The other day I was—what is the past participle of tweet?—I was twooting about the election, and commented on two possibly inconsistent emotions that were jostling beneath my sternum. You see, I want Hillary to lose in a fireball one hundred yards across, and I want Trump to lose in a fireball fifty yards across.
Both would be bad presidents. But questions immediately arise. How bad? For whom? Where? Why? Someone is going to say that the choice is simple—Hillary would be terrible for Christians, and there is a possibility that Trump wouldn’t be. He certainly promises not to be. But when you have a bad president, you have to reckon with the possibility that treachery is one of the bad possibilities.
Now going into this further would just rehearse my views on #NeverNeither. I don’t agree with those Christians who are going to vote for Trump because they simply cannot handle the idea of Hillary, but I do understand the dilemma. I share the reaction to Hillary, Rod Martin commented on my Facebook thread that there is a difference between Darius and Antiochus Epiphanes. I take the point, although maybe not the spread.
But that is not where I am going this morning. Both parties have nominated terrible candidates, and one of them is going to lose. What is going to happen on the losing side when that happens? If Trump loses, it seems to me that the Republican Party, battered, leaky, and forlorn, will be able to recover. “We were temporarily shanghaied by a non-establishment candidate, everything was crazy for a while, but he lost, and we are not going to do that again.” Those who didn’t jump on the Trump train will be seen as farsighted and statesmanlike—they will likely not be blamed for the Trump loss unless they were actively campaigning against him, and he lost in a squeaker. Say that Trump loses Florida by a hair, and he lost it because of Jeb decided to campaign against him there. This is not likely, and so it is reasonable to surmise that a Trump loss will actually vindicate the non-Trump sentiment in the party.
But a Trump loss does not look nearly as likely as it did a month ago, and the consequences of a loss by the Democrats will be far more serious to them. Hillary is the establishment candidate over there. She has name recognition, mountains of money, a party apparatus totally in her corner, what passes for experience in politics, etc. If she loses to Donald Trump, for the love of Pete, the recriminations will commence immediately, and will come in the form of flaming hailstones from sky, all of them size of softballs. Jim Geraghty of National Review has pointed out, quite rightly, that she will instantly become the most hated figure in American politics. Those on the right have never been able to handle her, those in the Bernie wing of the Democrats already don’t like her, and if she actually loses to someone like Donald “Clown Car” Trump, despite all her advantages, the establishment middle will join in with everyone else, and the whole thing will become a National Festival of Detestation. If you have never visited Recrimination City, especially in the off-season, be sure to pack intelligently.
What everyone already knows (at some level) will become okay to say out loud, and what used to get you shouted down, or to get your mic unplugged, will suddenly be the received wisdom. “Hillary was hopelessly corrupt . . .”
And now she is showing herself fully capable of losing this thing. How bad a candidate she is can be seen in how quickly, how readily, how instantly, people will say that Trump is “acting presidential” when all he did was stay on message for about five days straight. “Give us something, anything,” the public is pleading. “We will drop Hillary like a shot, and we will do it in exchange for the smallest of fig leaves.”
Hillary is doing her part. If she keeps this up, and if Trump shows up at the debates with three heads, and only one of them is drooling, he should take it away.
She really is falling apart in remarkable ways. In a masterpiece of bad timing, any number of things are becoming visible to the public in the months running up to the election. In the sewage lagoon that is the Clinton enterprise, you never want too many things floating at the same time, and yet, here they all are. We see the Clinton Foundation corruptions, we see the secret and then deleted emails, we see close associates pleading the Fifth, we see Hillary wearing anti-seizure glasses and having seizures anyway, we see Madame Secretary’s Middle East in flames, and ongoing terrorism starting to take root here.
And so let me finish with that. We have just had a rash of terrorist incidents, and the Democrats have responded reflexively—let us call it their problem of automatic Ahmed tolerance. Dahir Ahmed Adan has been identified as the St. Cloud mall stabber, and Ahmed Khan Rahami is apparently the Chelsea bomber. The governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, took the opportunity to encourage people who were not sufficiently welcoming of future Ahmeds to go find another state to live in. If you don’t like the mass immigration of Somalis into Minnesota, then you are the one who needs to pack up and move out. “Go live with people who are your kind.” And I can’t imagine a faster, more efficient way to put Minnesota in play for Donald Trump.
But it is a binary choice and we cannot opt out–or am I missing something? You don’t have to like driving into the cliff face on the right to prefer that over driving off the 1000′ drop on the left. As for hoping the Republican party loses, repents, and becomes Truly Conservative, hah. If that worked we’d be there already.
It’s only a binary choice if everyone keeps believing it’s only a binary choice. Duverger’s law describes a phenomenon that exists. It does not mandate that it must be so.
So…….. Do we write in Homer Simpson?????
One Homer per election is sufficient.
D’oh!!
Mickey Mouse because at least he is always nice. Black, too.
Shirtless, though. And I never trust a man who regularly wears shorts.
Black mice matter!????
It’s also physically possible to stand a pencil upright on its point. But some equilibria are stable and others aren’t.
Evan McMullin wishes you Eid Mubarak, ashv, and you too, somethingclever
Not a McMullin fan. Wasn’t Eid al-Fitr in July this year? I’d rather be wished Eid Mubarak than Happy Holidays.
Heh, Muslims appear to prefer pressure cookers for the preparation of their holiday fare.
“Happy Holidays” is far better. It at least means the transformation isn’t complete, yet.
I’d rather everyone’s cards are on the table. Happy Holidays lets us all hide.
“Eid Mubarak” gives us something to hide from.
That ship has already sailed, if you’re the hiding sort.
oooooh… now I think I get where you’re going
I took your “I’d rather everyone’s cards are on the table” as saying that you’d like to have everyone’s holiday cards on the table as decoration. But you meant it so that everyone knows who everyone is. I gotcha
But forreal. Third party is completely unrealistic this round, if you’re thinking we could possibly get anything other than a D or an R for these next 4 years.
