Skip to main content

No, Trump's Election is Not the Triumph of Evil over Good...

Boy, has it been a week!  If you involve yourself in the world of Facebook or other social media outlets, you have been unable to escape the onslaught of liberal whining and conservative retorting. They're is no shortage of ignorance on either side, I assure you.  Democrats have particularly been lamenting what they think this means for our country, sometimes reaching levels that could rightfully classified as hysteric and depressed.  They're saying that hate has triumphed over love and bigotry over inclusion.  Evil, they assert, has triumphed over good.

Is that really what happened here?  Did a bunch of racists choose Trump because they're racists and he's a racist and they all want racism institutionalized in America again?  Maybe they're homophobic?  Now, there are probably a few rednecks out there that voted that way, but that's not what cost Hillary Clinton the election.  Here's what really happened:

The mediocre triumphed over the inestimably bad.

The greedy was victorious over the demonstrably corrupt.

The adulterer prevailed over the co-conspiring wife of the adulterer.

The businessman bulldozed the politician.

The probably going to ruin our country beat the definitely going to ruin our country.

The maverick defeated the career politician.

The out-of-touch billionaire destroyed the out-of-touch millionaire.

The unpredictable unseated the familiar.

The loose cannon shot down the scripted Washington voice.

The new overcame the establishment.

The reality TV star knocked off the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State.

The "anybody else" bested the Clinton.

Let's be honest with each other for a second.  Hillary Clinton was her own undoing.  She simply could not overcome her well-earned reputation as liar and a crook.  People who hadn't voted in years put on their pants and left the house just to make sure she didn't get in the Oval Office.  Her scandals made Trump's scandals look mundane.  Her disingenuous smile and her condescending glare removed any trust or affection the working man might have had for her.  Her party didn't help themselves any either.  The Democrats' manipulation of the primaries came back to bite them in their proverbial hind end as they put forth the only candidate that had more baggage than Donald Trump.

So this is not about progress or love or inclusion.  This is about a woman who has been embroiled in scandal for three decades, the recent emails being just the latest confirmation of who she had already proven to be.  Americans simply could not stand to put her in the White House.  That's the score of it, folks.  Don't try to make it any more complex than it is.  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more