Interpreting Trump and the Never or Anti Trumpers

[TylerR]

I’d appreciate your thoughts on Os Guinness’ call for mutual civility in the public square. In the long run, do you believe a mutually escalating war of words and deeds is really the most productive way forward for people, of all faiths and none? Which approach advances the cause of the Gospel?

I can certainly appreciate basic civility, but we need to remember Who cracked the whip at the Temple (twice?), who called the Pharisees “whitewashed tombs”, and the like. Godliness does not necessarily mean being a simpering wimp, hoping that the news cycle finally starts to tell the truth.

To draw a picture, imagine if W. had emphasized the point that primary responsibility for the Katrina disaster resided in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, not Washington DC. That a good chunk of levee money went instead to a casino? That hundreds of buses that could have been used to evacuate residents were allowed to sit idle by the mayor? Imagine if he’d pointed out—giving a nice powerpoint presentation—that most of the left, including editors, had believed that Iraq had WMDs prior to the invasion. Imagine he’d told the “Bush lied—people died” crowd that they get the first hundred times saying that, but after the truth had been pointed out a few dozen times, they were the liars?

We don’t need to get into reckless speech or wanton vulgarities, but we do need to learn from Trump, Grant, and our Savior that there is a time to aggressively present the facts. There is a time to fight.

Regarding Trump specifically, and alleged collusion with Russia, it’s worth mentioning that John Kerry met with the Viet Cong in Paris while the Vietnam War was still going on, and no less than Teddy Kennedy corresponded with the USSR to stop Reagan in 1984. Oh, and remember someone saying he’d have more freedom after he was re-elected. Yes, you’ll see these things in conservative media, but maybe we need to take things up a notch so that even the MSM can’t ignore it anymore.

And the last thing we need to do is to simply accept the word of people like Richard Durbin. He’s got a record. And yes, there are people on the right whose record is not exactly pristine, either, but what that means to me is that we simply don’t go berzerk about everything anyone on either side says. We need to understand the game the left is playing here.

Tyler,

Of course I agree with civility. I practice it. I also realize that when dealing with Caesar, policy trumps civility. If I ever met Trump I would do two things: Give him the gospel and wash his mouth out with soap. Nevertheless, I realize when facing the kind of evil we are facing in our leftist media, educational system, Hollywood, North Korea, Islam, and the socialist-democratic party headed up by Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, I have to side against them and with those who are opposing them. Winston Churchill was a rude, whiskey-drinking, blow-hard in private. Yet, he was the one man that helped save Western Civilization from the goose-stepping socialists in Germany and Italy. Churchill had the moxy and the courage to know what the real evil was in his day and he did not surrender, capitulate, or negotiate with Mussolini or Adolf Hitler. Nevell Chamberlain, the sophisticated gentleman that he was, and his ilk would have surrendered and we would be 70 years into the third Reich. Though I don’t agree with everything in this article, I thought it gave the other viewpoint as opposed the leftist media which we should consider when looking at these things.

Dennis Prager has said as much the same thing as Sayet, yet much more eloquently. Prager University has some interesting articles and videos along these lines. Like Prager I was critical of Trump in the primaries and encouraged people to vote for Ted Cruz. After Cruz lost I was compelled to fight against the Clinton machine and their policies. I voted for Trump. I appreciate his conservative Cabinet choices, his appointment of conservative judges, his knowledge of the real enemies of this country and willingness to fight against them. I appreciate his pro-life position as well.

“That book is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis. It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.”

Mike,

I have to call you out on a flat out lie. Alinsky did not dedicate the book to Lucifer, rather he only acknowledges that within legends and mythologies (Alinsky’s words, not mine) Lucifer was the first known rebel. The most you can read into is that Alinsky believed that the ends justify the means because Lucifer “won his kingdom because of it.” You are parroting Ben Carson and other conservatives by taking a small bit of truth and twisting into a large lie. Do you know that Alisnky time and time again refers to the early church as revolutionary, comparing them to the young radicals of his time and how they turned the social order upside down? Alinsky was a radical idealist who used radical pragmatism including any story, whether it was Lucifer or early church to get his point across.

Also, Alinsky was not a politician, nor was he a socialist/communist either but he was very close to being an anarchist. He hated large government, large corporations, and anything that created power for one class of people. Interestingly, he was one of the War on Poverty’s fiercest opponents, calling it a “prize piece of political pornography.”