Especially when old Republican regime guys try to throw up people like David French or, as I pointed out, Egg McMuffin as alternative choices.
And aside from McMullin being completely irrelevant and unknown, who would want a soft Mormon who wishes “Eid Mubarak” to those who contribute to the destruction of our civilization if he actually had been a real player?
If the outcome of a falling pencil were as disastrous as the outcome of believing in only two parties, I would work pretty hard to balance that pencil. In this case, it’s actually much easier. Instead of spending all of our time reinforcing the misinformation that this is a choice between two parties, we could not do that.
Incentives matter.
Of course they do. That’s the difference between a vote and a pencil. The pencil has no incentive.
To put it another way: the law of gravity describes a phenomenon that exists, it doesn’t mandate that it must be so.
Even the effects of gravity can be overcome. So too Duverger’s law.
Sure. Preferably by getting rid of voting altogether.
Shall we go all the way back to warlords, something in-between, or something novel?
“All the way back”? Was Abraham a warlord?
There’s a lot of worthwhile models and examples to learn from outside of liberal democracy.
Yes, I’d say he was. He had military might and operated autonomously within a local geographic context. See, for instance, his rescue of Lot. He pulls 300 trained men born to him to fight. That he was a good warlord (in most cases) doesn’t make him less of a warlord. It just means you can be a warlord and be (mostly) good.
If a third party wins it kills and eats one of the two parties and then you’re back to two. We could stand a reset on both our parties but I don’t see viable replacements at hand.
The phenomenon you describe only operates that because people believe they have more to gain by having a voice in a winning election than in a losing one, regardless of whether the candidate they elect agrees with them or not. That is a state of affairs that is violable.
I don’t think so. I almost never vote for the winner, especially in my blue blue state.
If I’m already voting for a loser, I might as well vote for one I agree with.
Sometimes when you win, you actually lose. A Trump presidency will create an instant backlash, reinvigorate the Left and provide them with vast right wing boogeyman they need in order to build their entire ideology and rally support. Without that boogeyman they have nothing to rebel against.
Sadly, a Clinton presidency will probably not do the same for the Right, because they always seem to have a complete inability to learn from their mistakes. The Right will not rebuild itself. So either way, the country turns Left.
I think there’s another possibility for the democrats. If Trump wins and starts undoing some of Obama’s work, they will spend the next 8 years in a defensive position, scrambling to hold their political real estate. If Trump wins by a landslide then it will be because many democrats voted for him, probably because they are tired of being lied to, just like the republican base. In other words, the only ones left will already be radicals, so there will be no one to invigorate. If Clinton wins, what will happen to the right is less clear. I don’t think… Read more »
“If Trump wins and starts undoing some of Obama’s work..”
Well, as lovely as that thought is, I don’t think it’s realistic. There is very little Trump will have the power to undo. There really are no do-overs.
As far as going to Congress and undoing legislation, I agree. However he can do quite a bit. Undoing Obama’s executive orders for one. Appointing conservative, constitutional Supreme Court judges is another. Blocking legislation is a third.
The left has been on the offensive for quite a while, and I think they have forgotten how to play defense, mostly because they didn’t think they would ever have to again. They are going to be a mess. I’m not gloating here, just observing.
The left is a mess now!????
:) True. But they will look back on the Obama years as the salad days in another four years. These last 8 years, black groups have been overflowing with funding, and have been absolutely unwilling to share the money with whites. When the funding dries up, there will be in-fighting so heinous that WWF wrestling will seem tame in comparison.
Where has the funding come from? I’m not familiar with this.
Hey jillybean, It appears to be coming from the Obama administration. I don’t know the way it’s being handed out though. I know this only because I do transcription for pin money, and I got several files that were research interviews with SJW organizations. They, whites, were complaining about this very thing, that blacks SJW’s were getting the majority of the government funding, and they weren’t sharing. It was weird to see that there are levels of victimhood even with in the greater victimhood funding structure. Very fractal-like. That’s anecdotal of course, but it was authentic, so I give it… Read more »
That’s really interesting. Nothing like infighting among the comrades.
It’s been really interesting transcribing political conversations that aren’t intended for the public. Sometimes disheartening, but certainly eye opening too.
I figure that this whole victimhood olympics is actually a game that they play with each other.
Like the Calvinball version of Bingo.
I actually thought for a moment there was a Calvinist version of Bingo. I thought maybe Calvinists play some reformed version of Bingo while drinking beer. :)
I figured it out though. It’s a good analogy except that Calvin is a lot cuter than most lefties.
Identity politics eats its own children in the scramble for class privilege. It’s only capable of dividing and destroying unity. It doesn’t unite across classes.
The Gospel constructively unites across classes, and this is a feature that identity politics will never have.
Yes! That’s why I get frustrated when folks divide the church into the liberal church or the conservative church or the evangelical church or … We are falling into the trap of division/pride/identity politics. Christ created ONE church with ONE gospel and ONE Lord. How easy it is to forget.
I should like very much to believe you, but to me it seems as if the Left has made a career out of playing defense. As usual, they may be a mess, but being a mess is what they are experts at. So even if Trump where to come in with a desire to block legislation and over throw executive orders, he’s going to be blocked on all sides and rendered pretty powerless. That might be a good thing,our country tends to do best when we’re locked down in a stalemate.
I think the left has made a career out of pretending to play defense because they are professional victims. I agree that all sides will try to block Trump, and it may be a good thing. I don’t think that will happen though. It really depends on the republicans. If they decide to pretend they are actually conservative, he will get things done. If they throw all pretense to the wind, then he’s going to have a real battle.
