We need to do a little analysis of what it actually means to be #NeverTrump. This is a political issue, and political issues are always slippery. They are slippery because every night someone comes in and slathers them all over with axle grease, or with money, hard to tell which.
The avowal of #NeverTrump sentiments can be taken as a personal vow or it can be taken as an act of punditry. In the former, the person is saying that there are no circumstances under which he or she will support the Donald. In the latter, the sentiment amounts to a prediction that he will necessarily fail as a candidate and that Hillary is going to be the next president.
The two sentiments can exist together, but the former only becomes really relevant if you think he is viable candidate, one who could actually win. If the election is really close, then the first kind of #NeverTrumpers become relevant. If Trump loses by a hair, then principled conservatives like myself will be blamed for the ascendancy of Hillary. But if Trump goes down in double-digit apocalyptic flames, then he lost because he was a terrible candidate and not because Jonah Goldberg wouldn’t get on board. If Hillary goes down in said flames, then conservatives will have to retire sadly to Babylon and seek the good of the city, wherever and however they can.
The reason for bringing this up is that on various conservative web sites I have seen what I believe to be hard expressions of the second sentiment that are actually driven by personal animus arising from the first. In other words, someone detests what Trump stands for as a candidate, and therefore predicts (in a clear wish fulfillment way) necessary defeat for him. If he is a bad candidate in the first sense, he must be a bad candidate in the second, or so the thinking goes. But deserving to lose and losing really are logically distinct—I make this observation after seven years of Obama, remember.
So Trump is a bad candidate, but this phrase admits of the same two categories. He could be a bad candidate because he will do bad things if elected, or he could be a bad candidate in that he is a candidate who can’t win. I cheerfully grant that he is a bad candidate in the first sense, but I am not at all convinced that Hillary will beat him.
It is often observed that Hillary has been extremely fortunate in who she has to go up against. But that is an edge that cuts in both directions. Hillary is a very poor candidate also, and in this regard Trump is about equally as fortunate as she is.
Moreover, the best weapon that Hillary had available—her willingness to fight dirty—is a weapon that has already been knocked out of her hand. Trump’s past is so openly tawdry that all the weapons that the Clinton machine would pull out to use to destroy any other Republican—and which would in fact destroy any other Republican—are weapons that are completely useless against Trump. Adulterous affairs, strip-club ownership, bankruptcies, court judgments, delinquencies, bombastic lies, marriage to a soft porn model . . . those aren’t bugs. Those are features. It reminds me of George Bernard Shaw’s observation: “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
Now I am not going to be voting for Trump, as I believe I have made plain in the past. But at the same time I think we need to be preparing ourselves for a Trump administration, because I think it is a real possibility. The vindictive denunciations of his disastrous polling performances in mid-August have started to sound pretty hollow as the polls have seriously started to close. And Hillary really does have the capacity to self-destruct—as she appears to be doing. Even though she would have to commit at least three felonies in the course of one of the presidential debates for our leftist media to take serious notice, this is a bar that I think she might be able to clear. She could have a staffer smash some undiscovered Blackberries during the breaks. Either that or have a grand mal seizure during one of her answers, crying out, “Vince Foster!” just before she goes down.
So my opposition to Trump is principled, knowing that he could win. If Hillary wins, she really will face a united opposition. She is despotic and evil, but she would have a fight on her hands. If Trump is elected, he also has that dictatorial bent, but the opposition to him will not be united. It would have to be cobbled together issue-to-issue from the ranks of the Democrats and half the Republicans, and they would share nothing in common. The other half of the Republicans would be thinking that they ought to “go along” because they did endorse Trump after all. You don’t ask a girl to the dance and then not dance with her.
Think of it this way. Suppose Trump is elected, removing the second “bad candidate” categorization. You can no longer reject him as a candidate who “can’t win” if he won the first time. The problem of 2020 immediately arises. What do conservatives in the party do about a second run at the White House by Trump? There will be a primary challenger. Now what?