By the way, here are few quotes from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that you might agree with:

“To give people help, while denying them a significant part in the action, contributes nothing to the development of the individual. In the deepest sense it is not giving but taking—taking their dignity. Denial of the opportunity for participation is the denial of human dignity and democracy. It will not work.” (Rules for Radicals, 123)

“Believing in people, the radical has the job of organizing them so that they will have the power and opportunity to best meet each unforeseeable future crisis as they move ahead in their eternal search for those values of equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition.” (Rules for Radicals, 11)

From a Biblical standpoint, his unholy radical pragmatism where the end justifies the means in helping the powerless obtain power and his belief that the opposition and/or those in power were “the enemy” to take down flies in the face of Scripture.

By the way, as much as I am in disagreement with Alinsky, you really created a straw man to attack by demonizing Alinsky as one of the worst possible human beings and then linking Rules to Radicals as Obama’s playbook for his entire administration (although I do have to say that Obama used rule #13 frequently). By setting up a straw man to destroy, it allows you to justify Trump’s combative tactics. Here is what I am wondering. Are you not embracing a radical pragmatism (not too far off from Saul Alinsky) where the ends justify the means in the name of winning the culture war in America?

Tyler,

Of course I agree with civility. I practice it. I also realize that when dealing with Caesar, policy trumps civility. If I ever met Trump I would do two things: Give him the gospel and wash his mouth out with soap. Nevertheless, I realize when facing the kind of evil we are facing in our leftist media, educational system, Hollywood, North Korea, Islam, and the socialist-democratic party headed up by Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, I have to side against them and with those who are opposing them. Winston Churchill was a rude, whiskey-drinking, blow-hard in private. Yet, he was the one man that helped save Western Civilization from the goose-stepping socialists in Germany and Italy. Churchill had the moxy and the courage to know what the real evil was in his day and he did not surrender, capitulate, or negotiate with Mussolini or Adolf Hitler. Nevell Chamberlain, the sophisticated gentleman that he was, and his ilk would have surrendered and we would be 70 years into the third Reich. Though I don’t agree with everything in this article, I thought it gave the other viewpoint as opposed to the leftist media which we should consider when looking at these things.

Dennis Prager has said as much the same thing as Sayet, yet much more eloquently. Prager University has some interesting articles and videos along these lines. Like Prager I was critical of Trump in the primaries and encouraged people to vote for Ted Cruz. After Cruz lost I was compelled to fight against the Clinton machine and their policies. I voted for Trump. I appreciate his conservative Cabinet choices, his appointment of conservative judges, his knowledge of the real enemies of this country and willingness to fight against them. I appreciate his pro-life position as well.

Joel, I am not a student of Saul Alinsky. Nor did I write the article. I submitted it because I agreed with a number of points made by the author. Yet, you called me a liar (not the author) on account of something in the article that you either disagreed with or perhaps thought was factually wrong, as if I wrote the article myself. I think that is unfair and uncivil. In the article is the author’s email address. Take up Saul Alinsky with him. Alinsky is ancillary to the main point. A civil person with common decency would have said the author is mistaken. Perhaps he knows more about Alinsky than you do.

Here. So incorrect specifically, but the author did arguably get a bit of truth in there. Here’s a bit more on Alinsky as well, who was a community organizer along with being radical.

Not a politician? Well, he never ran for office as far as I can tell, but can we really separate the work of community organizers from the political process? His career is really a great place for separating accusations of “lie” from “got specific facts wrong”, IMO, as what I’ve seen seems to indicate he thrived on ambiguities like this.

FWIW: Quoted from the Washington Post below (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/hillary-clint…):

First, it is true that, in the front of his book, Alinsky does acknowledge Lucifer in what could be read as a positive way:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

The paragraph is directly attributed to Alinsky. Carson’s implication seems to be that Alinsky speaks favorably about the devil and that makes him toxic for Clinton.

Alinsky was a self-described radical, and this is indeed a provocative statement. It also appears to be something of a one-off; while Alinsky’s book is all about “Rules for Radicals,” he does not go on to further discuss this particular radical — Lucifer — and the example he might provide for other radicals.

Alinsky did offer other provocative comments that have led to of accusations of sympathy for the devil, so to speak. In a 1972 Playboy interview, he said that while he identifies as Jewish, he would choose to go to Hell. “Hell would be heaven for me,” because it was full of “have-nots,” he said. “They’re my kind of people.”

These passages form the basis for accusations that Alinsky was pro-Lucifer or even satanic.

I wasn’t aware you were quoting an article; I thought those were your own comments. I am very relieved, because that didn’t sound like something you’d write.