“The Right will not rebuild itself.” This is because the establishment GOP is just another set of — pardon the expression — northeastern Yankee liberals. The McConnell/Ryan faux conservatives have long shown themselves to be a wedge of the same liberal pie. It’s just that THEY want to be in charge rather than those other guys in that wedge over there. But there’s no foundational difference between statism of a Ryan hue and statism of a Clinton hue. Both factions can see no reason, on principle, why they should ever be prevented from using the government as an instrument for… Read more »
What if they held an election where both candidates were masquerading as angels of light?
There is one good thing about this election compared to the last Canadian one. No one is talking about the spectacular abs of one of the candidates, or debating whether his incredibly gorgeous hair gives him an unfair advantage over the other one.
jillybean wrote:
Is jillybean trying to say that Trump’s hair doesn’t give him an unfair advantage?
As I have said before, there is a difference between Sennacherib and Jezebel too!
On the plus side, their ends both had a nice symmetry!????
Presidents are one thing, but still, Who is Lord?????????????
I rarely disagree with you, Doug, but since I am a native Minnesotan and have first-hand experience, I can tell you that you’re not entirely right. Yes, some of us were flabbergasted by Dayton’s comments, but the rank-and-file liberals that make up the majority of the state went along calmly carting yet another hot-dish off to the potluck with nary a worry about the whole situation lest they be accused of not being “Minnesota nice.” That having been said, a few of us clandestine conservatives (and you must be clandestine to be conservative in Minnesota) have duly noted Dayton’s comments… Read more »
Yes, that’s what I see too from studying Minnesota. At least you still have that 1% possibility to ponder. Last time I checked Trump was polling about 17% in this state. Many people on the right side of the aisle vastly over estimate Trump’s appeal to moderates, independents, and Democrats.
Cap’n, as a fellow Minnesotan I have to go along with you on this one. What hope is there for anything but a Hilary turnout from a state so asleep that they elected Dayton, not once or even twice but three times (once as senator and twice as governor), someone with admitted psychological problems severe enough to require meds that keep him from voicing two cogent thoughts in a row solely because he sports the initials DFL behind his name. The cities vote DFL because the D for “Democrat” stands for “depravity” for all and handouts for those who “don’t”… Read more »
Indeed, good sir. Indeed.
I would be intensely pleased if the northern half of the state would secede from the Metroplex and invite conservatives to populate the place. They could call it “Up North” and we’d all make a living gathering nuts and berries and fishing. John Lennon songs and man buns would be outlawed. Elected officials, from dog-catcher on up, would serve a maximum of two years in any given lifetime. Using the phrase “I am offended by…” in an attempt to create any legislation whatsoever would be a capital offense.
While that sounds great, it would have to be preceded by an invasion and hostile takeover of the native population of “Up North” much as Israel entering the promised land. I happened to be up on the Iron Range a week or so back, and it was striking how many yards had “I Support Mining” signs right next to their DFL political signs. That would be like seeing a “Amnesty for all Illegals” sign next to a Trump for President sign, but the present inhabitants of “Up North” don’t seem to see the irony, so they will continue to vote… Read more »
War is unnecessary if you bring enough money, as the latter part of your post shows. They support both mining and Democrats for economic reasons.
The first time I saw the image in this post, it was on an ad for a Christian school with the caption “Learning doesn’t have to hurt”.
Tell that to the nuns.
I remember when I was little going to a Catholic friend’s house to play. She wanted to play school and be the teacher. I remember she asked me, the class, a question. I told her an answer, and she replied, “That’s wrong. You’re going to hell!” I’ve been afraid of nuns ever since, flying or otherwise.
That’s one of the best I’ve ever heard! There is no question that nuns could be scary. But, when I look back, I have to admit some virtues. They never assumed for one minute that a child was too poor, too dumb, or too troubled to learn to read fluently and write correctly. They flat out rejected the notion that a minority kid should learn woodworking rather than Shakespeare. And they taught generations of Catholic children that life is tough, suffering is inevitable, and courage is not an optional virtue.
My dad tells me a story, context is fading, where the administrative Nun’s nick name was “Atilla the Nun”!????
Sounded like it was unwise to mess with “Atilla the Nun”!????????
Let alone Sister Holy Cross. Rarely holy and inevitably cross.
Sister Wholly Cross?
“I was tweeting” or “I twote.”
Twothe the Raven, nevermore!????
I don’t think we really want to go with that declension.
I will be visiting the U.S. from Canada for the month of November. I am sure it will be the “greatest show on earth” no matter who wins (not that Canadian politics are any better).
I hope you have a lovely time. Can I ask where in Canada you come from? And is the dollar ever going to recover in my lifetime?
I live in Ontario about 110 Kms East of Toronto, Kathleen Wynne is premiere and has been pushing her LBGT social engineering agenda since she came to power. I don’t think the Canadian dollar is going to be strong for a number of years, Liberal Government, federal and provincial and the spending sprees they go on are hurting the economy. I understand the delemma that Christian voters face in the U.S., follow the news and enjoy Pastor Doug’s blog. If I wasn’t a Christian (born again) it would be easy to get depressed over the state of things North and… Read more »
I still miss Canada, especially at this time of year. I was born in Ontario but grew up in BC. But I did not like my Canadian bank account losing 35% of its value overnight!
I was actually born in Northern Ireland and moved to Canada in 1967. North American politics are quite tame compared to what I grew up with in Ulster. As far as money goes I was in Ireland in the spring of this year and the cost of things was just about double what I would pay in Canada. So I have no right to complain but still like those American prices when we go South even with the exchange.
Doug, I appreciate that you are trying to sort out our troubling circumstances from a Godly point of view. It is an honorable endeavor. The problem with this approach is that it is not the circumstances with which we are faced that we need to change. Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump are symptoms and not causes. The problem is that we are trying to manipulate our secular system of government to our favor, rather than working toward building a proper theonomic one. Several of your posters here have asked about the sin from which we need to collectively repent. If… Read more »
The GOP shot itself in the head with McCain and Romney. Trump, win or lose, is the death of the GOP. And good riddance. The so called conservatives have conserved nothing in my lifetime. We’ve got more bloated bureaucracy, more programs, debt, and dead soldiers, and most of it under Republican presidents. Yes, the Democrats are worse, but at least their honest. They want to shoot you in the face, Republicans stab you in the back. Time to found something new. Something effective.