Because of party discipline, not to mention the long odds involved, there wouldn’t be seventeen candidates like this time. There would likely be only one primary challenger, and what kind of challenger it will be will depend on what faction of the party Trump decides to appease once elected. If he goes hard right on Supreme Court appointments, the challenge will likely come from the Romney wing of the party. If he goes squishy in his SCOTUS moves, then the challenge would likely be from Ted Cruz. If Trump has his wits about him, he will try to nominate Cruz to replace Scalia. If Cruz has his wits about him, he would say no. That is because—given the SCOTUS stakes and how the left will fight—it is not enough for a president simply to nominate a good jurist. He would have to fight for him like it was Ragnarök. Someone like Cruz could in good conscience accept a nomination to the second open seat on the Court, after viewing how Trump fought for his first guy.
And if Hillary wins the presidency, then the race for the Republican nomination will begin almost immediately. There will be a shakeup at the RNC, and a bunch of rule changes will be instituted banning open primaries, along with other measures designed to prevent another seventeen-car demolition derby.
For we will have entered the era of non-stop presidential campaigns.
If Trump indeed wins, which is indeed not implausible, the opposition may well find the campaign isn’t the kind for votes and the war isn’t all angry words anymore.
I’m still up in the air about how or if I should vote in November.
A shirt I saw at the LDR Conference at Covenant Theological Seminary this past weekend, worn by the Special Assistant to the Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary, gave me some food for thought. It said:
DREAM LIKE MARTIN
LEAD LIKE HARRIET
FIGHT LIKE MALCOLM
THINK LIKE GARVEY
WRITE LIKE MAYA
BUILD LIKE MADAM C.J.
SPEAK LIKE FREDERICK
EDUCATE LIKE W.E.B.
BELIEVE LIKE THURGOOD
CHALLENGE LIKE ROSA
https://twitter.com/_PassTheMic/status/772124051531632642
What is Trump not racist enough for you? Since when do you not vote for the KKK candidate?
Trump is definitely not racist enough for me. But we take what we can get.
Putin is more your style – amirite?
Putin’s probably great if you’re Russian. I know you’re obsessed with him but I don’t know much beyond that.
Not sure I have a style, but I do admire Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Hey, can I ask you something? You seem pretty smart, and something’s been bugging me, and I thought maybe you might know:
If gay is the new black, is homo sapiens the new niggardly?
Nah, orange is the new black. Gay is the new woman. White male is the new niggardly.
And sing like the Four Tops! Who is Madam C.J.?
I hate stuff like this. It invites the impulse to parody in people like myself who spend most of their time stifling their wicked impulses.
Float like a butterfly, Sting like a bee, Walk like an Egyptian, Rock you like a hurricane.
And sing like the Four Tops! Who is Madam C.J.? A black woman who invented a line of beauty and hair products for black women, and reportedly was the first woman in America to become a millionaire through her own efforts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_C._J._Walker I hate stuff like this. It invites the impulse to parody in people like myself who spend most of their time stifling their wicked impulses. I think it’s great. White Christians need to know exactly what kind of brave new world they’re building with this racial reconciliation nonsense. Rosa Parks – Communist Martin Luther King – Marxist, wanted… Read more »
I have no idea what is going to happen, but one thing I won’t be doing is sadly retire to Babylon.
If your previous evaluations on the outcome of elections are considered get used to saying president elect Hillary Clinton, because TP doesn’t have a snowballs chance. Then all the old guard conservatives will understand the totality of their failure to the next generation.
Latest Polls: Iowa Trump 44% Clinton 41% Maine Trump 42% Clinton 42% Michigan Trump 42% Clinton 42% New Hampshire Trump 45% Clinton 44% Ohio Trump 46% Clinton 43% Utah Trump 35% Clinton 44% Wisconsin 39% Clinton 39% HIGHLY unusual for a Republican to be running this well against a known Democrat on Labour Day. Also consider the polling has been terribly skewed in Clinton’s favor with unrealistic sampling. Republican running even or slightly behind Democrat means Republican in the lead. Clinton will have to spend time and resources defending States she as a Democrat should already have a lock on–not… Read more »
You are insane. The skewed polling thing is a joke. And Trump is every bit as known as Hillary. Nothing you say makes sense. Trump may win this but he is certainly not in the lead now and there is no evidence that will change any time soon.