For anyone who’s reading this:

1. consider all the time you spend defending or advocating President Trump,
2. and then realize you could have been using that time doing something productive, like studying the Bible, playing with your kids or spending time with your spouse,
3. then, go do those things.

The only candidate for high office I particularly care about is Jesus, and there won’t be any allegations of impropriety or “fake news” when He assumes the throne.

The incivility is one thing. It is bad enough. It is not what bothers me here though. What bothers me is the hypocrisy all in the name of trying to win some kind of culture war.
It is things like Adam continually trying to pretend like liberals are big liars while conveniently ignoring the fact that Trump lies multiple times a day and has the credibility of a 4-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. There is no bigger liar on the national stage right now than Donald J. Trump except possibly his minions supporting him.
It is Mike publishing an article with an outright lie in it and then refusing to recant. And then, amazingly, Adam seems to defend the lie by trying to say that even if not dedicated to Lucifer, the guy still liked Lucifer a lot so that means something I guess.

I don’t respect this behavior. I am not the only one.

[Adam Blumer]

FWIW: Quoted from the Washington Post below (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/20/hillary-clinto…):

First, it is true that, in the front of his book, Alinsky does acknowledge Lucifer in what could be read as a positive way:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

The paragraph is directly attributed to Alinsky. Carson’s implication seems to be that Alinsky speaks favorably about the devil and that makes him toxic for Clinton.

Alinsky was a self-described radical, and this is indeed a provocative statement. It also appears to be something of a one-off; while Alinsky’s book is all about “Rules for Radicals,” he does not go on to further discuss this particular radical — Lucifer — and the example he might provide for other radicals.

Alinsky did offer other provocative comments that have led to of accusations of sympathy for the devil, so to speak. In a 1972 Playboy interview, he said that while he identifies as Jewish, he would choose to go to Hell. “Hell would be heaven for me,” because it was full of “have-nots,” he said. “They’re my kind of people.”

These passages form the basis for accusations that Alinsky was pro-Lucifer or even satanic.

If we are going to use your logic, then we can also deduct that he was also pro-Christianity, since several times he also complimented the early church for their revolutionary character and that they were radicals to follow. You can’t cherry-pic what you want from his writings. You actually have to look at his entire body of work and then make your conclusion. He was a radical idealist that utilized unholy radical pragmatism to force change. He was a secularist that wanted no part of God. When it came to God and Satan, he believed they were myths. He wasn’t using the same categories that you are projecting on him. Its really interesting. In my line of work Ive actually dealt with inner-city community organizers for some 26 years and many times I’ve argued against Saul Alinsky’s writings (I’ve actually read Rules for Radicals to understand their worldview). I never dreamed I’d be defending Alinsky. But unfortunately, many here sloppily quote Evan Sayat, Ben Carson and other conservatives (as if they are the experts of someone they don’t really know) that lie and deceive and twist his words and meaning in order to build a straw man argument against Hillary and Obama. There’s enough bad stuff about Hillary and Obama’s policies that you don’t have to resort to the gutter and create conspiracy theories that connect them to the boogie man Saul Alinsky.

Here is Evan Sayet’s column that Mike quoted from. I guess we can make a big deal out of the fact that the praise of Lucifer came in an epilogue and not a dedication, but….seriously? Whether it’s Mike or Evan Sayet, this qualifies as a willful lie? We know that Mr. Sayet knew that it was in the epilogue and not the dedication, but willfully chose to misrepresent it?

And we know that, despite the fact that the implications are the same—Saul Alinsky was either seriously, or humorously/rhetorically, praising no less than Old Scratch himself—that this makes a huge difference to Sayet’s thesis?

When one assumes motives and guilt and refuses to admit that the distinction isn’t that big after all, one ought not be surprised at a toxic rhetorical environment, really. And watching, it ought to cast serious doubt on “fact check” and other claims trying to measure veracity.

Greg,

Enough with the personal attacks upon myself. You don’t agree with the article I posted; that is fine. However, it is not fine to attack my pastorate, my integrity, and my spiritual disposition. Our political viewpoints are likely different. Let’s just leave it at that.

Mike,

So now I realize that you were quoting from Evan Sayat. Therefore, it makes sense now. I apologize for saying that you flat-out lied. Like Tyler, I thought they were your own words. That’s why I mentioned Ben Carson because he used the same argument of linking Hllary to Alinsky at the RNC in 2016.

The Washington Post post is all the Washington Post. All of it. None of it is my ideas. Just so we’re clear. :-)