“The GOP shot itself in the head with McCain and Romney.” And Dole and both Bushes.
You are probably too young to remember, but what did you think of Goldwater?
Good candidate from my limited knowledge, though he was a typical GOP war hawk.
Government bureaucracies and programs aside, in terms of just winning, Republicans never had the black vote after Goldwater. If anyone could be said to have been the death of the Republican party – again, in terms of winning – Goldwater would have to be on that short list. I’ve heard a lot of talk of the same thing happening with the hispanic vote due to Trump. Time will tell, but if that turns out to be the case, the Republican party will join the Dodo.
Yes. How could I forget that.
and Lincoln
Fairly certain there was outside help on that one.
Pastor Wilson is right that we would be foolish to try and short-circuit the judgment of God on our nation by somehow thinking ahead five moves in our voting, as if that were possible. But I think he has failed to identify what the short-circuiting actually is here. In other words, voting for Trump to avoid Hilary is not doing the above, while opting out of the choice altogether most certainly is. If it is our God-appointed duty to vote when the candidates are both palatable (or when even one is palatable), and if the judgment of God is giving… Read more »
To clarify, I know that 1 Samuel 8 was not a choice between two people, but if it had been, it would still have been the Israelites’ duty to not agitate for a king, but rather to follow God.***
“Pastor Wilson is right that we would be foolish to try and short-circuit the judgment of God on our nation by somehow thinking ahead five moves in our voting, as if that were possible.” and
“In other words, voting for Trump to avoid Hilary is not doing the above, while opting out of the choice altogether most certainly is.”
Interesting. Can you explain how not voting is an attempt short-circuit God’s judgment? I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Thanks.
Darn it.
I was hoping Doug would use the F word today, but I’m out of luck.
I’m glad I can always count on you to elevate the tone of the general discourse!
Pastor Wilson did say ‘fig’, which is a mighty fine cuss word down south.
“what is the past participle of tweet?”
Umm, wasting time?
“A Trump loss doesn’t look as likely as it did a month ago.” To be clear, Trump is losing in the RCP polling average. He had his best week and Hillary had her worst…. and he is still losing. Will next week be so bad for Hillary? Will next week be so good for Trump? I doubt it. Usually this sort of thing goes in waves and the chances of Trump having continuous good weeks and Hillary having continuous bad weeks moving forward seems sort of crazy to me. And even if that does happen, thus far Trump’s good weeks… Read more »
I’ll have what he’s having.
HI Ashv, I know you have an aversion to facts but everything I wrote is absolutely true. RealClearPolitics polling average has Trump behind all this week. He is now behind by 1.3% and only getting 44% of the vote. He has been behind consistently since the conventions. And yes, a NBC poll came out today showing him down 5%.
I’m not disputing your numbers, just your last line.
Every single other republican running was polling higher than Trump. Trump has been a trainwreck throughout. Hillary has been basically found guilty of lying to the feds, has a loud yell-prone voice, has had serious health problems, is hated by her own base, and is STILL BEATING TRUMP! What the hell more proof do you need that you chose the worst possible person to run against her. You chose the person who polled dead last and, surprise surprise, he is now losing (despite the fact that the democrats have tried to give this one away). Remember when Trump told his… Read more »
I didn’t vote in the primary.
You still don’t get it. What Trump will do once in office will be beneficial, but he’s already done us great service by destroying conservatism and the Republican party.
The GOP is dead! Long live the king!
Trump is your king. You would carry his bags for him if he asked you to.
To the end of the earth till the end of time!
Why do you say conservationism when you mean liberal? You gay dude you.
All about targeting the faggots eh, liberal?
Yeah, I targeted the faggots today. It was beautiful fall weather so I gayly went into my yard and picked up a bunch of faggots. And right there in my yard I was overcome by emotion and with my faggots held close to my chest, I thought what a gay liberal I am! I thanked God for the gay marriage he gave me and for my gay kids. And then I walked gayly into the house and wrote some liberal stuff on the internet.
Boy, I hope everyone follows ashv in his insistence on using 19th century definitions or that comment could be pretty awkward.
Well, you made me laugh.
He doesn’t use 19th century definitions. He uses private definitions.
As I’m sure you’re aware, progressives and conservatives are both in the leftist tradition of liberalism, “classical” or otherwise. The time has come for Christians to reject the apparent choice between two flavours of false religion.
Still insisting on old definitions? Of course you are you. Have a gay day.
I insist because today’s conservative is the liberal of one or two generations ago. Conservatives name their opponents “liberals” in order to deceive, hiding the fact that they themselves are at fault for the leftward slide of social norms into the abyss. The leftist warrior for Temperance and Women’s Votes or Social Justice and Human Rights may be a principled though mistaken person — but the conservative is a contemptible preserver of the wicked status quo, and has been for nigh unto two centuries. Consider that it may be that craven mindset that God has judged by sending us a… Read more »
So, when I say conservative. I mean the following two things (and I think most people mean the same):
– Socially conservative (pro life and traditional marriage)
– Small local government with a free market
Do you disagree with these two things? Which do you view as opposed to God?
19th-century liberals were in favour of all these things. Do you favour or oppose women’s suffrage? Do you favour or oppose tariffs and immigration restrictions?
I don’t have a moral commitment to a “free market”, which is a very elastic term that no two people have quite the same definition of. Certainly I accept the basic economic understanding of how trade assists in producing wealth, but I don’t believe that maximising economic efficiency is the only reasonable policy a ruler can pursue.
I don’t care about government “size”, I care about quality.