I am not insane. I did this work for over 25 years and know what I’m talking about. Most people here are very thoughtful, even brilliant theologians. Even though I am a Catholic I appreciate Pastor Wilson’s thoughts and the posted replies. That said, many, if not most here, don’t know the first thing about electoral politics and how to actually get someone elected in this country. Being an expert in your own political opinions does not make you a good political analyst or strategist. What I said doesn’t make sense to you because you (like most) do not understand… Read more »
What “our leftist media” are you talking about? Hillary’s press has been horrific. For the past month it’s been nothing but her emails and donations to her foundations (all the while ignoring that her foundation, unlike Trump’s, actually does feed the poor and heal the sick). Here’s what I think is the dynamic: Despite a minor (and likely temporary) closing of the polls, every objective indicator is that Hillary is likely to carry 40 states with at least 350 electoral votes. This race is not close. But the media can’t say that, because then people lose interest and their ratings… Read more »
Um, the media that humps Obama’s leg? The media composed of kids who went to J school because they wanted to change the world and were bad at math?
What media that humps Obama’s leg? His coverage has been pretty awful too. Google “does the media treat Obama fairly” and see what pops up.
Frankly, I think the idea of a leftist media is just a figment of conservatives’ imaginations. That way, when it does say something bad about conservatives they can just say, “Oh, there’s that liberal media again.”
I’m afraid liberalism is the ocean you swim in so of course you can’t see it. Or don’t want to.
The idea of “liberal media bias” is pretty misleading, because it implies there could be a different kind of mainstream media — the entire purpose and reason for journalism to exist is to align public opinion with government policy.
Silly me, I thought it was to report the facts.
Report the facts?
Which facts? Whose facts?
History is not a collection of unevaluated data, it is a result of a process of selection and judgement about relevancy.
You’re conflating two issues: Does objective truth exist, and is it possible for imperfect human journalists to get it right. They should at least try to get it right, though I agree they often don’t.
I flat out disagree that the media is the government’s lap dog. There are entirely too many stories that make the government look like complete idiots for me to buy that theory.
I don’t deny that journalists usually say true things. I am pointing out that they choose which things to report, and what facts about them to present, as all historians do.
Furthermore, it doesn’t help to think of “the government” as a single group of people with completely aligned interests and loyalties.
If American journalism was completely incorporated into government as the Ministry of Information its behaviour over the last century would not have been significantly different.
But doesn’t that contradict your earlier statement that “the entire purpose and reason for journalism to exist is to align public opinion with government police”? If “the government” lacks completely aligned interests and loyalties, then how can journalism align public opinion with it?
Distinct interests are not disjoint interests. I recommend this essay (by a non-conservative, non-Christian author, even): http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-liberal.html
Krychek said: “I flat out disagree that the media is the government’s lap dog.”
To the best of my knowledge, no one said the media is the government’s lap dog. However, the media is the propaganda arm of the Democrat party, as I’ve amply demonstrated. Their purpose is to manufacture public support for Democrat policies.
“Why Does the Media Go Easy on Barack Obama?”: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-does-the-media-go-easy-on-barack-obama/272807/ “Pew: Positive media coverage of Obama surged in campaign’s final week”: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/268841-pew-positive-media-coverage-of-obama-surged-in-campaigns-final-week “A majority of American journalists identify themselves as political independents although among those who choose a side Democrats outnumber Republicans four to one…” https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago From discoverthenetworks.org: A useful way of gauging the news media’s political and ideological makeup is to examine what the professionals in that industry believe about a wide array of social, ethical, and political issues. For example, research shows that: · Fully 81% of news media professionals favor affirmative action in employment and academia. ·… Read more »
If the media is that leftist, how do you explain Hillary’s miserable coverage for the last year? If the media doesn’t hate her, they’re sure good at acting like it.
Krychek, that has got to be the weakest response I’ve seen from you. Have you not been paying attention? Or did you not know of the massive 19,000 email dump from Wikileaks this year detailing the high level of collaberation between the DNC and the media? https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ How about some media examples of pro-Hillary bias? “It’s Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin”: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump-putin-nato/492332/ “The Real Winner of the RNC: Vladimir Putin”: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/trump_and_putin_the_real_winner_of_the_rnc_is_the_kremlin.html “Don’t appreciate the significance of Hillary Clinton’s nomination? Too bad. This moment doesn’t belong to you.”: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-woman-for-president-hillary-historic-moment-let-us-celebrate-20160729-snap-story.html “Why Do We Hear More About Hillary’s Emails Than… Read more »
Heh.
