised that I thought it was a lose-lose election for Christians and American culture in general. There were tradeoffs with both outcomes and the bottom line “score for social good” didn’t look good to me for either candidate.
I’ll stop there so I don’t steal my own thunder—in case I find that counterpoint article draft.
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.
Speaking of not-surprising, nobody who reads SI is likely to be surprised that I thought it was a lose-lose election for Christians and American culture in general.
I get what you are saying, but more and more I am understanding that a win for God may not always look like a win for me. My friend Gerrit helped me to understand that a bit better over 25 years ago when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He knew he was dying, but he was committed to bringing glory to God through his death. He ended up passing away with his children gathered around his bed singing songs of glory to Christ. As I reflect on Gerrit's death, I can say that he did win, because he fulfilled his goal- the goal of bringing glory to God through death. This did not just happen on his death bed, but also in his faithfulness at church and his persistence in discipling me even as his body was dying. He helped me to realize that a win can look different than we might think.
In a way I agree with Aaron. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not a winning plan for those people, but they were a win in demonstrating the power and holiness of God. I am not sure what the days ahead will hold for the USA, but I am confident that God's plans will go forward, and it is my job to glorify him regardless of my personal comfort. That would have been true regardless of who was elected.
Politics jagged is very much a jagged line application.
I think that the politics discussions on this site would benefit from discussions of the difference between the role of the Church, Christians, and government.
This, by Aaron in another thread, is still on my mind:
What do I mean by “vote for the gospel” here? Vote with the goal of helping churches and ministries retain or regain their understanding of what their focus should be in society: effectively adorning (Titus 2:10) and proclaiming the gospel.
The conflation of political tactics, policies, and candidates with Christian belief, practice, and mission is a serious problem.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for on that, but I’ll take a stab at it.
- Christians: We’re here to be stewards of all that we are and have for the glory of God (that is, to “image” Him, demonstrate His character). That has pieces like family, work, community/country, church life. (With intersections and overlaps). “For the glory of God” and “under the Lordship of Christ” are synonymous for believers, though unbelievers also glorify God in lots ways.
- Church: Exists to be the worshipping and disciple making body for Christians. So all it does is for helping Christians be Christians in the world—and to teach the gospel to unbelievers and believers alike.
- Government: Exists to punish evil and reward the good. It’s a common grace in the world.
So, as I see it, the church relates to the world and the government mostly by way of Christians—so, it is mostly indirect. Since local churches are visible social entities, there is direct relationship to the world and the government also, but the mission of the church in the world is not to an aggregate entity like “society” or “culture” or “the world.” We make disciples (individuals) in all the world.
How does all that relate to “politics”? Well, volumes could be (have been) written, but there isn’t anything a Christian is supposed to do in an unchristian or even just secular way, especially at the level of motives, values, principles, and thought process.
Outwardly we might take out the trash exactly the same way as unbelievers in the neighborhood, but we do it in a completely different personal context, with different reasons and ultimate goals. The “why” of everything we do is different as well as a whole lot of the big-picture “what.”
I don’t know if that helps (to explain where I’m coming from).
When it comes to choosing leaders, the love of God and neighbor means we (a) seek to be inwardly and outwardly obedient and (b) do what’s best for everyone. So a lot of the political leader calculation has to hinge on “What’s best for everybody (considering all the ways things can be helpful or harmful and the long term as well as the short term)?” but also “What enhances or harms our ability to be representatives of God and the church in the world?” “Ambassadors for Christ” in Paul’s terms. And then also, apart from all that practical stuff, “What’s good/bad right/wrong in itself, regardless of what we think it will accomplish?”
It’s a huge topic. I can only poke at it a little.
Edit to add: To summarize, a Cristian is 100% of the time all of these things:
- A human
- A Christian
- A citizen/neighbor
- A member of the Body of Christ
There is not really any way to isolate bits of that entirely from the rest when we’re making choices. So our ethical filter includes all of them in one way or another.
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.
[quote]How does all that relate to “politics”? Well, volumes could be (have been) written, but there isn’t anything a Christian is supposed to do in an unchristian or even just secular way, especially at the level of motives, values, principles, and thought process.[/quote]
This is the type of thing I'm talking about. I think we need to discern between the identification of the good and the choice to do identified-good.
For instance, my ophthalmology practice. I know how to take good care of patients. That includes professional training (medical school, residency, and CME) as well as general kindness training (kindergarten and parents). Those things identify the good in my practice. And, in the way I'm discerning it, both of those delineate morally good ways to practice. Especially the first, so let's focus there.
A patient comes in with a retinal artery occlusion. Good medical practice (standard of care) is to send the patient for a stroke work-up. 15 years ago, neither ophthalmologists nor neurologists thought such a work-up was necessary. Now it is accepted standard of care to treat a retinal stroke as a stroke. There is nothing about my Christian walk that tells me the right thing to do. That is science.
My Christian walk comes along and tells me to do what I know is medically right. But my Christian walk does not tell me what is medically right.*
Does that distinction make sense?
-------------------------------
* There might be exceptions. e.g., the "science" of moderate alcohol has varied over the years. It's good for your heart; it's bad for your heart; it increases risk of cancer, etc., etc. The Bible calls wine a blessing, so I believe that when the data is all in, it will be a blessing.
Discussion