Well, guess what? I agree with 19th century liberalism! I am a 19th century liberal. Which……. we call a conservative. I think conservationism (or 19th cenutry liberalism) is a good thing. I think that large governments are stupid and anti biblical. I think that 19th century liberalism is Godly and biblical. I think you sin by opposing 19th century liberalism. As far as your specifics. Women’s suffrage? If I could make the rules, I would make it a landowners household vote (one vote per landowner) but I am not in charge and I think we need to work with what… Read more »
Thanks for coming clean. I know for certain whose side you’re on now. Remember this when gay marriage is a conservative value in a few years.
(Trump isn’t a solution to America’s problems. A tourniquet isn’t a solution for a missing limb, either.)
Women’s suffrage was a mistake. I agree with you that it should be landowners who vote, but I would change your wording from household to head of household. Allowing women to vote was another step in the destruction of the family.
I would agree with head of household. But let us all be realistic. Our culture and nation are not anywhere near in a place to change who gets to vote right now. If that is our issue, we might as well quit everything else.
Trump, by the way, is very pro suffrage. He is also proabortion. He is also pro gay marriage.
JL, could you explain why you think women should not have the vote?
Because giving women the vote was the greatest single contributor to what is presently destroying our nation and the other Western nations.
I can understand why, looking back, you might conclude that. But, if you were considering the question theoretically, before women did get the vote, what would have been your reasons for opposing it? I suppose I want to know if your reasons derive from St. Paul’s teachings or from a particular view of women or both?
Jill, I am uncertain what I think about this but consider this as an important consideration.
Voting is a statistical event. Therefore what any one individual votes is less important than what groups vote for.
One needs to consider what do women as a group tend to value? Do they vote in the best interest (on mass) for the country? for everyone? for their families? for liberty? for security?
I appreciate that. But one encounters an immediate problem when one considers the characteristics of voting blocs. Do young men between the ages of 18 and 30, who are not enrolled in the military, vote for the good of their country? Do seniors vote for their country’s welfare if their benefits are at stake? My father believed that the vote should be restricted to men with an aristocratic or gentry background who had inherited wealth. He believed that self-made men would vote for their own interests, and that only the aristocracy or landed gentry had enough understanding of tradition and… Read more »
Yes, but those other blocs may not be so likely to do so as women.
Further, I would restrict voting to those over the age of 30. And to citizens, possibly to citizens from birth.
Please don’t do that. Otherwise my dogged attempt to become a U.S. citizen before the next election cycle will be wasted. I dream that by then there will be at least one candidate whom I can respect.
Well I have no influence in the US. Nor here actually.
Hey jilly, This was an understanding that took a while, and I’m not sure I can explain it well. Scripture for consideration: Paul talks about the way husbands should treat wives and how wives should treat husbands in Ephesians 5. He says that the men are the head of the wives, and also the head of the household. Torah talks about how if a woman makes an oath, her husband or father can override it, but the reverse isn’t true. The whole garden story. Authority is the underlying theme, in this case specifically authority in the household. When the order… Read more »
Thank you!
How much land, and what kind?
I would say actual dirt, enough for a dwelling. I’m trying to let Scripture be the guide, but they didn’t have the complexity of living arrangements that we do. For example, what would we do with condos and mortgages? I think the point is that there is a difference in mindset between owners of land and transient renters. I also have to say head of household could be a woman, if the husband dies or she inherits her father’s home and doesn’t marry. Lydia in Acts 16, for example, although I don’t know why she was the head of her… Read more »
“I’m trying to let Scripture be the guide, but they didn’t have the complexity of living arrangements that we do.”
Nor did they have voting. I’m not sure how much guidance Scripture will provide.
I’d offer up the observation that not all renters are transient, and hypothetically a renter could command greater wealth, pay more taxes, or hold greater responsibility than many landowners. What then?
I know! Scripture does not have an obvious solution, although I know it’s in there somewhere. It’s true that many renters aren’t transient. Having lived in NYC I know that’s true. However, I still would say only those who own land would be eligible to vote, if I were queen for a day :) I would let the ownership of land drive people’s choices. Those who wanted a say in the way the government is run could buy land/condo. Think of how that would change the demographics of the country. It would possibly drive people out of the cities and… Read more »
Rather than a land requirement (which can be easily worked around through joint land ownership coops), I’ve heard a proposal that voters are those heads of households that have a net payment of federal income tax for federal elections, and a net payment of state income tax for state elections/referendums, during that election cycle. It’s an interesting idea, that those households actually paying into the system have the voice in how the money is spent. Those that do not pay into the system do not get to collectivize against those who do. A skeptic might call this “pay to play”,… Read more »
For that to be feasible one thing we would need is a simpler tax code the than the one we have now.
I’d prefer a rational approach, like limiting voters to adults who have a high school diploma and have passed a citizenship test. I’d guess a high proportion of people who cannot qualify and/or don’t care to try are going to be people who don’t own land and don’t pay net taxes.
Do you think this was inevitable? If women had turned out, by and large, to be very conservative voters, would you still think their voting was destructive to the family?
See my note below, but yes, even conservative voters would have still been destructive. My father was liberal and my mother conservative, and I saw the imbalance it caused every election year. :)
I do think it was inevitable. Back in the 1800s when women started using active birth control things were already changing within the household, but I don’t know if that was the beginning or not.
Did you ever read “Propaganda” by Edward Bernays? For some reason that book comes to mind as a good explanation of how things like women’s suffrage become populist movements.
Not to mention that Bernays was almost single-handedly responsible for getting women to smoke cigarettes in the early 20th century — see the documentary “Century of the Self” (or read this article about it: https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/democracy-and-the-occult-arts/ )
Sad to say, but yes.