“As an admitted Hillary supporter”
Hillary supporter as in “Hurrah for Hillary!” or Hillary supporter as in “What else ya gonna do?”. Just curious.
She was not my first choice. I would have enthusiastically supported Joe Biden or Martin O’Malley or John Hickenlooper. She’s hawkish enough that I worry about her sending us to war again, and I think she’s much too cozy with Wall Street. All that said, I think Trump would be catastrophic. For all her faults she is at least a grown up who understands how to govern, who knows how to get things done, and who doesn’t say something stupid every five minutes. I’m also not convinced she’s as corrupt as the GOP makes out; if she were, I think… Read more »
I think it did. Thanks.
I know folks that know her.
She’s got you snookered.
You know people that know people. Got it.
Just sayin’. It’s a closer relationship than you’ll want to give credit for.
The media definitely leans liberal, not via some nefarious conspiracy but rather through boring old selection effects. That said, the media doesn’t necessarily lean pro-Clinton. They do now because Trump, but Clinton wasn’t much loved in 2008. I agree on the horse race, but have to disagree about lack of bad press for Trump. We hear plenty about his white supremacy and so on, so much so that it has become a constant drone that ceases to have much effect. I think much of the media feels it necessary to constantly bash Trump due to niggling fear that he will… Read more »
Your points are well taken. I would only add that I don’t think Hillary is nearly the leftist that conservatives claim. She’s a war hawk who supported the Iraq war, she’s cozy with wall street. Bernie Sanders did as well as he did because actual leftists know full well she isn’t one of them.
If she actually is elected, I expect her administration to be slightly left of center, but not that much left of center. (Though if the only issues you care about are abortion and gay marriage, I will grant that she is liberal on those issues.)
I’ve entertained the thought that she’s less a predecessor of Obama than she is to Bush the Second.
Oh, in another era, she would have been a Republican, no question about it. In another era, so would I.
Somehow I’m not surprised that Krychek_2 can’t see that the mainstream media is leftist. Recently I happened to hear some political analysts on NPR audibly snickering together over Trump’s lack of foreign policy experience. Somehow I don’t recall this being an issue for Obama. Fortunately, distrust of mainstream media is at a high point. Their failure to do their job has created an outbreak of alternative news sources. While these other sources don’t bother to conceal their biases, and don’t pretend to be neutral, they will at least talk about the elephants in the room. This can sometimes force the… Read more »
H reminds me of a line in a Paul Newman movie. His character says of an opposing lawyer “He’s not so bad.” His friend replies “Not so bad? He’s the prince of darkness!”
Good article, but Cruz has the best chance of any conservative for getting on the Supreme Court. There is an unspoken gentleman’s agreement to vote for fellow senators for cabinet positions, etc, no matter what the party affiliation. And it’s the senators who block Supreme Court nominees.
Cruz probably burnt that chance at the convention.
Well just for the record I can still safely vote for Edward Snowden since trump is polling about 27 percent in this state.
Let’s all vote for Snowden.
Your use of “#NeverTrump” here seems to ignore the fact that it was a slogan originated among Republican neocon pundits who mostly agree with Hillary’s past and present platform. So in origin as well as in current practicality, “#NeverTrump” means “I want Hillary”.
Your opposition to Trump is aesthetic, not principled. He doesn’t fit your image of what a President should look like or sound like. But are you concerned he will betray the platform he’s put forward — or that he’ll adhere to it?
Push.
If a Trump / Clinton contest is the equivalent of a Sennacherib / Jezebel contest,
it seems like Sennacherib is the more instrumental candidate,
not to mention, they both meet a tough end.
Although he did not realize it, Who’s servant was Sennacherib anyway?
Sennacherib got caught between a Nisrok and a hard place.
Jezebel was a baal gal all the way. She became dog food as a result.
Poor girl.
Poor dogs. : – (
1. Those dumb enough to believe tv and paper. 2. Those too comfy in the status quo to want anything done different.
I’m pretty sure you will not be blamed for Trump’s loss, no matter the margin. I can’t imagine what situation would have to occur to make Idaho competitive.
