Skip to main content

Donald Trump and the State of American Politics

    I recently wrote a blog entitled "Hillary Clinton and the State of American Politics."  In it I wrote of the implications of having a Clinton and a criminal (those words almost seem redundant at this point) as the Democratic front-runner.  In the interest of being balanced, allow me to do the same thing for Donald Trump.  It may sound pretty familiar, as there is little qualitative difference between the two candidates.  Here are 3 implications of the fact that Donald Trump is the presumed candidate for the Republican party.

    Firstly, Americans are pretty dumb.  Pretty much every argument in favor of Trump has a commonsensical rebuttal.  "He's a businessman," they say.  Yeah, he's gone bankrupt multiple times. "He says what he means!" they insist  Yeah, so does my four-year-old.  They fall back on, "He's not part of the establishment."  Right...he has just financially supported the establishment for decades.  I don't want to sound proud and I'm not trying to offend anyone, but this idea that we have to continue choosing either Candidate A or Candidate B does not make us look very smart.  I'm just saying.

   Secondly, it is a sad commentary on the moral state of American people.  The Republicans were always supposed to be the wholesome, conservative party.  They championed the values of the Judeo-Christian worldview--hard work, character, liberty, etc.  They have consistently been identified with family values, the right to life, and the 2nd Amendment.  There has been this meshing of conservative fiscal policies and traditional American Christianity that the Republicans have epitomized.  If anyone was wondering, we can now definitively say that that day has passed.  The party that allegedly represents family values has chosen as its candidate a man who is a known philanderer who has questionable business practices and a potty mouth.  They have chosen a man who, up until this election cycle, made no attempts to seem remotely religious or conservative.  "We're not voting for a pastor," you say.  Well, you are voting for a leader, and if honorable character is not something you want in a leader, then you get what you deserve. Regardless, when the conservative, Christian-friendly party picks Donald Trump, what does that say about the morality of the country as a whole?

    Thirdly, it tells us that people really, really hate the establishment.  When I was given the choice between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, I chose to write in Tim Tebow.  "Tim Tebow?!" you might say. Yes, not only because I felt that a football player with zero political experience would actually do a better job of running this country than the two establishment candidates I was being offered, but especially because I wanted to tell the elite in this country that I've had enough of their crap.  That seems to be the same reasoning that has caused many people to choose Donald Trump.  They would rather watch Trump light the White House on fire than watch another elitist pawn continue our downward progression into economic and social oblivion.  At least Trump would make it interesting! The only problem is that Trump is not nearly as anti-establishment as people think.  Only time will tell, but Trump seems like just another character in the charade that is our political drama.  I don't think he would be any different--certainly not in a good way--than any other candidate, his caustic speech and nontraditional haircut aside.

    Those of us who see the American political landscape for what it is are left trying to figure out how to combat it.  Apathy seems to be the choice of many Millennials.  Third parties seem to be a popular landing spot, as well.  Some of us just sit back and pray.  These options may not seem appealing to others, but they're better than being enslaved.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...