I don’t want to seem as if I am cross-examining you, but I am really interested in understanding the thinking behind this viewpoint. I am familiar with some of the arguments presented at the time, primarily in Britain, and I don’t know if there are new ones. The ones I have heard are these: 1. Women are most lovely, most adorable, when they confine their interests to the domestic sphere. A related argument is that women’s purity must not be sullied by the corrupt and hurley-burley political world. 2. Women show less ability to grasp rational principles, to understand foreign… Read more »
jillybean wrote: 4. Women will use the vote to support policies that decrease their dependence on fathers and husbands. Rejection of dependence is a big one, but there is also another, less sinister, motive. Women are naturally inclined for compassion, and for meeting needs. This is not a bug, it is a feature. We need a motherly institution in a well ordered society. God gave us one, in the form of His Church. Unfortunately, by investing this role in the sword-bearing State, the Church has been gutted of its rightful sphere. Even with the best of intentions and instincts, many… Read more »
I think that is true. When I apply the usual stated reasons to myself, that is the only one that carries the ring of truth. If I can’t get past a New Yorker ad which asks me “Will you save Ming Lee or will you turn the page?” it is quite likely that I vote my sympathies. In former days, women were kept off juries because they were seen as unlikely to vote for a death sentence. I understand that completely, because neither could I. But women have changed, perhaps drastically, and I am not sure if younger women resemble… Read more »
jillybean wrote: But, even given what I agree is a natural instinct, can its influence not be mitigated by education? Perhaps I didn’t express myself strongly enough. Why would I want to mitigate a woman’s natural, compassionate instincts? I would sooner clip the wing feathers off of a bird. Compassion in a woman is a reflection of God’s gracious design and intent for her. In its proper setting, it is a blessing from God to women, and through them to all mankind. It appears that women are drawn into the realm of sword-bearing politics, not because of natural inclination to… Read more »
I did understand that what was formerly believed by all to be an innately feminine trait is not something you wish to lose. Nor do I, but I think it might be a lost cause. I was thinking about something earlier in reference to our discussion. You probably don’t know that Canada recently changed the words of its national anthem to correct the abhorrent phrase “true patriot love in all thy sons command.” Now it is “true patriot love in all of us command.” Which sounds dreadful. But I often wonder what would be said if the average Canadian had… Read more »
In Dabney’s words, “conservatism is the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition”. Conservatism has conserved nothing.
There’s never been a better time to learn about the wealth of non-leftist political thought in Christian Europe. You might want to acquaint yourself with it before damning everyone who rejects liberal democracy.
I love that the dumbest guy in the room thinks he has something to teach everyone.
Do you mean dumb-foolish or dumb-unintelligent because ashv is by no means unintelligent.
Both. I think he is not very intelligent and he is more than a little foolish.
Why do you keep posting then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oShTJ90fC34
He can teach us far more than we can ever teach him. ;)
ashv quoted Dabney saying: “conservatism is the shadow that follows radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition” Unlike Dabney, ashv critiques the principle of conservatism itself, rather than what passes for conservatism in a particular party, or particular generation. In other words, ashv continues to confuse an expression or instance of a principle for the principle itself. It is like saying that we should reject Christ because Christians have evangelized nothing. That is not a logical inference. Dabney went on to say: It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. Notice how… Read more »
There’s an excellent label available: “reactionary”.
ashv wrote:
I don’t think ashv understood the question. How does “reactionary” capture the principles of the Christian political and religious agenda better than the term “conservative”? He seems to be engaging in more cynicism.
I notice that ashv continues to ignore the challenge put to him to define the central features of conservatism and explain why those principles are to be rejected.
As I posted in the other thread, even the modern champions of conservatism recognise it as emotion-based rather than fact-based. Russell Kirk: “conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such.” I don’t list principles of conservatism to reject because there aren’t any, just wishes and feelings.… Read more »
ashv wrote: I don’t list principles of conservatism to reject because there aren’t any, just wishes and feelings. This is simply evasion and intellectual dishonesty. If conservatism has no principles, then why has ashv repeatedly spoken in rejection of the principles of conservatism, such as limited government, separation of powers, rule of law, natural liberties, etc, etc, etc? I don’t care how worthless ashv thinks the current generation of conservatives is, he needs to get over his cynical paralysis and come to terms with the fact that Christians will necessarily have principles that are to be advanced in the civic… Read more »
Why are those principles particularly Christian? Are Christian rulers who don’t adopt those principles sinning?
I don’t think there’s a single correct Christian form of government, but monarchy has a better claim than 18th-century Anglo-American parliamentarianism or 20th-century bureaucratic managerialism (As one blogger wryly points out: https://arkansasreactionary.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/the-solemnity-of-christ-the-president/ )
I desire a return to a traditional organisation of society, so I share that sentiment with most conservatives. But the form and design of the USA political system is an enemy of that.
Overturning women’s suffrage would require a general vote (in which women agree to be disenfranchised) or, possibly, a constitutional amendment cancelling out the earlier one. I think it would come after, not before, a radical restructuring of the social order following some catastrophic event. Because the ship has so clearly sailed, I wonder if discussion is intended to have results on a personal level. For example, individual women might decide they ought not to vote. I don’t understand the religious position because I don’t believe St. Paul’s restrictions on women’s liberty or agency invariably apply outside the Christian home. When… Read more »
“Overturning women’s suffrage would require a general vote (in which women agree to be disenfranchised) or, possibly, a constitutional amendment cancelling out the earlier one.” A mere “general election” could not do it; it woould take a constitutional amendment … and yes, the great majority of women would have to agree to it. In fact, the great majority of women would have to *demand* it. “I think it would come after, not before, a radical restructuring of the social order following some catastrophic event. Because the ship has so clearly sailed, I wonder if discussion is intended to have results… Read more »
That is an excellent point. You would might lose the conservative women’s vote to offset the others’. I can’t imagine a scenario in which a woman says, “I support Hillary, but my adherence to scripture prevents me, as a Christian woman, from casting a vote.”
Hi Jillybean, yes, I am sure it is a minority among Christian men. I think that there is a case to be made for households getting a vote (and landowners at that) as a way of reducing the individualism inherent in our current system and ensuring that those voting are also providing value to society. I am not sure it is a religious question though so much as a practical one.