I’d find it easier to believe that Hillary is self-destructing if I had any evidence that the average person cares about this email stuff.
I don’t think RNC rule changes will be aimed primarily at preventing large primary candidate pools (i.e. “seventeen-car demolition derb[ies]”) but rather candidates who aren’t establishment-friendly.
Moreover, the best weapon that Hillary had available—her willingness to fight dirty—is a weapon that has already been knocked out of her hand. Trump’s past is so openly tawdry that all the weapons that the Clinton machine would pull out to use to destroy any other Republican—and which would in fact destroy any other Republican—are weapons that are completely useless against Trump.
So, Cruz was never going to win, and everybody knew it. He’s just to signal our “principled conservatism.”
So what does Doug know about Cruz that we don’t know?
And how long has he known it?
And why is he just now hinting around about it?
And if he knew Cruz never had a chance because of all the sleaze in his background that Hillary would’ve brought up, why was he encouraging people to vote for him?
For starters, Cruz wasn’t even a US citizen until he was 16 years old!
DW: “Someone … [who really is a principled conservative] … could in good conscience accept a nomination to the second open seat on the Court, after viewing how Trump fought for his first guy.” That’s a good point. DW: “Someone like Cruz could in good conscience …” How can one — in good conscience — atribute “good conscience” to Cruz? Cruz is a naturalized US citizen; Cruz *knows* that the US Contitution forbids the US presidency to him. And still he wants it and sought it. ERGO: Cruz is no more a “principled conservative” than Trump is, AND Cruz is… Read more »
“So my opposition to Trump is principled, knowing that he could win. If Hillary wins, she really will face a united opposition. She is despotic and evil, but she would have a fight on her hands. If Trump is elected, he also has that dictatorial bent, but the opposition to him will not be united.” Compare this self-consumed, short-sighted, faux-philosophical pablum with Phyllis Schlafly’s final column: http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-in-mexico-recalls-reagan-in-geneva/ Trump has shown, time and again, solid political instinct and is deeply reflexive toward the concept of American sovereignty–which is what this election is truly about. Conservatives who claim to care about illegal… Read more »
I am still not convinced that Trump is not a plant– a set-up, a fall guy put in the position he is in as the only Republican candidate Hillary could possibly beat. Hillary is evil enough to do it and has the history and the machinery to do it. That, and Trump doesn’t actually look like he is *trying* to win.
I know, I know. It’s all very Jesse Ventura-ish, but still…
LMAO
Capn, what in blue blazes are you talking about?
Did Bill Kristol put you up to this?
You’re right. It’s all too far-fetched to believe. Forget I said anything. Nothing to see here. Go back to your homes and families.
I’m open to conspiracy theories, but this one completely misses observable realities.
You’re absolutely right. No observable realities. No laws broken. We should stop talking about it. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trump-doesnt-want-win-us-election-why-else-would-he-sabotage-his-own-campaign-1574077
If Trump is trying to torpedo his own campaign, he’s absolutely terrible at it. And if you claim that that is purposeful, then you severely overestimate the chances of Johnson, Stein, or McMuffin gaining any meaningful measure of support from those who would jump ship if they saw Trump do any obvious self-sabotaging.
“Trump as plant” is more erotic conservative fan-fiction, analogous to what “The Fifty Shades…” is to the “Twilight” series.
Yeah. It all makes perfect sense when you think about it, Bro. Dweeb. Donald Trump, who even his supporters admit is vain, conceited, arrogant, pompous, and self-centered, and who has plastered his name all over huge buildings, and many different businesses, and his own private jet…only got in this race so he could take a dive for Hillary. Brilliant. Just brilliant. Hey! Now I remember you! You’re the guy who used to run the website TonyaHardingShotJFK.com, which claimed that Tonya Harding was the reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald, and Nancy Kerrigan was JFK reincarnated! http://boingboing.net/2008/09/11/tonya-harding-shot-j.html I thought you looked familiar!… Read more »
LYAO!
Seriously, dude, I think your hat’s too tight.
Seems I really struck a nerve with the eugenics crowd on this one. Thanks for a totally awesome time, dude.
“The only Republican candidate Hillary could possibly beat”? Have you already forgotten Jeb Bush?
Haven’t most people already forgotten Jeb! Bush?
Please clap.
Oooooooo. Yeah, you got me there.
Doug, consider this: You’re a slave on a plantation, and you’re getting to vote between two horrible slave masters, but one is substantially more brutal and dangerous than the other. Let’s suppose that you and one of your intellectual followers, a fellow slave, sit out the “election” because you oppose both slave masters in principle, and once all the votes are tallied up, your preferred candidate is down by one vote. You now have the power, with the help of your loyal acolyte, to bring about the win of the less brutal candidate. Would you still sit it out? I… Read more »
My husband and I have had a similar conversation several times. The question we keep coming back to is what is pleasing to God?
Do we choose Trump because there’s a higher probability that we’ll still be able to attend church, share the Gospel, etc. or do we not vote because neither of the candidates bear the fruit of Christians?
I don’t think it is reasonable in a society such as ours to demand that candidates be professing Christians or to be spiritual in the Christian sense. However once a candidate lays claim to be Christian as a vote-getting strategy, I think he or she opens himself up to additional scrutiny. I believe we have a right to expect a candidate to demonstrate ordinary, decent moral behavior–not to be a notorious liar, not to have a track record of breaking promises or cheating people, and so on. I really don’t foresee that a SCOTUS with Clinton appointments would shut down… Read more »
“If he were truly opposed to gay rights”
He said in a speech that he was for gay rights.
Yes, but hasn’t he also said that when gay rights conflict with religious expression rights, he favors the latter? I have no idea what he actually believes, as opposed to what he says in the moment to the group he is speaking to. But I think that evangelicals who believe he is truly on their side might be in for a shock. His wives couldn’t believe him, his business associates couldn’t believe him–why will it be different for a group for which he has little natural inclination?
“Yes, but hasn’t he also said that when gay rights conflict with religious expression rights, he favors the latter?”
He might have which wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t think any of his pro-evangelicall stuff is anything more than pandering for votes, and while he probably wont champion gay rights I expect he wont offer any resistance to their agenda.
“I don’t think it is reasonable in a society such as ours to demand that candidates be professing Christians or to be spiritual in the Christian sense.” Didn’t it used to be that all presidential candidates professed being Christians? it would have been outrageous if they hadn’t. Even Obama did. Now, we just want them to be decent, whatever that is. To me, this change is horrific. You’re right though, SCOTUS can’t take away what we have willingly given. The majority of churches won’t be closed because they have already welcomed unrepentant gays into the congregation and into the pulpit.… Read more »
Actually, I think it is an improvement that candidates not feel obliged to make false professions. Looking back over some recent presidents, I think we can wonder if their Christianity was like joining the Elks Club. It might be good for votes, but you don’t take it all that seriously. I would much prefer the sincere unbeliever to a person who uses an insincere religious profession to get what he wants.
And I am really troubled by an expectation that a candidate have a Christian faith when we couldn’t care less if he has Christian morals!
“I think we can wonder if their Christianity was like joining the Elks Club.” LOL. You are exactly right. I think the difference was that at least back then the voters could feel that the candidates knew, by their profession of faith, where the moral line in the sand was/is. Now, if candidates no longer need to adhere to the Christian standard, by what standard do we judge their morals? “And I am really troubled by an expectation that a candidate have a Christian faith when we couldn’t care less if he has Christian morals!” That is a problem. I… Read more »
jillybean wrote: Actually, I think it is an improvement that candidates not feel obliged to make false professions. Why is this an improvement? Has jillybean considered why it is that everyone from Obama, to Hillary, to Trump feels obliged to make a Christian profession? Politicians only claim the name of Christ for two reasons. Either they sincerely identify with Christ, or they think it will benefit them politically to say so. If there is any political benefit to falsely profess Christ, then it means that the Christian faith still holds powerful influence in the culture. The day that politicians feel… Read more »
The need to make an insincere profession of faith may indeed say something encouraging about the culture, but I believe it is very damaging to the politician who succumbs to it. It is hard to think of a more monumental loss of personal integrity than falsely professing Christ for political gain. I also think that there is sometimes a tendency to use the term “Christian,” not as informative about someone’s faith or moral principles, but as an affinity label. This candidate is Christian, i.e., he is like us; he is part of our tribe; he is a “real” American. I… Read more »
jillybean wrote:
As long as we understand that an abstracted generic moralism isn’t an end in itself either. Remember that God requires rulers to kiss the Son too, and render homage to Him, or else perish in the way.