Explain more about what you mean by quality.
I think that size of government can relate to
1. Number of politicians we have
2. Amount of the economy (wealth) the government spends
3. Amount of control it seeks to exert over people (micromanage and excessive rules)
No I happen to think that we should minimise 2 and 3 while increasing 1 (though at various levels). In terms of quality I think righteous laws.
#1 is just a proxy measure for #3, so far as I can tell. #2 is tricky because I don’t believe that government spending vs private spending makes a significant moral difference, the key question is what it’s spent on. $2 billion dollars spent by the government on infrastructure or makework projects (which can be the same thing, depending on who’s describing it and who benefits from the results) is better than $1 billion spent to allow able-bodied people to not work. It’s also better than $1 billion spent by private organisations on ads/media that promote sodomy or other degeneracy.… Read more »
So in terms of quality, it matters what the laws are and where the money is spent? From that’s helpful. I would add that from my perspective it matters very much who spends it. So I object to government spending money on good things outside it domain, and don’t object to men spending their own money on frivolous stuff (though they are answerable to God for waste). Further, money to charity from individuals is good but money to charities from the government is bad (for several reasons but largely because it is not generous to give away other people’s money)… Read more »
ashv wrote: … furthermore, no European ruler ever ruined his country to enrich himself, as we’ve seen happen repeatedly since the 20th century. Is ashv suggesting that Napoleon Bonaparte didn’t leave France bankrupt with all of his ambitious warmongering? Speaking of national ruin for personal enrichment, there was also King John Lackland who taxed the life out of England in a desperate, and failed, attempt to win back the continental lands that he had shamefully lost. Ironically, it was King John’s legacy of national ruin that forced him to sign the Magna Carta, which became a model for constitutionally limited… Read more »
Napoleon and John inflicted their taxation out of ambition, not avarice. Perhaps a small distinction, but compare their behaviour to, say, Mobutu Sese Seko. (I’d also be hard-pressed to say France was worse off under Napoleon than the Terror.)
ashv wrote: Napoleon and John inflicted their taxation out of ambition, not avarice. which is just another way of saying that each “ruined his country to enrich himself”. So ashv seems to be conceding that he was wrong. ashv wrote: (I’d also be hard-pressed to say France was worse off under Napoleon than the Terror.) There’s more than one way to ruin one’s nation. Napoleon did it through bankruptcy. To steer this back to the original issue, ashv is supposing that autocracy is a solution, or a deterrent, to fallen human nature and abuse of power. It is manifestly not.… Read more »
I thought France was better off, unless you were a soldier in his armies. Didn’t he institute a uniform and fairer justice code, and curb the power of a frequently corrupt church? I always rather liked King Henry of Navarre. As a politique he quelled the religious wars and improved the material welfare of the peasants. It was he who originated the statement every peasant’s pot should contain a chicken every Sunday. And one must appreciate him for giving us the immortal “Is Paris worth a mass?” Whenever I say that, people look at me blankly. Is this no longer… Read more »
I’ve read some about Henry, (mostly from Dumas, however). I feel like i’ve heard that statement about Paris perhaps. Can you tell me more about it?
Henry was a Huguenot who succeeded to the throne of France in 1589. He was kept out of Paris, however, by the Catholic League which supported Henry’s uncle as king. After about five years of fighting, Henry was persuaded by his girlfriend to permanently renounce Protestantism, join the Catholic church, and take his throne in the French capital. Therefore, his statement Paris vaut bien une messe,or Paris is well worth a Mass.
Thanks. I didn’t realize that’s why he returned to the Catholic faith. He’s a fascinating character, isn’t he?
I love Henry of Navarre. I think I might have quite liked being Mrs. Henry of Navarre!
Even with the mistresses?
Do you think at heart he was a Catholic or Hugenot?
I think he was a politique which means he probably didn’t care very much. It’s kind of like wondering how sincerely Elizabeth I took the religious controversies. As long as the kingdom was stable and people stopped killing each other, they were pretty flexible. His mother was a devout Calvinist, and I expect she shaped his worldview. His dad was Catholic, but he was absent. In his Abjuration, Henry said that the differences between Catholicism and Calvinism were those of usage and practice rather than doctrine. If you are willing to throw out Sola Scriptura and the doctrines of grace,… Read more »
Why do you think there was a french revolution? The nation was pretty broke. You do realize that various nations throughout the middle ages were basically bankrupt based on foolish decisions by kings?
Good point. Nations in the age of democracy, of course, hardly ever go bankrupt.
As a reminder to ashv, the founders weren’t trying to give us a democracy (or a fiat currency, for that matter). So ashv is barking up the wrong tree by continually contrasting democracies and autocracies.
I don’t doubt the purity or nobility of the authors of the Constitution as such. Just their effectiveness. (The federal government was operating in a seriously different manner than the Constitutional Convention envisioned as early as 1800.)
ashv wrote: I don’t doubt the purity or nobility of the authors of the Constitution as such. Just their effectiveness. This is not true. Ashv has repeatedly spoken in rejection of several of the very principles that the founders hoped to establish. Ashv has rejected limited government, in principle, not just the ineffectiveness of the U.S. incarnation. Ashv has rejected separation of powers, in principle, not just the ineffectiveness of the U.S. Constitution. Ashv has rejected natural liberties, such as freedom of association, in principle, not just the ineffectiveness of the U.S. instance. If ashv had simply been critiquing the… Read more »
I think the Constitution’s authors were wrong, not necessarily wicked. They were attempting an innovation on the English mixed constitution. We now have the benefit of hindsight to see that their opponents were correct in how things would go.
Do you think their wrongness lay in their adoption of the Enlightenment philosophy of natural rights? Or in their fondness for Roman conceptions of republicanism?
The chief thing is diffusion of power creates incentives to expand the power of government in a way that a unified authority doesn’t.
ashv wrote:
So the solution to the temptation of expanding powers is to grant unlimited unified power to an autocrat? Brilliant. Does ashv also propose that the solution to personal theft is to make everything the property of the State? Problem solved.
Notice how ashv’s reasoning is also an argument for unified one-world government, and an end to national governments. We can’t have diffusion of power. We can call it Babel.
No.
Why do you say conservationism when ashv said conservatism? Hmmm??
Woe to those who put their trust in polls.
Polls have been pretty reliable historically. But what do you propose as an alternative? Ability to get a crowd?
I propose nothing as an alternative. Why do we need polls at all?
Well, if we are going to discuss who is winning or losing (and if another GOP candidate would be doing better) we need some way of judging how people plan to vote. Polls do the shocking action of asking people that question.
We do not “need” polls of course but they are the only halfway reliable way to judge who will win before the vote is taken.
I propose that if you want to know who will win, you count actual votes. All this speculation is pointless busy work to me and terminates in boasting.
It is nice to know who is winning so that I know whether to leave the country for 4 years or 8.
I hate to be the science nerd, but the funny thing about this meme is that the kid would be just fine (no shock) if he puts the knife in the neutral side of the outlet. So the question is, which one is the neutral side of the socket, Hillary or Trump?
Well, since Hillary said she short circuited recently, she’s probably not the neutral.
And she’s certainly not the ground.
Having thought about it for a good long while, I would choose Darius over Athalia any day. Trump may not be a Christian but Hillary stands in open and defiant opposition of it. He has a history of good relationships with people of all ethnicity and he seems sincere about the well being of ordinary Americans.
I think it is more Ahab or Jezebel
What has Trump got against Christians?
I am unsure he has said anything specifically against them. But I still think the analogy to Ahab stands
Ahab killed believers and chased them out of town.
He also repented which is more than can be said for Trump.
Which thing he did after the event, not before. If you knew Trumps presidency was going to be his pathway to repentance would you vote for him.
I just happen to think that Darius was a good king.
Trump is corrupt, vacillating, and at times dishonest. This fits Ahab better than Darius.
It’s just an analogy and you are pushing it like it is a syllogism.
I make no attempts to defend Trump, I would not vote for him.
But did he have a wooden leg?
I take it we’re not talking about chasing the whale?
Refusal to vote for Trump is not based on whether he has something directly against Christians. Hillary and Obama are both Christians, and they don’t single out Christians by name for oppression any more than Trump would. It is the unintended consequences that we need to address. So what we have in all three is just more of what is directly wrong with our nation and culture, namely unrepentant pride and hubris. Trump wants to “Make America Great Again”, and he is right there on the same page with Hillary Clinton in rejecting any need for humility or repentance to… Read more »
To be fair to Trump then, you would have to vote him in first. Nebbys confession came after the damage was done, not before.
Nice try, but, prior to his conversion, humility and repentance, Nebuchadnezzar was just as unworthy of my vote as Trump. He would have had no prior claim on my endorsement of him, and neither does Trump.
As with Nebuchadnezzar, if God wants to raise Trump to power, He certainly doesn’t need my vote to do it. For example, at any given moment, Hillary is a breath away from being indicted, or from short circuiting on camera, anyway.
Note that Trounce’s logic also serves to justify voting for Hillary.
See, you’re getting there…
Agreed on all fronts. What I struggle with are the self appointed prophetic voices that we should not vote for Trump because, “bad things will happen”. Maybe, maybe not. God knows.
So, for me it is about which one has shown a willingness to oppress and persecute to Christian, the widow and the orphan. Both are in opposition to God, but I am not aware that Trump has publicly stood against, harass or silence the church.
Though, to be fair, Hillary hashad more opportunity.
I will let him know.
katecho,
Thank you. I think the last piece finally! fell into place.
“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”
I think they are both absolutely incapable of considering that they might be mistaken. It’s hard to admit to sin when you can’t even admit to error.
Would Hillary be blamed for a loss? It would certainly be the end of her political career, but there would also be much hay to make about how native Americans are racist, sexist, etc. For recent elections, Gore’s loss was blamed on the election being stolen, but was Kerry blamed for his loss or was it put down to general Democratic party uselessness at the time? The Republicans easily recover from a Trump loss, but a Trump win means they have a new coalition. Well, they have to get a new coalition anyway at some point, but they can pretend… Read more »
I also find it interesting that Hillary is so often considered irredeemably corrupt (probably true) while Trump, who appears every bit as corrupt and unscrupulous as Hillary, is not.
I agree. They’re going after the hooker rather than the john in this equation, which makes no sense.
2004 was a very close election. I’ve always believed that Kerry would’ve won had he just shut his wife up. She really turned a lot of people off, and reminded them that Kerry had married an extremely wealthy widow, who was not only extremely left wing, but also weird and abrasive. He came off like a male gold digger, which, in most men’s eyes, is about this close to being a homo. And worse, he was a male gold digger who couldn’t control the harridan he had married for her money and stop her from embarrassing him. Of course, 2000… Read more »
I’ve almost decided which of these two to vote for since its my moral duty to be involved in my culture by voting. I just need someone to clear up one thing for me. Who was that John the Baptist supported? Was it the Sadducees or the Herodians? I keep forgetting.
I seem to remember seeing a picture of Paul wearing a Hail Ceasar T-shirt. I think it was from Getty-Images.
Wasn’t it Jesus who aligned Himself with the lesser of two evils between occupying pagan Rome and the Jewish nationalist zealots of His day? Maybe I’m thinking of someone else.
He also had a disciple that was a tax collector, essentially a Roman employee.
Also when Peter separated that Roman soldier from his ear, in true zealot form, Jesus didn’t just tell him to aim a little lower.
I don’t think the Roman empire had a voting system.
Bobby Pins work well. Usually blew the fuse. Don’t ask how I know…