The solution to nominalism isn’t indifference.
Glenn Beck, who I pegged as a con artist the first time I ever heard him on the radio, was riding high back in 2010. Now his media empire is falling apart. It’s been in bad shape for at least a couple years, but when he started attacking Trump a year ago the bottom fell out.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/05/fading-glenn-beck-empire-quits-movie-biz.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/03/why-glenn-beck-s-media-empire-is-burning-down.html
I always thought Beck was a con artist too until this election. Con artists do not sacrifice their careers based on principle. Beck has been willing to lose every fan, lots of money, and his media empire to stop trump. That shows that he is not a con artist. Con artists act in their own interest. He is acting in what he believes is the national interest. For the record, I am not a fan of his and rarely listen. But I have grown in my respect for him, Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Jonah Goldberg, and every other conservative who… Read more »
Glenn Beck wouldn’t know a moral conviction if one bit him in the ass. A man who really believed what he claims to believe wouldn’t co-operate with the photographers for magazines and keep acting like an idiot over and over until they got the perfect shot of him making a complete fool of himself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t–31c1d72s&t=1m30s http://media.gq.com/photos/558292471177d66d68d5481d/master/w_800/blogs-the-q-0709_glenn%20beck%5B1%5D.jpg Go back and watch some of the clips when he’d start boo-hooing on his old TV show, and you can see and hear him actually stifling a laugh. Beck has one principle – fleece the white rubes and suckers for all they’re worth. He… Read more »
Listen, I am no Beck fan and I don’t listen to his show or think he is some sort of hero. What I am saying is that Beck has always claimed to be a small government conservative that believes that honor is key to bringing America back. Unlike others who have held that view (Bill Bennet) who inexplicably jumped on the Trump train (Trump is a big government guy who would not know honor if it sat next to him in a limo), Beck actually was principled enough to say “Trump is not the guy.” He did that despite a… Read more »
Beck has always claimed to be a small government conservative that believes that honor is key to bringing America back.
Yeah. Beck’s all about the honor.
Dignity, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t–31c1d72s&t=1m44s
LMAO
Beck has always claimed to be a small government conservative that believes that honor is key to bringing America back.
Yeah, that’s why Beck sells a hipster jacket for $495.
Jeans for $200.
A bottle of shampoo for $80.
And a photo of himself fake crying is a mere $150.
Because Beck’s not in it for the money.
He’s all about the honor.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/1791-supply-denim-glenn-beck
LMAO
I realize that not everyone is able to think clearly and so I am trying to be patient here…. let me try again. Saying what you believe and trying to make a lot of money doing it (selling dumb mugs and etc) is one particular sort of showman. It might be gauche and embarrassing (I agree that Beck’s attempts at selling crap always was clownish). But that is a different sort of problem than the willingness to throw out everything you said you believed in because of pressure from fans. Hannity and Bennett are good examples there. Trump is not… Read more »
By the way, not to defend Beck (not a fan) but the video you showed of him is clearly him goofing around. I found it pleasant and funny and not an indication of faking anything. Maybe you do not understand how humor works. For the record, I agree that Beck is a showman. I think he organizes his show to self promote and as a drama. I don’t like his show as a result. But being a showman is different than being a con artist. One could say that George Whitfield was a bit of a showman. One could say… Read more »
Maybe you do not understand how humor works.
You got me there, bro.
Guilty as charged.
http://i.giphy.com/gawAL8Xum5U3K.gif
Six years ago “racists” were calling Beck a blatant fraud who was trying to control and neuter the Tea Party to make himself rich. They said that eventually whites would wake up, and when they did, that would be all she wrote for Beck’s racket. How right they were.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/glenn-beck-828-rally-the-death-rattle-of-mainstream-conservatism/
His “Racket” is to lose on his fans and lots of money by standing up for principles? What the hell are you talking about?